20140338 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20211203

ID#* 20140338
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/03/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/3/2021
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
ID#:* 20140338
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Maney Farm Mitigation Project
County: Chatham
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: ManeyFarm_96314_MY6_2021.pdf 16.78MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:

MONITORING YEAR 6
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 005793
DMS Project Number 96314
USACE Action ID Number 2014-01825
NCDWR Project Number 2014-0338
Data Collection Period: January - November 2021
Draft Submission Date: November 15, 2021
Final Submission Date: November 29, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
�d
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
ENCI 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 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 4,921.600 stream mitigation units (SMUs) by
closeout. The Site is located northwest of Pittsboro, NC and north of Silk Hope, NC in the Cape Fear River
Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002 (Figure 1). The Site is also within the Cane Creek
Targeted Local Watershed (HUC 03030002050050), which flows into Cane Creek and eventually into the
Haw River. The streams are all unnamed tributaries (UT) to South Fork Cane Creek (SF) and are referred
to herein as UTSF, UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5.
The Site is located within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) which is discussed in DMS's
2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The RBRP identifies the need to improve
aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good riparian conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. Prior to the restoration activities, the Site was maintained as cattle pasture and is one of the
51 animal operations referenced in the RBRP. The Site drains to the Haw River, which flows to B. Everett
Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). The 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates
that Jordan Lake is a drinking water supply (WS-IV), a primary area for recreation, and a designated
Nutrient Sensitive Water which calls for reduction of non -point source pollution. The water supply
watershed boundary for Jordan Lake is just six miles downstream from the Site. The Cape Fear
watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Wildlife Action
Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the Wildlife Action Plan
indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration activities at the Site directly
addressed non -point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable stream
banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 16.69 acres of land under permanent conservation
easement.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015) were developed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives described in the Cape Fear RBRP plan. The project goals included:
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in reduced pollutant inputs including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous;
• Stabilize eroding stream banks resulting in reduced inputs of sediment into streams;
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions;
• Improve instream habitat resulting in improved aquatic communities within the streams;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently
resulting in groundwater recharge, floodplain wetland and vernal pool inundation, and reduced
shear stress on channels during larger flow events;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest resulting in stream shading, reduced thermal
loads, woody input sources, and reduced flood flow velocities allowing for pollutants and
sediments to settle; and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses therefore ensuring that development
and agricultural damage is prevented.
The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing numerous ecological benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area; others,
such as pollutant removal and reduced sediment loading have farther -reaching effects. In addition,
protected parcels downstream of the Site promote cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL

The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between October 2015 and February 2016. A
conservation easement is in place on 16.69 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) site visits and assessments were completed between the months of January
and October 2021 to visually assess the conditions of the project and collect stream hydrology data. Per
Interagency Review Team (IRT) guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation, substrate,
and channel cross -sectional dimensions were not required during MY6. Visual observations, hydrology
data, and management practices are included in this report. To preserve the clarity and continuity of
reporting structure, this report maintains section and appendix numbering from previous monitoring
reports. Omitted sections are denoted in the table of contents.
Overall, Site performance for vegetation, stream geomorphology, and hydrology meet success criteria
for MY6. Vegetation appears to be healthy based on visual assessment and densities will be evaluated in
MY7. Herbaceous vegetation has and has been successful in providing streambank stabilization and
creating wildlife habitat. Visual observation indicated that stream channels have remained
geomorphically stable during MY6. Persistent flow and multiple bankfull events were recorded on all
streams during MY6.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL

MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.6
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-3
1.3
Monitoring Year 6 Summary......................................................................................................1-3
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3*
Veb------- , Plot �_-_
Table 7a-c
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a-b
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4*
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-d
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a-g
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Table 13
Bank Pin Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Table 15 Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Attainment Summary
Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Tt-onient omitted from Monitoring rear b Kepori
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 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 (EI) and enhancement II (Ell)
reaches included UT1 (Reach A and B), Ell; UT1 (Reach C), El; UT2 (Reach A), Ell; U2 (Reach B), El; UT3
(Reach A), Ell; UT3 (Reach B), El; and UT4 (Reach A), Ell; 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 4,921.600 stream mitigation units (SMU's) by closeout.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams and vegetative communities on the Site had been severely
impacted due to livestock having direct access to the streams and riparian zones. Table 4 in Appendix 1
and Tables 10a through 10d in Appendix 4 of MY5 Report present the pre -restoration conditions in
detail.
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the Maney Farm Mitigation Project area, others such as pollutant
removal and reduced sediment loading have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project
goals were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were
described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water
quality uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015)
include:
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Exclude cattle from
Install fencing around conservation
Reduce pollutant inputs including
project streams
easements adjacent to cattle pastures.
fecal coliform, nitrogen, and
phosphorous.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
Stabilize eroding
dimensions. Add bank revetments and in-
Reduce inputs of sediment into
stream banks
stream structures to protect
streams.
restored/enhanced streams.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Construct stream
Construct stream channels that will maintain
Return a network of streams to a
channels that are
a stable pattern and profile considering the
stable form that is capable of
laterally and vertical
hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
supporting hydrologic, biologic,
stable
system, the landscape setting, and the
and water quality functions.
watershed conditions.
Install habitat features such as constructed
Improve instream
riffles and brush toes into
Improve aquatic communities in
habitat
restored/enhanced streams. Add woody
project streams.
materials to channel beds. Construct pools
of varying depth.
Reconnect channels
Raise local groundwater
with floodplains so that
Reconstructing stream channels with
elevations. Inundate floodplain
floodplains are
appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth
wetlands and vernal pools.
inundated relatively
relative to the existing floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on channels
frequently
during larger flow events.
Create and improve forested
riparian habitats. Provide a
canopy to shade streams and
Restore and enhance
Plant native tree and understory species in
reduce thermal loadings. Create a
native floodplain forest
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
Establish a conservation easement on the
agricultural uses that would
the project site from
damage the site or reduce the
harmful uses
site.
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 DIMS in August 2015.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in January 2016. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2016. Baseline monitoring
(MYO) 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.
1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY6 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream and vegetation success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria
presented in the Maney Farm Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Detailed vegetation inventory and analysis is not required during MY6. Visual assessment during MY6
indicated that vegetation is healthy and performing adequately to attain terminal success criteria of 210
planted stems per acre and averaging ten feet in height. Many volunteer tree species have become
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

established adding to the diversity of the overall Site. Along with a successful early successional canopy
starting to develop, the herbaceous vegetation is dense and providing appropriate streambank
stabilization and wildlife habitat.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
No vegetation areas of concern were identified during MY6.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Detailed dimensional survey and analysis is not required for MY6. Visual monitoring indicated that the
stream channels are performing as desired. No deposition or erosion exceeding approximate natural
levels was observed. See Appendix 2 for stream photographs and visual assessment data.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY6.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. Restoration reaches UTSF Reach 1 and 2 along with UT5
had at least one bankfull event throughout MY6. Bankfull events were also recorded on all restoration
reaches during MY1, MY2, MY3, MY4, and MY5 resulting in full attainment of the stream hydrology
assessment criteria. In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented within the intermittent
reach of UTSF Reach 1 for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. Results
from the flow gage established on UTSF Reach 1 indicate the stream is maintaining baseflow as expected
for an intermittent stream. Baseflow was recorded for 66% of the monitoring period (93 consecutive
and 241 total days). Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
No management plan was identified for MY7.
1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary
Visual assessment indicated that all project streams are geomorphically stable and functioning as
designed. Visual assessment indicated that vegetation is healthy and on track to meet final success
criteria. Stream bank stabilization and wildlife habitat have improved with the increase of dense
herbaceous vegetation. Hydrology criteria have been attained for the duration of the project and
bankfull events and persistent flow were recorded again during MY6.
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 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

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 6 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-
c4049 bf4e8e4&gro u p I d=38364
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Accessed online at:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape_fear/RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed online at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/O/Conserving/documents/ActionPlan/WAP_complete.pdf
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Drought Monitor. 2019.
http://www.droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Maney Farm Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

