20140338 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2016_20160620

BASELINE MONITORING
DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT
BASELINE REPORT
Final
MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 005793
DMS ID No. 96314
Data Collection Period: January 2016 — February 2016
Draft Submission Date: April 1, 2016
Final Submission Date: May 12, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
fir
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
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 Many Farm Mitigation
Project (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 6,112 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in
Chatham County, INC. The Site is expected to generate 4,948 stream mitigation units (SMUs). The Site is
located northwest of Pittsboro, NC and north of Silk Hope, INC (Figure 1) in the Cape Fear River Basin 8 -
Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002. 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, UTI, 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). This document identifies the need to improve
aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good riparian conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. The Site is currently 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 at the Site will directly address 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 completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the Cape Fear RBRP plan. The following
project goals established include:
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in reduced pollutant inputs including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous;
• Stabilizing 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, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat; have
farther -reaching effects. In addition, protected parcels downstream of this site promote cumulative
project benefits within the watershed.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between October 2015 and February 2016.
Minimal adjustments were made during construction and specific changes are detailed in Section 5.1.
Baseline (MYO) profiles and cross section dimensions closely match the design parameters. Cross section
widths and pool depths occasionally deviate from the design parameters but fall within a normal range
of variability for natural streams. The Site has been built as designed and is expected to meet the
upcoming monitoring year's performance criteria.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES.........................................................1-1
1.1
Project Location and Setting......................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3
Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach...................................................................1-2
1.3.1
Project Structure................................................................................................................1-2
1.3.2
Restoration Type and Approach........................................................................................1-2
1.4
Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data...........................................................................1-3
Section 2:
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.........................................................................................2-1
2.1
Streams......................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1
Dimension..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2
Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3
Substrate............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4
Photo Documentation........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.5
Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................2-2
2.2
Vegetation..................................................................................................................................2-2
2.3
Schedule and Reporting.............................................................................................................2-2
Section 3:
MONITORING PLAN......................................................................................................3-1
3.1
Stream........................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1
Dimension..........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2
Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.3
Substrate............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4
Photo Reference Points.....................................................................................................3-2
3.1.5
Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................3-2
3.1.6
Visual Assessment..............................................................................................................3-2
3.2
Vegetation..................................................................................................................................3-2
Section 4:
MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN.....................................................................4-1
4.1
Stream........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2
Vegetation..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.3
Site Boundary.............................................................................................................................4-1
Section 5:
AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)..................................................................................5-1
5.1
As-Built/Record Drawings..........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1
UTSF — Reach 1...................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2
UTSF — Reach 2...................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3
UT1C...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.4
UT2B...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.5
UT3B...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.6
UT413 ...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.7
UT5.....................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2
Baseline Data Assessment.........................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1
Morphological State of the Channel..................................................................................5-2
5.2.2
Vegetation..........................................................................................................................5-2
5.2.3
Hydrology...........................................................................................................................5-2
Section 6:
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................6-1
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/ Asset Map
Figure 3.0-3.2
Monitoring Plan View
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
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6a -d Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7a -b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8a -b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 Record Drawings
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL iv

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Many Farm Mitigation Site (Site) is located in northwestern Chatham County (35.838333, -
79.343889), northwest of Pittsboro and north of Silk Hope off of Center Church Road (Figure 1). The Site
is located on a tract under the ownership of M. Darryl Lindley Revocable Trustee (PIN 8795-99-2158). A
conservation easement was recorded on 16.69 acres of the parcel (Deed Book 1537, Page 876).
From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 293A 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.
The Site is located in the Cane Creek Watershed within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed which
has been designated a Nutrient Sensitive Water. The project streams drain to the Haw River and
eventually into the Jordan Lake Reservoir. The Site's watershed is within Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002050050 and is located within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) as identified in
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). This
document identifies the need to improve aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good
riparian conditions in the Cane Creek watershed and notes that there are currently 51 active animal
operations in the watershed, one of which was this Site.
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 6a -d in Appendix 2 present the pre -restoration conditions in more detail.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The mitigation project 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 Site project area, others,
such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, 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 primary project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) include:
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs through removing cattle from streams
and establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor to intercept and process sediment
and nutrients before they reach the channel during storm events;
• Reducing sediment loads by stabilizing eroding stream banks;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Install instream structures to improve bed and bank stability, create fish and macroinvertibrate
habitat, and help oxygenate streamflows; and
• Restore and enhance a floodplain forested buffer.
Secondary project objectives include:
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-1

• Improving instream nutrient cycling by incorporating woody debris into constructed riffles and
bank stabilization measures;
• Reducing thermal loadings through establishment of riparian shading;
• Reconnecting channels with floodplains to raise the local water table; and
• Create and implement a stream and riparian area restoration design that is both natural and
aesthetically pleasing.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in August 2015. Construction activities
were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc in January 2016. The baseline as -built survey was
completed by Turner Land Surveying in February 2016. The planting was completed by Bruton Natural
Systems, Inc. in February 2016. Minimal field adjustments were made during construction and are
described in further detail in section 5.1. Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project activity, history,
contact information, and watershed/site background information.
1.3.1 Project Structure
The project will provide 4,948 stream mitigation units (SMUs). While the mitigation plan indicated that
the project would yield 4,922 SMUs, the as -built survey indicates that some of the reaches are slightly
longer than expected. Refer to Figure 2 for the project component/asset map for the stream restoration
feature exhibits and Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
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. The project consists of stream restoration and enhancement activities as described below.
The stream restoration portion of this project included three reaches:
• Unnamed Tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek (UTSF) — Reaches 1 and 2: This restoration reach
begins at Center Church Road at the southern portion of the property and flows north to an
adjoining protected property. Reach 1 includes one easement break for a culvert farm road
crossing and the stream within this break is not included in the restoration credit total. The
design included one reach upstream of the confluence with UT4 and one downstream of the
confluence;
• UT5: This reach begins at a mature, forested riparian complex and extends to the confluence
with UTSF — Reach 2.
The project also includes stream enhancement on nine reaches classified as either enhancement I (EI) or
enhancement II (Ell):
UT1 (Reaches A, B, and C): UT1 is an intermittent system draining to the upper extent of UTSF
Reach 1. An Ell approach was utilized for UT1A and B to prevent cattle from accessing these
tributaries and to support the reestablishment of functioning stream and riparian ecosystems.
UT1C at the downstream extent was restored to support the construction of a stable confluence
with the restored UTSF.
UT2 (Reaches A and B): UT2 begins as an intermittent stream and develops into a perennial
system prior to its confluence with UTSF. Ell activities within UT2A included cattle exclusion and
a supplemental planting effort to restore the understory and herbaceous layers within this
reach. UT213 was restored to facilitate the tie in with UTSF, but the mitigation plan specified a
credit ratio of 1.5:1 for this reach.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-2

• UT3 (Reaches A and B): UT3 is an intermittent stream in which Ell activities were primarily
utilized along Reach A to exclude cattle and to restore the vegetative riparian zone. Reach B
incorporated a restoration approach in order to facilitate the transition into the restored UTSF
reach with a credit ratio of 1.5:1.
• UT4 (Reaches A and B): Similar Ell approaches were employed for UT4A in order to facilitate the
reestablishment of the intermittent stream and riparian ecosystem. A restoration approach
(with a credit ratio of 1.5:1) was incorporated at the downstream extent to facilitate the
transition from UT413 to the restored UTSF channel.
Design parameters were developed for restoration reaches based on the design bankfull discharge,
dimensionless ratios from the reference reach data, and professional judgment of the designers. The
restoration reaches were designed to be similar to type C streams according to the Rosgen classification
system (Rosgen, 1996). Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with access to the
floodplain (entrenchment ratios >2.2), and channel slopes of 2% or less. They occur within a wide range
of valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape.
The morphologic design parameters are shown in Appendix 2, Tables 6a through 6d for the restoration
reaches, and fall within the ranges specified for C streams (Rosgen, 1996). The specific values for the
design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified with
morphologic data form reference reach data sets.
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a full delivery contract with DMS. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History, Project
Contacts, and Project Baseline Information and Attributes.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-3

Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream performance criteria for the Site follow approved performance criteria presented in the
Maney Farm Mitigation Plan (2015). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to
assess the condition of the finished project. The stream restoration and enhancement reaches and the
buffer restoration areas of the project were assigned specific performance criteria components for
stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the
seven-year post -construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been met and two bankfull
events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and/or
vegetation monitoring after year five. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
2.1 Streams
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration and enhancement level I reaches should be stable and should
show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per DMS guidance,
bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored
channels to be considered stable. Reach riffle means should fall within the parameters defined for
channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be
evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability
include a trend in vertical incision or eroding channel banks over the monitoring period. Changes in the
channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -
to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken
if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation
(11/7/2011) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. A longitudinal profile was conducted as part of
the as -built survey to provide a baseline for comparison should it become necessary to perform
longitudinal profile surveys later during monitoring and to insure accordance with design plans.
2.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed annually in each restoration and enhancement level I
reach for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to
characterize the pavement. Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement level I reaches
should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and
smaller particles in the pool features.
2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-1

control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration reaches within the seven-year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will
continue until performance criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have been
documented. In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented within the intermittent reach
of UTSF Reach 1 for a minimum of 30 days during a normal precipitation year.
2.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative performance criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the
planted riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of
vegetative performance will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third
monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. Planted
vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If
this performance standard is met by MY5 and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less than
260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated with written
approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. In addition, the
supplemental planting areas of shade tolerant understory species will be monitored to determine
survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success. The extent of invasive
species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period.
2.3 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. Based
on the DMS Monitoring Report Template (version 1.5, 6/8/2012), the monitoring reports will include the
following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background;
• As -built topographic plans of major project elements including such items as grade control
structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross sections, crest gages, and pressure transducers;
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Assessment of the stability of the Site based on the cross sections;
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species;
• Stream flow gage attainment;
• A description of damage by animals or vandalism;
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented;
and
• Wildlife observations.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-2

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, vegetative, and hydrological data to assess the
project performance based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis or until
performance criteria is met. The performance of the project will be assessed using measurements of the
stream channel's dimension, pattern, substrate composition, permanent photographs, vegetation, and
surface water hydrology. Any areas with identified high priority problems, such as streambank
instability, aggradation/degradation, or lack of vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. The problem areas will be visually noted and remedial actions will be discussed with DMS
staff to determine a plan of action. A remedial action plan will be submitted if maintenance is required.
The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance
criteria have been met.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments will follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification document (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Refer to Appendix 4 for monitoring
locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
A total of 17 cross sections were installed along the stream restoration and enhancement level I
reaches. Two cross sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle
and pool sections in proportion to DMS guidance. Each cross section was permanently marked with pins
to establish its location. Cross section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including
top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg to monitor any trends in bank erosion. If moderate
bank erosion is observed at a stream reach during the monitoring period, a series of bank pins will be
installed in representative areas where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater
than three feet. Bank pins will be installed in at least three locations (one in upper third of the pool, one
at the mid -point of the pool, and one in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will be monitored by
measuring exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion progression.
Annual cross section will be conducted in monitoring years one (MY1), two (MY2), three (MY3), five
(MY5), and seven (MY7). Photographs will be taken annually of the cross sections looking upstream and
downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring show a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation
(11/7/2011) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Stream pattern and profile will be assessed visually as described below in section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration and enhancement level I reach each
year for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize
the pavement.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-1

3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 32 permanent photograph reference points were established along the stream reaches after
construction. Permanent markers were established so that the same locations and view directions on
the Site are photographed each year. Longitudinal stream photographs will be taken looking upstream
and downstream once a year to visually document stability. Cross-sectional photos will be taken at each
permanent cross section looking upstream and downstream. Representative digital photos of each
permanent photo point will be taken on the same day the stream assessments are conducted. The
photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Bankfull events will be documented using crest gages, pressure transducers, photographs, and visual
assessments such as debris lines. Three manual crest gages and three pressure transducer automated
gages were installed on the Site. Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed on the restoration
reaches at a surveyed riffle cross section. These gages will be checked during each site visit to determine
if a bankfull event has occurred since the last visit. Photographs will be used to document the
occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition as evidence of bankfull events. Baseflow within the
intermittent reach of UTSF Reach 1 will be confirmed with a pressure transducer automated gage
installed at the thalweg elevation of the channel. The pressure transducer data will be plotted and
included in the annual monitoring reports.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along all stream and buffer restoration areas on a semi-annual
basis during the seven year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability
(i.e. lateral and/or vertical instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, or headcuts),
vegetated health (i.e. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver
activity, or livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a
written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the
annual monitoring report.
3.2 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006) to monitor and
assess the planted woody vegetation. A total of 13 standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation plots and
one non-standard 5 meter by 20 meter plot were established within the project easement area to
monitor both the standard planting zones (11 plots) as well as the supplemental planting zones (3 plots).
Vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted corridor of the restoration areas to
capture the heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The vegetation plot corners have
been marked and are recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit.
Reference photographs were taken at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite
corner during the baseline monitoring in February 2016. Subsequent annual assessments following
baseline survey will capture the same reference photograph locations. Species composition, density, and
survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will
be provided and will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems
will be marked annually, as needed, based off of a known origin so they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the baseline year's living
planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-2

Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed on the mitigation project. A physical inspection of the
Site shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring
period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the
first two years following site construction and may include one or more of the following components.
4.1 Stream
Stream problem areas will be mapped and included in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) as part of
the annual stream assessment. Stream problems areas may include bank erosion, structure failure,
beaver dams, aggradation/degradation, etc. Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may
include chinking of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water runoff flows into the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and
head -cutting.
4.2 Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. Vegetative
problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual vegetation assessment.
Vegetation problems areas may include planted vegetation not meeting performance criteria, persistent
invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous cover, or grass suffocation/crowding of
planted stems. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
4.3 Site Boundary
Site boundary issues will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual visual assessment.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other
means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,
damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 4-1

Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed in February 2016. The survey included
developing an as -built topographic surface, locating the channel boundaries, structures, and cross-
sections. For comparison purposes, the baseline monitoring divided the reach assessments in the same
way they were established for design parameters.
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings
A sealed half-size set of record drawings are located in Appendix 4. These include redlines for any
significant field adjustments made during construction that differ from the design plans. Minimal
adjustments were made during construction, where needed, based on field evaluation.
5.1.1 UTSF — Reach 1
• Station 104+75 root wads replaced with brush toe due to availability of materials;
• Station 110+20 root wads replaced with brush toe due to availability of materials; and
• Station 111+25 brush toe not installed to avoid impact to nearby tree.
5.1.2 UTSF — Reach 2
• Station 131+75 brush toe added to provide additional bank stability and habitat.
5.1.3 UT1C
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.1.4 UT2B
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.1.5 UT3B
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.1.6 UT4B
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.1.7 UT5
• Station 604+30 brush toe not installed to avoid impact to nearby tree; and
• Station 607+90 brush toe replaced with sod mat due to availability of nearby sod.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between January and February 2016. The first annual
monitoring assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2016. The streams will be monitored for a
total of seven years, with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2022. The close-out for the Site
will be conducted in 2023 given the performance criteria has been met. As part of the closeout process,
DMS will evaluate the Site at the end of the fourth year monitoring period to determine whether or not
the Site is eligible to closeout following MYS. If the Site is meeting performance criteria, DMS will
propose to the Interagency Review Team (IRT) to proceed with the closeout process. If the Site is not
meeting performance criteria, then an additional two years of monitoring will be conducted by
Wildlands.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-1

5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological data for the as -built profile was collected in January and February 2016. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile
The MYO profiles closely match the profile design parameters. On the design profiles, riffles were
depicted as straight lines with consistent slopes. However, at some locations the as -built survey riffle
profiles are not consistent in slope due to natural deposition and scour within some riffle reaches.
Additionally, maximum pool depths typically exceed design parameters and are expected to trend
towards the design depths as a result of natural deposition over time. These variations in riffle slope and
pool depths do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions and will be assessed
visually during the CCPV site walks.
Dimension
The MYO dimension numbers fall within standard ranges as compared to the design parameters.
Variations are primarily associated with a wider constructed bankfull width as reflected in the cross
sections. It is expected that over time as vegetation is established, the channels may narrow more
toward dimensions characteristic of an E channel. This narrowing over time would not be seen as an
indicator of instability in and of itself. Summary data and cross section plots of each project reach can be
found in Appendix 2.
Pattern
The MYO pattern metrics fell within the design parameters for all seven reaches. No major design
changes were made to alignments during construction. A minor pattern adjustment was made on UTSF
station 111+50 in order to save a large tree. Pattern data will be evaluated in monitoring year five if
there are any indicators through the profile or dimensions that indicate significant geomorphic
adjustments have occurred.
Sediment Transport
As -built shear stresses and velocities are similar to design calculations and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along the reaches. The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates an overall
increase in substrate particle size (Table 6a — 6d). The substrate data for each constructed reach was
compared to the design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the potential for bed
degradation. The shear stresses calculated for the constructed channels are within the allowable range,
which indicates the channel is not at risk to trend toward channel degradation.
5.2.2 Vegetation
The MYO planted density is 648 stems/acre for the standard and supplemental planting zones. The
stems per/acre established within the standard planting zones exceeds the interim measure of
vegetative performance of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year.
While there is not a performance criteria for the stems established within the supplemental planting
zones, these areas will be monitored to determine survival rates of these species. Summary data and
photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
5.2.3 Hydrology
Bankfull events recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the Year 1 monitoring
report.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-2