03030002050020
= Project Location
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
11=1 mid-
Quakenbush R-,
`�ch
Btu
762 (t
0
a
rn,ek
L
G
v
� e`ancr
03030002050050
I&
JP
J
Clark Fc„
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
j Moos% Lirldk?y kn reek
)303000307410 af
Ca('`00
i s �
1 S°�
1 v
c'
c,e� Ro _�� �I
JO lln rr" "
X
"2 ft �
J
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight, and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
W�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
87 5 t, ?
r-'
c,011
0 m ♦"'...'�� �a
g _ U Russell Rd
Lick CreeK
1
ALAMANCE
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
CHATHAM
orh J0hrtson
�a
�yJ
may
eye
v
nsol`'6ranch �J
va, 03030002050070
�ettells C"
PP4
Sty RoCk Marti
P@�
�tu�k% itd
Directons to Site:
From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 293A
KO for US-1 / US-64 / West toward Sanford/Asheboro. Travel
approximately three miles and take exit 98B for US-64 West. Travel
approximately 25 miles, take exit 381 for NC-87 towards Burlington.
Travel approximately 1.8 miles on NC-87 North and turn left onto
Silk Hope Gum Springs Road. Continue for 8.1 miles to Silk Hope
^� Lindley Mill Road. Take Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road north 3.6 miles.
Turn right on Center Church Road and travel 0.9 miles. The Site is
located north of Center Church Road.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Chatham County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Conservation Easement
® Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non -Project Streams
Reach Breaks
UILH
4A i
i i i T
UT2B
4e r
oo.�
UTSF j ,
Reach 1 ; i �
I
UT1C
i� i
i =i
46. i
ILT 1A
U
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
0 175 350 Feet Maney Farm Mitigation Project
I I I I DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Manny Farm Mitigation Project
EMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE R RE R RE
Totals
4,921.600
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Reach ID
As -Built Stationing Existing Footage/
Approach
/ Location Acreage
Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage Acreage
Credits
Mitigation Ratio
(SMU / WMU)
STREAMS
UTSF- Reach 1
100+00-108+39
108+80-121+63
2298
Pi
Restoration
2,122
1:1
2,122.000
UTSF- Reach 2
121+63 - 132+24
1,209
P1
Restoration
1,061
1:1
1,061.000
UT1A
250+00 - 253+90
390
Ell
Restoration
390
2.5:1
156.000
UT1B
199+08 - 200+00
101
Ell
Restoration
92
2.5:1
36.800
UT1C
200+00 - 202+60
166
El
Restoration
260
1.5:1
173.333
UT2A
295+15 - 300+00
485
Ell
Restoration
484
2.5:1
193.600
UT2B
300+00 - 300+74
44
El
Restoration
73
1.5:1
48.667
UT3A
395+79 - 400+00
418
Ell
Restoration
421
2.5:1
168.400
UT3B
400+00 - 401+63
84
El
Restoration
162
1.5:1
108.000
UT4A
497+87 - 500+00
217
Ell
Restoration
212
2.5:1
84.800
UT4B
500+00 - 501+38
40
El
Restoration
138
1.5:1
92.000
UT5
602+00 - 608+77
778
Pi
Restoration
677
1:1
677.000
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
(acres) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration 3,860
-
Enhancement
Enhancement) 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 centerlinesfor Monitoring Vear 2 after discusio with NC IRT.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Activity -Irw
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete
July 2014
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
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 t
October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments t
October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
February 2016
February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
February 2016
April 2016
Vegetation Survey
February 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
September 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey
September 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2018
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
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
August 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
December 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 202:
Vegetation Survey
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 6 - 2021
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.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring, POC
919-851-9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
LProject
Information
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
Project Name
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" W
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin
703-06-04
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03030002050050
DWR Sub -basin
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
ME -
Parameters
UTSF-RI
UTSF-R2
UT1A
UT3B
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
1 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
III
I 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 Loam
Drainage Class
Well Drained - Moderately Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Cid-Lignum Complex 2 to 6 percent slopes - Hydric
Slope
0.0131 1 0.0086 1 0.0187 0.0396 1 0.0187 1 0.0366 1 0.0377 1 0.0232 1 0.0139
FEMA Classification
X
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Post -Restoration
1%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
and DWR 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Maney Farm Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Chatham County listed
endangered species. The USFWS
responded on April 4, 2014 and
concurred with NCWRC stating
that "the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect any
federally -listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat, or
species currently proposed for
listing under the Act."
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
Correspondence from SHPO on
March 24, 2014 indicating they
were not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected
by the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Correspondence from Chatham
County Public Works Director on
January 12, 2015 stated that a
floodplain development permit is
not required since work is not
located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