Section 6: 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, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John 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, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://www.nceep.net/business/
monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApril200S.htm
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed online at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conserving/documents/ActionP]an/WAP complete.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.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 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.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 6-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

— Project Location
— DMS Targeted Local Watershed
L Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
Ouakenbusli Ro
V�
V1 1;r'
%
232- 03030002050050
3030003070010% _
400
T;, m - r.
1 Johnrny"
I —
J
C
'un
Som
^� ^1III Br m Rd
h, •
R
n �
15
r
1
I�
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.
lk�ww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk 1�
0001,
a
G _
I I'.IANCIE_
-
._ _ _ .►ter'— _ _ _ — _ — —
I I . I IiAM
0*'y Johnson Rd
6
03030002050070,
day
Rook
197m
Perm
4'a
' fer
Directons to Site:
' From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 293A
for US -1 / US -64 / West toward Sanford/Asheboro. Travel
approximately three miles and take exit 98B for US -64 West. Travel
Iapproximately 25 miles, take exit 381 for NC -87 towards Burlington.
Travel approximately 1.8 miles on NC -87 North and turn left onto 000
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
1 1 1 1 I t Monitoring Year 0- 2016
Chatham County, NC

Figure 2 Project Compoent/Asset Map
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS, I I Monitoring Year 0-2016
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.0 Monitoring Plan View (Key)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS I I Monitoring Year 0-2016
ENGINEERING rk�
Chatham County, NC

,iN i
® 72 22
6 13
! Conservation Easement
Culvert Crossing
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Cross Sections
Stationing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
® Barometric Gage
® Stream Gages
Rain Gage
Flow Gage
z� Photo Points
3 �
2 - {
1 -
uric
s
12
Figure 3.1 Monitoring Plan View
OftManey Farm Mitigation Project
0 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS, IL_L_L_LJi L I Monitoring Year 0-2016
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

Figure 3.2 Monitoring Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 50 100 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS, Monitoring Year 0-2016
ENGINEERING
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Marley Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
-Differences in the Ell stream lengths between the existing and as -built are the result of minor changes to insure proper tie in between the EI and El reaches.
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 4,948 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PROJECT• ••
As -Built Stationing Existing Footage /
Reach ID Approach
/Location Acreage
Credits
Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage /Acreage Mitigation Ratio
(SMU/WMUj
STREAMS
UTSF- Reach 1
100+00-108+39
108+82-121+85
2,298
Pi
Restoration
2,142
1.1
2,142
UTSF - Reach 2
121+85 - 132+62
1,209
P1
Restoration
1,077
1:1
1,077
UT1A*
250+00-253+89
390
Ell
Restoration
389
2.5:1
156
UT1B*
199+08-200+00
102
Ell
Restoration
92
2.5:1
37
UT1C
200+00-202+56
166
EI
Restoration
256
1.5:1
171
UT2A
295+15 - 300+00
485
Ell
Restoration
485
2.5:1
194
UT2B
300+00-300+70
44
EI
Restoration
70
1.5:1
47
UT3A*
395+79-400+00
418
Ell
Restoration
421
2.5:1
168
UT3B
400+00-401+55
84
EI
Restoration
155
1.5:1
103
UT4A*
497+88-500+00
217
Ell
Restoration
212
2.5:1
85
UT40,
500+00-501+33
40
EI
Restoration
133
1.5:1
89
UT5
602+00-608+80
778
PI
Restoration
680
1:1
680
-Differences in the Ell stream lengths between the existing and as -built are the result of minor changes to insure proper tie in between the EI and El reaches.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete "I Completion
or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
July 2014
August 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2014
August 2015
Construction
October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
October 2015 -January 2016
January 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
February 2016
February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
January 2016 - February 2016
April 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
December 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
2020
December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
2021
December 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
2022
December 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 0 - 2016
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 0 - 2016
PROJECT• •
Project Name I Maney Farm Mitigation Site
County Chatham County
Project Area (acres) 116.69
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude; 35°50'18.00" N, 79° 20'38.00" Vu
PROJECT• SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 0303000205005C
DW R Sub -basin 03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres) 211
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 3%
CGIA Land Use Classification 69%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 28%— Forested/Scrubland; 3%- Developer
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters UTSF-R1 UTSF-112 UT1A UT1B UT1C UT2A/B UT3A/B UT4A/B UTS
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoratior 2,142 1,077 389 92 256 555 576 345 680
Drainage Area (acres) 115 211 16 4 19 11 10 20 76
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 27/37 37 21 25.5 28 26/30 20.75 22.5 32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type; I/P
P
I
I
I/P
I
I
P
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre-Restoratior II/IV
II/IV
III
V
II/IV
II/V
V/VI
II/V
11/III
Underlying Mapped Soils Cid Silt Loam, Cid-Lignum Complex, Nanford-Badin Complex, Georgeville Silty Clay Loan
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- Restoratfor 0%
• • • •
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
DWR 401
Waters of the United States - Section 401 X
X
and Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety; N/A
N/A
N/A
Maney Farm Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Chatham County listed
endangered species. The USFWS
responded on April 4, 2014 and
concurred with NCWRC stating
Endangered Species Act X
X
that "the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect any
federally -listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat, or
species currently proposed for
listing under the Act."
Correspondence from SHPO on
March 24, 2014 indicating they
Historic Preservation Act X
X
were not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected
by the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act N/A
N/A
N/A
(LAMA)
Correspodence from Chatham
County Public Works Director on
January 12, 2015 stated that a
FEMA Floodplain Compliance X
X
floodplain development permit is
not required since work is not
occurring is not located in a Special
Flood Hazard Area.
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Quantity / Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Frequency
UTSF-R1
UTSF-R2
UT1A
UT1B
UT1C
UT2A UT213
UT3A
UT36
UT4A
UT413
UTS
Riffle Cross Sections
2
2
N/A
N/A
1
N/A 1
N/A
1
N/A
1
1
Dimension
Pool Cross Sections
2
1
N/A
N/A
1
N/A 1
N/A
1
N/A
1
1
Annual
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle (RF) 100
Substrate
1 RW, 2 RF
1 RW, 2 RF
N/A
N/A
1 RW, 1 RF
N/A
1 RW, 1 RF
N/A
1 RW, 1 RF
N/A
1 RW, 1 RF
1 RW, 1 RF
Annual
Pebble Count
Hydrology
Stream (SG) / Flow (FG) Gage
1 SG, 1 FG
1 SG
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I N/A
I 1 SG
Annual
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
14
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
Bi -Annual
Exotic and nuisance
Annual
vegetation
Project Boundary
Annual
Reference Photos
Photos
12
4
5
3
3
2
3
Annual

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 6a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT South Fork Reaches 1 and 2
Parameter
Gage
UTSF Reach
1
CONDITION
UTSF Reach 2
Agony Acres
UT1A-Reach 1
rUT to Cane Creek
DESIGN
UTSF Reach 1
UTSF Reach
2
UTSF Reach
AS-BUILTIBASELINE
1
UTSF Reach
2
Min
Maz
Min
Maz
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.2
12.0
4.7
8.2
9.1
10.4
11.5
12.3
9.5
12.1
8.8
9.3
12.7
13.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
35
50
70
82
>36
31
21
48
27
61
85
150
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
1.3
0.7
1.2
1.0
1 1.2
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
1 0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
2.0
I.S
1.8
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
4.1
7.1
5.4
5.6
10.7
11.3
8.9
12.2
6.5
10.2
5.3
6.8
10.9
11.0
Width/Depth Ratio
2.5
20.4
4.0
12.3
7.3
10.1
12.3
14.4
14.0
14.0
9.1
9.7
14.5
17.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
12.5
10.0
14.8
>3.9
2.5
2.7
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
6.2
9.5
10.9
11.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
2.2
1.4
1.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
D50(mm)
Medium Sand
Silt/Clay
8.4
10.4
Riffle Length (ft)
9
1 50
19
40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0036
0.0274
0.0062
0.0258
0.0188
0.0704
0.0120
0.0505
0.0106
0.0447
0.0058
0.0432
0.0055
0.0326
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
12
47
23
50
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.5
1.8
1.8
2
2.5
1.8
2.3
1.1
2.1
1.3
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
239
44
145
27
13
3
67
4
85
29
85
45
1 78
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
5
42
10
37
21
93
102
15
85
19
108
24
56
37
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
4
25
5
13
14
60
23
38
17
55
22
70
9
36
17
28
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)N/A
1.3
2.1
1.1
1.6
1.5
5.8
2.0
3.1
1.8
5.8
1.8
5.8
1.0
4.1
1.6
2.6
Meander Length (ft)
18
100
21
59
29
156
36
198
68
151
110
144
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
3.5
2.1
4.5
2.3
8.9
8.3
8.9
1.6
8.9
1.6
8.9
2.7
6.5
3.4
5.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
21/13/64/2/0/0
28/10/56/6/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/VFS/MS/11.1/15.4/22.6
SC/SC/SC/6.1/28.5/180
---
--
SC/2.37/8.4/34.5/55/180
C/O. 7.9/71.7/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
N/A
0.39
0.45
0.42
0.44
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.37
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
28.9
34.2
31.7
33.0
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mt
---
--
---
--
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.18
0.33
0.30
0.29
0.18
0.33
0.18
0.33
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
5%
3%
5%
3%
5%
3%
Rosgen Classification
E5
E5
E4
E4
C
C
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
287-T
4.8
3.4
3.6
2.2
1 2.4
3.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.6
2.6
1 2.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
19.6
19.3
25.3
40.0
19.0
29.0
19.0
29.0
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
43
67
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
22
34
Q -Mannings
4.8
8.0
6.9
1
11.0
Valley Length (ft)
1,720
910
1,720
910
1,720
910
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,298
1,209
2,163
1,061
2,185
1,077
Sinuosity
1.34
1.33
1.35
1.40
1.20
L
1.40
1.20
1.40
1.27
1.18
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z
0.0084
0.0075
---
---
0.0095
0.0113
0.0103
0.0078
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0129
0.0114
0.0102
1 0.0104
1 0.0077
1 0.0078
SC-.Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 6b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1C and UT2B
�11111116
'77
Parameter
Gage
UT1C
UT2R
UT to Varnals
Creek
UT1C
UT2B
UT1C
UT28
Min
I
Max
in
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
in Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.1
2.6
9.3
10.5
8.1
4.0
9.8
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.3
4.4
20
64
18
1 41
9
1 20
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.5
1.5
1.7
0.97
1.2
0.5 T0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
2.1
1.1
10.3
12.3
5.2
1.5
4.9
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
8.1
6.2
8.1
9.3
13.0
11.0
19.4
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.7
1.9
6.1
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
6.1
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
2.3
5.4
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
3.3
0.1
Riffle Length (ft)
---
-
---
8 22
11 19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.0240
0.0570
0.0086
0.0355
0.0083
0.0342
0.0011 0.0110
0.0073 0.0106
Pool Length (ft)
--
--
--
6 22
13 19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
--
---
LS
2.6
0.9
1.8
0.6
1.2
2.0
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
34
44
---
8
82
2
44
1
24
22 38
22
Pool Volume (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
1 10
1
18
1 1
1
2
1 15
45
13
72
6
36
16 26
---
Radius of Curvature (ft
9
16
1
3
8
47
11
47
5
23
9 15
13
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
2.2
3.9
0.4
1.2
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
5.8
1.0 1.6
1.8
3.3
Meander Length (ft)
54
63
12
--
24
133
12
66
55 73
--
Meander Width Ratio
2.4
4.4
0.4
1
0.8
1.0
3.0
1.6
8.9
1.6
8.9
1.7 2.8
--
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
24/17/58/1/0/0
47/13/37/3/0/0
06/05/60/d84/d95/d100
---
---
---
SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/34.8/128
SC/SC/0.1/22.6/50.6/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ftz
N/A
---
---
--
---
0.15
0.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
--
--
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
---
---
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.03
0.02
0.41
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
13%
0%
---
13%
0%
13%
0%
Rosgen Classification
B5
BS
E4
C
C
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
3.4
4.4 T5.2
1.1
3.1
1.1
1.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
--
--
54.0
5.6
3.6
5.6
3.6
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
13
8
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
6
4
Q -Mannings
4.1
5.7
6.9
7.3
Valley Length (ft)
142
42
---
220
62
231
67
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
166
44
---
260
74
256
70
Sinuosity
1.17
1.04
1.20
1.10
1 1.25
1.10
1.25
1.11
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
--
0.0053
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
--
0.0083
0.0080
0.0078 0.00801
0.0070 1 0.0084
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 6c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Marley Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0.2016
UTSC and UT2B
Parameter
Gage
UT38
CONDITION
UT46
UTto Varnals Creek
u 131
U 14
U 131
U 14
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
2.2
4.4
9.3
10.5
4.0
5.0
4.2
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
11.4
23.3
20
64
9
20
11
25
60
25
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
N/A
1.1
1.9
10.3
12.3
1.5
1.9
1.6
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
4.6
9.9
8.1
9.3
11.0
13.0
11.6
9.1
Entrenchment Ratio
5.1
5.3
1.9
6.1
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
14.1
4.3
Bank Height Ratio
2.2
1.4
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
---
---
5.6
4.0
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
12 23
8 19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.0240
0.0570
0.0191
0.0786
0.0088
0.0312
0.0112 0.0419
0.0035 0.0113
Pool Length (ft)
--
-
--
10 22
10 21
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
---
---
2.5
2.6
0.6
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
56 157
---
8
82
1
24
3
31
30 F 36
31
Pool Volume (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
2
3
15
45
6
36
8
45
12 23
19 23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
2
3
8
47
5
23
7
29
11 47
10 20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
0.5
0.7
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
5.8
1.7 7.6
1.8 3.6
Meander Length (ft)
---
11
22
---
12
66
15
82
55 68
59 69
Meander Width Ratio
---
0.5
0.7
1.0
3.0
1.6
8.9
1.6
8.9
1.9 3.7
3.3 4.1
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
32/14/51/3/0/0
22/20/57/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
---
---
---
SC/0.08/5.6/33.4/56.9/90
SC/0.25/4.0/20.1/45/90
Reach Shear Stress (Competency)Ib/ftz
N/A
--
--
--
--
0.33
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
--
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
---
--
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.02
0.03
0.41
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0%
0%
---
0%
0%
0%
0%
Rosgen Classification
E51b
E5b
E4
C
C
C
E
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2
3.0
44
F 5.2
3.3
3.3
2.2
1.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
-
--
54.0
3.5
5.3
3.5
5.3
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
8
12
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
4
6
Q -Mannings
7.8
12.0
4.1
5.5
Valley Length (ft)
84
38
---
138
117
148
124
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
84
40
--
163
138
155
212
Sinuosity
1.00
1.06
1.20
1.10
1.25
1.10
1.25
1.05
1.71
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
--
---
---
--
0.0164
0.0043
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
--
0.0170
0.0073
0.0127 0.0161
0.0059 0.0067
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(--):Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 6d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT South Fork Reaches 1 and 2
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
PRE -RESTORATION
Parameter
Gage
UT5
Agony Acres UTSA-Reach 1
UT to Cane Creek
UTS
UT5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.7
9.1
10.4
11.5
12.3
7.2
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
40 >36 31 16 1 36 100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6 1.0 1 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2 1.8 1.2 1.6 0.8 1 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5 10.7
11.3 8.9 12.2 4.1 4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1 7.3
10.1 12.3 14.4 13.0 16.6
Entrenchment Ratio
7.1 >3.9 2.5 2.7 2.2
5.0 12.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.4 --- --- 0.9
1.1 1.0
D50 (mm)
Silt/Clay 5.9
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
5
21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0028 1 0.0638 --- 0.0188 0.0704 0.0128 0.0541 0.0081
0.0374
Pool Length (ft)
--- --- 18
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4 2.5 1.8
2.3 0.9
1.8 1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
9 197 --- 27
73 2
44 31 F
51
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
3
18
21
93
102
12
64
22
40
Radius of Curvature (ft)
3
14
14
60
23
38
13
42
10
37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
0.5
2.5
1.5
5.8
2.0
3.1
1.3
5.8
1.0
3.7
Meander Length (ft)
16
58
---
---
22
118
63
97
Meander Width Ratio
0.5
3.2
2.3
8.9
8.3
8.9
1.6
8.9
2.3
4.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G %/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
34/11/54/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/SC/8.9/22.6/64
--
---
SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/53.7/90
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
N/A
0.19
0.37
0.31
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
14.0
27.5
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.12
0.30
0.29
0.12
0.12
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0% --- --- 0% 0%
Rosgen Classification
E5 E4 E4 C C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.1 2.2 2.4 3.8 2.9 3.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
7.4 25.3 40.0 14.0 14.0
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
32
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
16
C. -Mannings
5.4 1 11.0
Valley Length (ft)
580 --- --- 520 515
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
778 --- --- 677 680
Sinuosity
1.34 1.35 1.40 1.20 T 1.40 1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0111 --- --- --- 0.0114
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft),
1 0.0138 1 0.0110 1
0.0114
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
567.0
566.4
556.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
11.1
9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
85
---
85
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
1.2
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1 2.6
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
5.3
13.6
6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
9.1
12.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1
i
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
556.0
549.9
547.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.8
12.7
13.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
150
150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
1.4
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
17.5
11.0
10.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
14.5
17.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
11.8
10.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NNL� -
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Cross
Base MY1
Section 7, UTSF Reach 2 (Pool)-�&.,
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1
Cross section 8, UT1C (Pool) ����ross Section UTIC ("le)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
547.0
572.5
572.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
7.6
9.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.7
7.7
4.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
7.6
19.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
6.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 7b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1
. •..
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
564.2
563.9
563.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.7
5.5
6.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
60
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
0.7
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
8.6
2.3
3.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
13.2
10.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
10.8
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Base MY1
1.0
.1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1
1.0
•1 qw.1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
562.8
553.8
553.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
5.7
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
25
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.9
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1.6
3.6
4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
9.1
8.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
14.1
4.3
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Base MY1
552.6
8.0
---
1.0
1.7
7.9
8.0
---
1.0
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1
552.5
8.1
100
0.5
0.9
4.0
16.6
12.3
1.0
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF - Reach 1(STA 100+00 -107+00)
UTSF - Reach 1(STA 107+00 - 114+00)
577
n
576 ♦ ! ♦♦A� ! ♦► ♦4 ♦ AAA•
575
• •
569
574
♦••
573
♦ ♦ N ♦♦
572
,AAAA
0w 571
�kA�
570
0
.�569 &A 41
♦ !
w 568
• • t 41 ! ♦
568
567
566
567
1
• t!
565
566kA
564
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016( LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016(
UTSF - Reach 1(STA 107+00 - 114+00)
n
569
Stream Cmssing
568
1
567
1
• t!
•••♦
566kA
565
4;r
1
♦'!♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦. ♦ A •♦•
564
1
I•♦♦!i♦♦
••
!
0 563
• ! r• ! !♦♦
562
w
♦♦ •� ♦ • ♦
u 561
560
559
558
557
10700
10750
10800 10850 10900 10950 11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
Station (feet)
--*—TW (MYO-02/2016) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project (DMS Project No. 96314)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF Reach 1 (STA 114+00 - 121+85)
11400 11450 11500
11550 11600 11650 11700
TW (MYO-02/2016(
11750 11800 11850 11900 11950
Station (feet)
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
12000 12050 12100 12150
561
A AAAA
560
dL AA
559
•
•A♦♦A• A♦A ♦♦ A
-
X
`t
X
558
♦ ♦♦ ♦j A♦• ♦ ♦A A A
♦ ♦ A
557
♦ ♦ V
CA ""! AA' A
55601
A
-14
c 555
o
• ♦ '&4kA
A
554
w
w
' Cl-
A
553
552
551
11400 11450 11500
11550 11600 11650 11700
TW (MYO-02/2016(
11750 11800 11850 11900 11950
Station (feet)
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
12000 12050 12100 12150