i
Sheet 2 of 2
Reach 2
i
UT4B
LiT4A''
N, L® UTSF
s Reach 1
� Q i
Conservation Easement
Culvert Crossing
Existing Wetlands
- Bank Pins
Vegetation Plot
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Reach Breaks
Cross -Section
A Photo Point
® Barometric Gage
® Flow Gage
® Stream Gage
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
A W I L D L A N D S Maney Farm Mitigation Project
ENGINEERING DMS Project No. 96314
0 175 350 Feet Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
I I I I I
Chatham County, NC

♦ 9
♦ 0
♦ 6
♦
i
i
i�
i
i
i
i
i
0
♦ S
8
J=�
/
/
N
13
.*! 4 24
5 0 26
i i /
•
.j �! UT2B
i
4e/ 6
<`t !
/ ♦ >
04
UTSF i ,
/ 3 i
1
- ' fit. R ♦
1
1
3
0
1
- Conservation Easement �
Culvert Crossing
® Existing Wetlands
Vegetation Plot
CSupplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Reach Breaks
Stationing
Cross -Section
® Barometric Gage
0 Photo Point
® Flow Gage
® Stream Gage
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING nk
.........,_,_.♦
♦
0
1¢
22
�
♦
a
♦♦
16
02
♦
®
1
UT16
_♦
i
21\
♦
12 v
♦
2
416
i
20
i
i
'i r!� �18
A9
�
0
!
its
i
i
UT1A
i
17
i
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 90 180 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
i i i I Monitoring Year 6- 2021
Chatham County, NC

UT4A
I
10
I,
Y 8
16
'•f4KY. ,� 0
� 11
ktvWILDLANDS
w ENGINEERING rk�
1
I
1
1
10
`
9
+
6
8 1
1
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
MVegetation Plot
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Reach Breaks
Stationing
Cross -Section
0 Photo Point
® Flow Gage
® Stream Gage
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 85 170 Feet Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
l i i i l
Chatham County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UTSF Reach 1(2.122 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
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
meander bend Run
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
38
38
100%
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%
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
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
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 Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UTSF Reach 2 (1.061 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
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
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
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%
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
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
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
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UT1C (260 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
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
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
8
8
100%
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%
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
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
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 16%.
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 Scl. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UT2B (73 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
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
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
2
2
100%
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%
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
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
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 16%.
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 Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UT3B (162 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
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
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
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%
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
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
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 Sf. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UT4B (138 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
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
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
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%
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
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
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 Sig. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
UT5 (677 LF)
Number
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footagewith
Adjust %for
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing as
Intended
in As -Built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
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
Thalwegcentering at downstrea on of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
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%
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
Structures'
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
n/a
n/a
n/a
of influence does not exceed 16%.
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 6 - 2021
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
0
0.0
0%
Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
1 0.0
1 0.0%
Easement Acreage 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Easement
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
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 1 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 2 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021) 1
PHOTO POINT 3 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 3 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021) 1
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 4 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 5 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021) 1
PHOTO POINT 6 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 6 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021) 1
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021) -1 PHOTO POINT 7 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 8 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 8 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 9 UTSF R1— looking upstream (313012021) I PHOTO POINT 9 UTSF R1— looking downstream (313012021) I
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

km i
r� x
Y .y
V li

PHOTO POINT 13 UTSF R2 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 13 UTSF R2 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 14 UTSF R2 — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 UTSF R2 — looking downstream (313012021) 1
PHOTO POINT 15 UTSF R2 — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 15 UTSF R2 — looking downstream (313012021) 1
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 16 UTSF R2 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 16 UTSF R2 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 17 UT1A — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 UT1A — looking downstream (313012021) 1
PHOTO POINT 18 UT1A — looking upstream (313012021) I PHOTO POINT 18 UT1A — looking downstream (313012021) I
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 UT113 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 19 UT113 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 20 UT1C — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 UT1C — looking downstream (313012021) 1
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1C — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1C — looking downstream (313012021)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 22 UT2 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 22 UT2 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 — looking downstream (313012021) 1
PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 — looking downstream (313012021) 1
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 — looking upstream (313012021) I PHOTO POINT 25 UT3 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 26 UT3 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 27 UT3 — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 27 UT3 — looking downstream (313012021) 1
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 — looking upstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 28 UT4 — looking downstream (313012021)
PHOTO POINT 29 UT4 — looking downstream (313012021)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 — looking upstream (313012021) 1 PHOTO POINT 31 UT5 — looking downstream (313012021) 1
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Vegetation Photographs