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF - Reach 2 (STA 121+85 - 127+00)
UTSF - Reach 2 (STA 127+00 -132+62)
551
555
550
A AAA AAA A AL
554 ♦
549 -AAAA
♦ ♦ AAA :•♦tr • ♦♦ ♦1♦ ♦ k 1•r
1 1
♦ 1•
AL AA
I ♦♦ !M
A. ♦ I♦
547
553
546
• ♦ • ♦ • A >! ♦ ♦ ♦
1 ♦ •A AA
•4
1 1
552 A Ai�+
A
551
A
r ♦ AL• ♦ Z1
:
543
• AAA ! r
°
550
549
541
12700 12750
m
12950 13000 13050 13100 13150 13200 13250
Station (feet)
W
548
1
547
1
546
545
12175 12225 12275 12325 12375
12425
12475 12525 12575
12625 12675
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-02/2016)
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016)
♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
UTSF - Reach 2 (STA 127+00 -132+62)
551
550
A AAA AAA A AL
549 -AAAA
♦ ♦ AAA :•♦tr • ♦♦ ♦1♦ ♦ k 1•r
1 1
548
AL AA
I ♦♦ !M
A. ♦ I♦
547
• ♦ ♦♦
1 1 r♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ A
546
• ♦ • ♦ • A >! ♦ ♦ ♦
1 ♦ •A AA
545
1 1
W 544
543
542
541
12700 12750
12800 12850 12900
12950 13000 13050 13100 13150 13200 13250
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO-02/2016)
• LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1C (STA 200+00 - 202+56)
575
574
573
572
0
571
570
569
20000
♦ •
X
cn
X
u AAA
• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ •♦ ♦
♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
•
• • ♦
♦ ♦ • I
I
kA IkA
♦ ♦ ♦ I
♦♦ I ♦ • •
♦ ♦
♦
! & ♦4 M ♦
♦
1
1
I
1
1
20050
20100
20150
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO-02/2016) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
20200
20250

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT28 (STA 300+00 -
565
564
a
w
c
0
w 563
562
30000
30025
30050
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
30075
♦
♦
t
X ♦ ♦
I
X
1
♦
♦
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
4
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
30000
30025
30050
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
30075

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT3B (STA 400+00 - 401+56)
566
565
564
563
`0 562
v
u� 561
560
559
40000
40025
40050
40075
40100
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016( LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) a RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
40125
40150
N
M
`�
♦
X
X
•
♦•
• •AAI
1
ALAt
1
1
••
..
r
♦
I
•
•
•
!
1
I
1
I
1
40025
40050
40075
40100
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016( LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) a RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
40125
40150

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
I-
50050 50075 50100 50125
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)
50050 50075 50100 50125
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-02/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTS (STA 602+00 - 608+80)
559
558 •JIL, M
557
♦ •
• ♦ •u •u •
556
•
♦ !♦ ♦•� • �
555 "LAAN
AAA AL
m 554
! ♦ All
I 1
c
•• •y
44
553A"A
O•
'� 552
.y ♦ ♦,
1
d
r AAA
I • ♦.�.AY ••.
551
:• ♦
I I ~•u♦
550
549
548
60200
60300 60400
60500
60600 60700 60800
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-02/2016) _
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-02/2016) ♦
RBKF/RTOB (MYO-02/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 1, UTSF Reach 1
107+14 Riffle
570
569
568
c
567
0
a 566
w
565
564
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
9.1
wetted parameter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 2, UTSF Reach 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted parameter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 3, UTSF Reach 1
118+36 Riffle
559
558
557
c
556
0
wa 555
554
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
9.7
wetted parameter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 4, UTSF Reach 1
118+63 Pool
559
558
557
$ 556
c
° 555
a
w 554
553
552
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
17.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
15.8
wetted parameter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 5, UTSF Reach 2
126+80 Riffle
553
552
551
550
0
'w 549
w
548
547
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
11.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.7
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
13.1
wetted parameter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 6, UTSF Reach 2
130+09 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
551
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted parameter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
550
549
548
0
'
ww 547
TT 11
546
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
10.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.7
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted parameter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 7, UTSF Reach 2
130+39 Pool
550
549
548
_— 547
c
° 546
v
w 545
544
543
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (2/2016:):—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.3
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
13.4
wetted parameter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.3
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 8, UT1C
577
576
575
574
573
0
572
v
w
571
570
569 +
0
201+44 Pool
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO (2/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
8.9
wetted parameter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.6
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
60 70 80
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 9, UT1C
201+61 Riffle
576
575
574
_— 573
c
° 572
v
w 571
570
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
10.0
wetted parameter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.4
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 10, UT213
300+26 Pool
567
566
565
564
0
'w 563
w
562
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.7
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.1
wetted parameter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.3
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 11, UT2B
300+36 Riffle
567
566
5.5
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
5.8
wetted parameter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
565
564
0
'w
563
w
562
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
—�MYO(2/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.5
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
5.8
wetted parameter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 12, UT3B
400+77 Pool
566
565
564
563
0
'w 562 lk
w
561
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
6.8
wetted parameter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.1
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 13, UT313
400+91 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
565
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
4.5
wetted parameter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
564
563
c
0
562
v
w
561
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
—t—MYO (2/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.2
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
4.5
wetted parameter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 14, UT413
500+26 Riffle
558
556
554
c
0
552
v
w
550
548
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+—MYO (2/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.7
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted parameter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 15, UT4B
500+38 Pool
4.5
557
6.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted parameter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.7
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
556
1.0
low bank height ratio
555
554
°
553
v
w
552
551
550
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO (2/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted parameter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.7
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 16, UT5
606+30 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
555
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted parameter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.0
width -depth ratio
---
554
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
553
552
0
a 551
w
550
549
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
t MYO (2/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.0
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted parameter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.0
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0
Cross Section 17, UT5
606+45 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
555
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted parameter (ft)
554
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.6
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
553
— -
—
552
0
'w
551
w
550
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
—�MYO(2/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted parameter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.6
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 2/2016
Field Crew: Turner Surveying
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8.4
21
21
21
21
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
23
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
25
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
28
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
�
4
4
4
32
`w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
60
2
2
2
34
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
36
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
38
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
3
4
4
42
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
4
7
7
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
3
7
7
56
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
5
61
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
10
2
12
12
73
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
9
82
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
9
91
Very Coarse
45
64
7
0
7
7
98
Small
64
90
98
Small
90
128
1
1
1
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small3
Medium
Large/Very Large
62
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
C
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
2.37
D50 =
8.4
D84 =
34.5
D95 =
55.0
D100 =
180.0
C
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Siluclay
Sand 0
1avel
Individual Class Percent
100
bble
90
r
80
80
a ro
70
m
�
60
`w
60
a
N
50
10
50
u
40
40
30
20
30
_
10
20
0
O�bryOtiryy o It, Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi ye �,ti�o �'L Rh bb CO yt� 'p '0 3roti yyti y�,l,P ry�0� -1b
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016
10
0
0.01 0.1
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
100 1000 10000
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
60
`w
a
N
50
10
u
40
m
3
30
20
_
10
0
O�bryOtiryy o It, Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi ye �,ti�o �'L Rh bb CO yt� 'p '0 3roti yyti y�,l,P ry�0� -1b
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
4.98
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
5
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
17
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
22
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
11
37
0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
13
12
49
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
1 22.6 1
32
16
15
64
Very Coarse
32
45
14
13
76
Very Coarse
45
64
13
12
88
Small
64
90
9
8
96
Small
90
128
1
1
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
maII
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512 1
1024
512
1024
2048
1 100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
110
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
4.98
Di5 =
14.80
D50 =
23.1
D84 =
56.5
D95 =
85.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
oO�'LoyIt, O1l Oy
I- 'L ,Vb P 5� 'b 'b 16 vryd 3ti bh 6b �O yl<b 1�0 �y0 ��ti yyti y�,lt �ObO 'CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
•My0-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
5.29
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
5
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
9
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
it
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
17
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
24
v
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
32
Medium
11.0
16.0
11
11
43
Coarse
16.0
22.6
13
13
56
Coarse
1 22.6
32
15
15
71
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
83
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
91
Small
64
90
S
5
96
Small
90
128
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
maII
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.29
Di5 =
12.18
D50 =
19.3
D84 =
47.0
D95 =
84.1
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
`m
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
O��'LoyyS o.Lh Oy
'ti ti ti� P 5� titi 16 vryd 3ti bh 6b �O yl<b 1�0 �y0 ��ti yyti Ne ObO tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
•My0-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
27
28
28
28
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
80
3
3
33
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
36
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
38
`w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
j 60
a
50
38
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
M
40
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
41
Fine
4.0
5.6
30
1
1
1
42
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
45
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
51
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
6
11
11
62
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
Particle Class Size (mm)
8
8
70
Coarse
22.6
32
8
2
10
10
80
Very Coarse
32
45
7
1
8
8
88
Very Coarse
45
64
S
1
6
6
94
Small
64
90
1
2
3
3
97
0
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small3
Medium
Large/Very Large
62
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.40
D50 =
10.4
Ds4 =
37.9
D95 =
71.7
D100 =
180.0
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Siluclay
Sand
avel
100
bble
90
r
80
80
a ro
70
v
�
`w
60
j 60
a
50
M
40
3 50
v
E
30
20
40
10
y 30
u
ObbryOtiryy o It, Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi yb �,ti�o �'L Rh bb 60 �,tb 1�0 �y0 ,,,b�'
Particle Class Size (mm)
a 20
• MYO-03/2016
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
�
`w
60
a
50
M
40
v
m
30
20
10
0
ObbryOtiryy o It, Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi yb �,ti�o �'L Rh bb 60 �,tb 1�0 �y0 ,,,b�'
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
20.73
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
H
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
3
u
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
18
Coarse
1 22.6
32
22
22
40
Very Coarse
32
45
24
24
64
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
86
Small
64
90
8
8
94
Small
90
128
3
3
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
H111111111111111
......
Small
Medium
iiiiii
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
1 00
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
20.73
Di5 =
29.57
D50 =
36.9
D84 =
62.0
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M 40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
QOC3 y,�h Q;wh Oh
'Y 'L ,L� P 5� titi 16 v�d 3ti bh 6b �O yl<b 1�0 �y0 ��ti yyti ye ObO tp90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MVO -02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
12.24
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
31.0
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
H
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
3
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
21
0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
29
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
1 22.6
32
23
23
52
Very Coarse
32
45
31
31
83
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
95
Small
64
90
4
4
99
Small
90
128
1
1
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
maII
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.24
Das =
24.75
D50 =
31.0
D84 =
46.3
D95 =
64.0
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
000tiotiyh otih oh
ti ti ti� a e� a yti tib ��� 3ti �h 6a oo tiyw 1�0 pyo ��ti yytitietioaa X90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MVO -02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1C, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
19
24
24
24
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
3
5
5
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
Y
1
1
1
38
w
a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1
3
3
41
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
2
5
5
46
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
3
8
8
54
Fine
4.0
S.6
4
3
7
7
61
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
1
6
6
67
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
1
4
4
71
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
8
79
• MYO-03/2016
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
5
5
5
84
Coarse
22.6
32
8
2
10
10
94
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
4
98
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
1
99
Small
64
90
99
Small
90
128
1
1
1
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
60
1 40 1
100 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
5 50
E
U= 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.21
D50 =
3.3
D84 =
22.6
D95 =
34.8
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
5 50
E
U= 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
UT1C, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
Y
60
w
a
N
50
A
u
40
m
30
Z
20
c
_
10
0
O�bryOtiryy o yh Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi ye �,ti�o �'L Rh 0. CO yl� 1�0 �y0 3roti yyti y�,l,P ry�0� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
6.38
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16.8
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
5
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
7
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
5
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
11
11
23
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
14
37
Medium
11.0
16.0
11
11
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
62
Coarse
1 22.6
32
18
18
80
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
93
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
97
Small
64
90
2
2
99
Small
90
128
1
1
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
SmaII
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UTiC, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
6.38
Di5 =
10.51
D50 =
16.8
D84 =
35.5
D95 =
53.7
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UTiC, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
000tiotiyh otih o`'
ti ti ti� a e� v titi y6 vti� 3ti �h 6a oo tiyw 1�0 pyo ��ti ytiti yoyo �o�e X90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•My0-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT26, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
43
47
47
47
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
4
7
7
54
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
58
Medium
0.25
0.50
58
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
60
2
2
60
50
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
62
Fine
4.0
S.6
1
1
2
2
64
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
20
4
4
68
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
_
2
2
70
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
S
7S
Coarse
1 16.0
22.6 1
7
2
9
9
84
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
5
89
Very Coarse
32
45
S
5
5
94
Very Coarse
45
64
3
4
3
3
97
Small
64
90
1
1
1
98
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
iiiiiii
Small3
Medium
Large/Very Large
62
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
C
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.1
D84 =
22.6
D95 =
50.6
D100 =
128.0
C
UT26, Reachwide
UT26, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Individual Class Percent
90 Silticlay
avel
We
80
a ro
100
70
90
60
80
70
m
�
60
50
0
N
50
10
u
40
40
m
30
20
_
30
0
30
000ryOtiryy o yh Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi y0 �,ti�o �'L Rh bb CO y,V% 'p '0 3bV yyti y�,l,P ryo0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016
20
10
EH
4
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
UT26, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
60
w
0
N
50
10
u
40
m
30
20
_
30
0
000ryOtiryy o yh Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi y0 �,ti�o �'L Rh bb CO y,V% 'p '0 3bV yyti y�,l,P ryo0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2B, Cross Section 11
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
26
26
26
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
28
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
28
Coarse
0.5
1.0
28
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
H
28
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
30
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
54
0
Coarse
1 22.6 1
32
4
4
58
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
70
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
80
Small
64
90
8
8
88
Small
90
128
6
6
94
Large
128
180
5
5
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
H111111111111111
......
Small
Medium
iiiiii
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
1 00
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UT2B, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
13.27
D50 =
20.5
D84 =
75.9
D95 =
137.0
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UT2B, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UT2B, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
M
20
10
0
op�'Loyyh O,lh Oh
'Y 'L ,L' P ,b a, titi tib � 3tib� 6b �O yl'b 1�0 Cyd ��ti ytiti yoyb ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•My0-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT36, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
30
32
32
32
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
2
7
7
39
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
1
5
5
44
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
46
70
Coarse
0.S
1.0
m
60
46
Y
w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
46
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
48
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
1
7
7
59
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3 1
3
62
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
Particle Class Size (mm)
12
12
74
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
9
83
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
91
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
97
Small
64
90
3
3
3
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
..............................liiiiiiiiii
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
60
1 40 1
100 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT36, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.08
D50 =
5.6
D84 =
33.4
D95 =
56.9
D100 =
90.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT36, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
UT36, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
60
Y
w
a
N
50
10
u
40
m
30
20
_
10
0
000ryOtiryy o yh Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi y0 �,ti�o �'L Rh bb CO y,V% 'p '0 30ti yyti y'l,P ry�pp �0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT3B, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
2.37
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11
11
11
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
13
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
15
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
17
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
17
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
23
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
27
_
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
34
Coarse
1 22.6
32
14
14
48
Very Coarse
32
45
19
19
67
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
84
Small
64
90
8
8
92
Small
90
128
5
5
97
Large
128
180
2
2
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
maII
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UT3B, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.37
Di5 =
23.17
D50 =
33.2
D84 =
64.0
D95 =
111.2
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
UT3B, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UT36, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
_
0
O��'LoyyS o.Lh Oy
'ti ti ti� P 5� � titi 16 ,L,yt° 3ti bh 6b �O yl<b 1�0 Cyd ��ti yyti y�,lt �ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•My0-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT46, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
18
22
22
22
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
7
7
7
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
6
35
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
37
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
2
2
2
39
Y
w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
3
3
42
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
2
3
3
4S
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
3
5
5
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
4
4
54
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
1
4
4
58
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
3
12
12
70
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
2
8
8
78
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
9
Particle Class Size (mm)
9
9
87
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
93
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
95
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
99
Small
64
90
1
1
1
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small3
Medium
Large/Very Large
62
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
U= 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT46, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.25
D50 =
4.0
D84 =
20.1
D95 =
45.0
D100 =
90.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
U= 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT46, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
UT46, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
60
Y
w
a
N
50
10
u
40
m
30
Z
20
c
_
10
0
O�bryOtiryy o yh Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi ye �,ti�o �'L Rh bb CO y,1� 1�0 �y0 3roti yyti y�,l,P ry�0� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT4B, Cross Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
4.35
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
6
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
15
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
25
iu
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
11
11
36
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
46
Coarse
16.0
22.6
13
13
59
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
77
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
88
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
95
Small
64
90
3
3
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UT4B, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*- M-2/2016
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
4.35
Di5 =
10.69
D50 =
17.8
D84 =
39.8
D95 =
64.0
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UT4B, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*- M-2/2016
UT4B, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
`m
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
000tiotiyh otih oh
ti ti ti� a e� a yti tib vti� 3ti �h 6a oo tiyw 1�0 pyo ��ti yytiye o�e X90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•My0-02/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTS, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5.9
34
34
34
34
D100 =1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
37
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
40
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
1
4
4
44
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
�
60
44
w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
45
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
46
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
48
Fine
4.0
5.6
30
1
1
1
49
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
4
6
6
5S
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
_
2
2
57
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
3
11
11
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
6
2
8
8
76
Coarse
22.6
32
9
1
10
10
86
Very Coarse
32
45
S
5
5
91
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
8
99
Small
64
90
1
1
1
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
iiii
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
3 62
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
5 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.08
D50 =
5.9
Ds4 =
29.8
D95 =
53.7
D100 =1
90.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
5 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t Mva-az/zolb
UT5, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
60
w
a
N
50
10
u
40
m
30
20
_
10
0
oora'Lotilh o yh Oh
'v ti ,y!b O 5� 0 titi ye bb CO y,1� 1�0 �y0 3bti yyti ye
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT5, Cross Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
13.27
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
25.0
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
`m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
1
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
3
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
7
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
21
21
43
Coarse
1 22.6
32
24
24
67
000tiotiyh otih oh
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
83
•MVO -02/2016
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
94
Small
64
90
3
3
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
SmaII
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
13.27
Di5 =
19.81
D50 =
25.0
D84 =
46.5
D95 =
71.7
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
50
E
�? 40
r 30
d
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016
UT5, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
`m
60
a
H
50
M
40
u
iu
0
30
v
20
10
0
000tiotiyh otih oh
ti ti ti� a e� a yti tib ��� 3ti �h 6a oo tiyw 1�0 pyo ��ti yyti yoyo �e X90
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MVO -02/2016