-77 E "
r
IN
�� bra`. •• --
-
in •_ Vye
7 s'
e� r

"qF
�oowl ` T)
r
+iRvr-4
Az-
4 r £
I
•d P
l AV.
ti. rY�d�
� � F
ell.
r
5 `4
s
a
i,lei
ov
Y

r �
r
%
W4
�
!w "Y
C
e 0

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation inventory and analysis not required during MY6

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Morphological survey and analysis not required during MY6

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

2
vv
O
L C
U H
ai
C C
y
ti
N
O
ti
N
O
ti
N
O
�
N
Ol
N
N
N
\
ON
N
N
C
Q
O
O
O
O
0 Ql
Ol O
N
C
N
N
C
N
N
C
N
N
N
c-I
D U
N
N
N
W
d
O C
0
N
0
CDN
0
0
CDN
0
0
CD`
Ol
O
N
N
\
O
N
N
\
O
N
N
\
Q
N
N
N
N
N
N
Q
O
O
O
O y
ti
ti
N
N
N
D U
d
01
01
01
01
01
01
O d
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
�p 3
ti
01
.ti
T
.ti
T
Q y
N
c-I
N
c-I
N
c-I
m
c
c 0
o
0
0
O
N
N
N
al
N
N
N
D U
rn
rn
rn
O C
y
O
N
0
0
CD
N
0
Ol
\
N
N
*
\
N
N
O
T
0
C
a+
O
N
N
O
N
CN
Ol
\
\
N
\
N
N
\
\
N
Q
ai
O
r
r
r
Ol
N
\
N
\
N
\
O
Q O
a
.ti
O
O
N
.ti
O
O
N
.ti
O
O
N
0-
\
N
\
N
\
p
m u
\
m
\
o
\
m
\
o
\
m
\
o
Q
al
O d
O
O
O
O
O
O
QN
N
N
jp C
Q O
l0
.ti
O
l0
ti
O
l0
ti
O
O a
a
C U
W
W
W
L
�
a -I
L
t0
C
H
N
L
t0
C
H
�
0
a
Z
U
_
W
N
N
N
C
N
0
L
p
O.
m
I
C7
W
�
d
a
O
n
O
M
a
N
W
C
p
—
N
—
I
(ui) uoi;e;id!—d

m c
z v
0 a N
O N
d ,O cy N
� m '
a+,txom�
f0 o `m
E� z>
to
OJ C
m d Y_
0 C V C
O m 75; C
cn 0 5;
(uJ
M
upju!pa
N
c O
nON
330
daS
6
Sny
M.
0
V
Z
T
V
w
o
V)
N
Inf
—
O
�
N
�
o
O
m
w
m
o
Onf
M.
a
O
~
C7
w
—
+
E
�
c
u
a
AeW
o
m
O
n
O
M
E
m
LL
T
c
AV
C
>
�
JeW
o
1
qaj
uer
l0
(u!)
7 N
!anal aajeM
O
N
O
N

] } k d
( f b
Ln _
GJ
= z a
0
10
�
a
�
/
Q &
0 f
{ § eq
A
-
N
ƒUC4
eq m m
QJ
q j m
A /
bn
/ai
0 F
\/�Mm
I ? c c
} § w § k
§ �
� 0_
& ; q
m
= �mm
aj m c
E u / § k
§ �
0 m m
� � c
§ J 2 k
E
�
� � &
amp
d F4 N
�
_ u
aj Of
\
_

a
r
c
a
LU u
w v
3 'o
a
LL C: N
O N
M
f6 c
tD
Ln Y
Z w
u oA
N C
N LL O
a o 0
aj
C c c
NO ueiulea
O Ln O Ln O Ln O Ln O
�aQ
AON
130
daS
Sny
Inf
unr
Aev
AV
lei
qaj
===npft-I uer
O n O
N c-I c-I
Ln Ln Ln
}i) lanai aajeM