Stream Photographs
UT to South Fork Reach 1

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 1— looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (01/20/2016) Photo Point 11— looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Stream Photographs
UT to South Fork Reach 2

Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Stream Photographs
UT1

Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

I e.w
i ai YE"fi 4 a
i�� iij3 Irr•_(t 4
�„� fr �i
� �y„jg{➢� � �' 1 Y ���,
t
a,
s
r
1V
���
_{'..
i
1
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
zt.
`"-vim^ ,�� _ -5 �, �Y-� „�*ecs��,
�t
`--�•►.
.R-
4"
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 21— looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Stream Photographs
UT2

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Stream Photographs
UT3

Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Stream Photographs
UT4

Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

Stream Photographs
UT5

Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (01/20/2016) 1 Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 31— looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 31— looking downstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (01/20/2016)
Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (01/20/2016)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8a. Planted and Total Stems (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
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%
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 1
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 2
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 3
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 4
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 5
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 6
PnoLS P -all T
Alnusserrulata
Tag alder
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
13
13
Betula nigra
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
13
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
Viburnum prunifolium
Black haw
Shrub/Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Stem count
Stem count
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Size (ares)
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
Size (ACRES)
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.02
Species count
Species count
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Stems per ACRE
Stems per ACREI
647
647
647
647 1
647 1
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
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%
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 7
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 8
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 9
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 10
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 11
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS
MYO
P -all
T
Alnusserrulata
Tag alder
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
25
25
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
13
13
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
36
36
36
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
16
16
16
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
37
37
37
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
16
16
Viburnum prunifolium
Black haw
Shrub/Tree
4
4
4
Stem count
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
176
176
176
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
11
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.27
Species count
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
647
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%

Table 8b. Planted and Total Stems (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Supplemental planting zones are monitored to determine survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success.
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 12
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 13
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 14
Pnol-S P -all T
Annual Summary
Pnol-S P -all T
Aesculus pavia
Red buckeye
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
11
11
11
Calycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
I Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
6
6
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
9
9
9
17
17
17
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Coralberry
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
10
10
10
Viburnum prunifolium
Black haw
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
48
48
48
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
Species count
5 1
5
5
6
6
6
3 1
3
3
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
647 1
647
647
647
647
647
1 647 1
647
647
647 1
647
647
Supplemental planting zones are monitored to determine survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success.

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1— (02/17/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 — (02/17/2016)
Vegetation Plot 3 — (02/17/2016) Vegetation Plot 4 — (02/17/2016)
47
ja
Vegetation Plot 5 — (02/17/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 — (02/17/2016)

Vegetation Plot 9 — (02/17/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 — (02/17/2016)
Vegetation Plot 11— (02/17/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 — (02/17/2016)
yyp. ��
4
yy
_ r L^em - ✓ a h
Vegetation Plot 7 — (02/17/2016)
Vegetation Plot 8 — (02/17/2016)
Vegetation Plot 9 — (02/17/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 — (02/17/2016)
Vegetation Plot 11— (02/17/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 — (02/17/2016)

'1
4
yi}j {�!Q ���q �I
"""363636]]]��1 �4 �
�
�e a . 7f
iT' I� 1 �a_ •,• � t A it �
I4� V �'�y^�� i �I ��f � ! ���i �1 T { , •F,13�_y
'1 �•�
jj - i,k. a` � Q •.
i� �Y ^ 4 xg�T a�� �� �_ Ki tip
1 7 '��:� �
�
`
"
���
r � � ; _,• �
}` �, �* ���'�� `fie
r
• • I I
• •

APPENDIX 4. Record Drawings

=VIII Rtl
Vicinity Map
Not to Rate
Maney 'arm Mitigation Project Record Drawings
Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002
Chatham County, North Carolina
for
NCDEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
RECORD DRAWINGS
ISSUED May 13, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
AND
ACCURACY
I, DAVIDS.TURNER CERTIFY THAT Ill""" TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
PORTION OFTHIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, THATTHE
RECORD DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED BY WILDIANDS ENGINEERING, INC
FROM DIGITAL FILES PROVIDED BYTIIRNER LAND SURVEYING,PLLC AS
SHOWN ON AN ASBUILTSURVEY FOR "THE STATE OF NC, DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES" DATED FEBRUARY 22, 2016; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET THE FEDERAL
GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED TO MEETTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO
THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A HORIZONTAL AND CLASS C VERTICAL WHERE
APPLICABLE; THATTHE ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAIN BETWEEN THE DATES OF
02/06/16-02/13/16 THAT THE CONTOURS SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES MAY
NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD AND ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON
NAD 83 (NSR5 2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASE ON NAVD 88; THAT THIS
MAP MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS AS STATED IN
TOLE 21, CHAPTER 56, SECTION.1606;THATTHIS MAP WAS NOT PREPARED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH 6.5.47-30, AS AMENDED AND DOES NOT REPRESENT
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY.
WITNff5-5�IY 011GINNN���SIGNATURE, RE ISTRATION NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS
THEj�F'DAY OF./✓ i ,20�.
OFFICIAL SEAL
IV'
c°2��bE'Ess
'- L-0551 -'
4C Uft`
A=TURNER, S L-4551 I
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Project Overview 0.2
General Notes and Symbols 0.3
Stream Plan and Profile 1.1-1.16
Planting 2.1-2.5
Project Directory
Surveying:
Turner Land. Surveying, PLLC
P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
David S. Turner, PLS
919-623-5095
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
312 West Millbrook Road, Ste 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jeff Keaton, P.E.
919-851-9986
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Jeff Jurek
919-707-8976
DMS Project ID 96314
NCDEQ Contract No. 005793
I
o ie6

M[
V5
5]0
565
100+00 100.50 101+00 101-50
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
see
515
qS-BUILTGRABE
DESIGNORADE - \
f
570
05
02100
I
} •WEl1ANDA EAU
102.50
STA: 100.00 -' ET�ANo y1FAA_
BEGIN UTTO SOUTH FORK
RESTORATION j`"1•,
Y `W'
v
103+50
.�
\, .AUAC
U::i
�CR�203i
TT `
STA: 302+84
VP1 � OSO urTo
SOUTHFORK
STA: 202+56
Ui1C \
CONFLUENCE '
V� LAND
AREA
Y> \
/
ID066 1
04-30.
a z' n' 6'
N1xi-y
0' 20' 48' 60'
Ixox�wxeny
Sheet Index
Q
zD9owWq
Qlzmm%`m
P -I 2Y..c Fu'E
�Wm LL
O s�—
U
V
A)
0
.o z
P,
0

576
570
555
560
104,30
105.00
105+50
Note: As -built profile stations mid match lines based on design alignment.
ioowo
106,50
107+00 107-50 108,10
0
WET �0`A EAG
m 6'S I
/UT TO SOUTH I
FORK
248" CULVERTS
o :A WET
2� AREA F]
\0.
01I�EYH. I :g �q \ if 404�
EASEMENT
TIF
♦.WE� } PP4
06
zROOTWAO$ o_ AR6�F
IKf.PIACEOWaH
BRUSH To OUE - \
C> TO qVA on
LS
F' OF MATERIALS
tQ. WETIANO+� `
VP3
n ` s>°
n
� bj
a
f � 37.E 30
\ sT6
1
,olo
1 v
I 1".LL
lm Z
575
570
565
1 F 560
100+50 106,60
9
„ %IfltjN AREA H
1
0' x 9' 6'
m�Ka1
0' 20' 40' 60'
IxOwomn6
Sheet Index
Q
zzgo�Po
z�`,�^mma
Z,
a= lP
�amm��
Q6'�a_xj
�W3 LL

670
565
550
108+00 109+00 109+50 110+00
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
0
NWE�LAN
N _
0
.w,
IZ
110+So 111+00 111+sR 11200 112+50
1�-
\
—v—n—n a ao. w 4AN0�
A K
CR Pit
REPLACED
AOS
^ /REPLACTO DUE
TO SH AVAREOUE 6S
TO MATERIALS S }Sties'
OF MATERIALS
BRUSN TOE NOTSAVE
EX15TINGf. TRE
NSTITREE
VP4
STA: 112+39
- OT STA?
j
401+55p .[ i �� �
4,-V1 TO SO
CONFLUENCE �fn}
STA 110+13 ' 6 300+70UT TO 4Y
IT ORH FPTA
>� TSTA: 300 ]o SOUTH FORK
CONFLUENCE 4Y
PP2�
CL
�(l:g C4Tl CE -[E -CE SCE -[E SCE -EE -Ci
ZI
�I
V
0' 2' 4' 6'
5]u m n
0' 20' 40' 60'
563
560
1 F 555
113+00 113+30
IEA L
Sheetlndex
311
Q)
E�m'v
m
m
;5
^s
R fi

555
lig
555
550
113,30 113,50 114M0 114.50
Note- As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
116,00
116,50
6' r a a
WE
0• 25' 40' 60
O��wart.6
555
—+ 55P
11,.@p
—3,—
iJ
v /
/ /
Vp6 _
56 / C3
WETIANN � -
%
9N jCP
UT TO SOUTH Misr'' s
i^'vA : ' _ — .•v� FORK i �i' _ / •�
�P�P � . S•'�• 11 ._ � 565 ! .��\ ` cx \ � 1 ( �wM� 555 )Os{�
PP 0
PP8
/ WE➢ANO `WETANN.AREA M w" /
AREA l
CE �Ce �CE� / SCE
IE C' CE—[E—[E—(E—[E—¢—[F—CE—CE—[E—[E-4E—CE—CEj�EE SFE
Sheet Index
4 0
u W
Z
o
10 0
U
W U
{tel'•

1. 2' 4' s
nEx�iwl Q
0' 20' 40' 60' zOv owwo
560580 Ixa oxmil �� 6 a z m c
l m
Fy Za m
Aa-a_x.
F�2"rcfuE
3
555 \� _ - - 555 \\\ U ,1lll
OEAGNGRABEIt
AS'HUALTORAUE \\ 'I
_ ppHttll
550550
117180 119+00 116+50 11ew0 118+50 129OK, 120+50 121+00 121+50 122+00 122+50
H �
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
T� � U
4� l ��F, N O
O
VP7 x1S 1 a• +(, a as
PPS v. C111 U) P.
I
/ JAR ao. sNs
-(
p% Mn`IO SOO-rH 1 �•___ PP12
'f E\ \10 \ ^✓l
/ 1 PPI1 P STA: 121+85 % id
SM 501+33 FORK STA:50
ur4 VP9
If1�. h7, CONFLUENCE
srnau+9s+Sheet Index
a0--' �'4-
hM\ 555 \\B�i Ste" ENO OTTO SOUTH FORK REACH S'D
` BEGIN OTTO SOUTH FORK REACH 2 /�—CR-WR
1
.7
Y
- _ 555 . ;
1.4
G / SEE -EE �CE� 1.2 o�c�
cE Ln—,E -0E r^0
tv' i
CE -C L E�[E
E -
soy'

a' 4' 6-
1.
o' 2P 40' 6o'
1�aaorrtu
555
5 eet In eX
PP14
\ ��
V-6
;55
ZA�.EP
1.6
.`Q�
i
sss
. TL n . ��
1.4
1.3
CE
PP32
.
W
TN
DESIGN
GMDE
.550
650
AB
RTGRADE
545
546
122+30 122150 123100 123.50, 12W00`
12 +50
126MD
125160
128.00
126+50
126+60
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
55
\
\
/
UT TO SOUTH
VP9
FORK
-
VP10
STA: 126102
OTTO SOUTH FORK
PP13 -`
UTS
CONFLUENCE f
o ..
/\
�`/
\W
;-
N
21
5 eet In eX
PP14
\ ��
V-6
ZA�.EP
1.6
.`Q�
sss
. TL n . ��
1.4
1.3
CE
PP32
.
W
TN

550
5,15
540 --
M.80
127+00
127+50
UP -DO
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
128.50 120+OD 120+50 130+00 180+50 131++00 101+30
nJ
C3
3J � 3J
550 2+62
y� ENO WORK V
UT TOSOUTH FORK /
129700__
� � ( BRUSH TOE ADDEO e
FOR ADDITPROTECTION
DANK PROTECTION
UT TO SOUTH
FORK
I►
[E ��
CE _
_a.WETANOAREA¢a +a.
0
_ SCE —U—CE—
CE � [E [`
0' 4' 6'
rc�o
0 20' 90' 60'
Ilmn¢mnail
Sheet Index
In
Q
QQumXa
"W -€
R!

575
570
565 ++-
196®®D
199.50
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
260.00
P'
V ` STA: 199.08 PP20
\ BEGIN
ENHANCEMENT II SSS
O
Vi
200+50 mnDD
SVP12
VP2
201*50 202nD
CE—CE—CE—LE—[E—(E—CE—CE—[E—LE CE— U—[E
bkk
C.eca �
575
570
i 1 565
202150 202.60
STA: 302+4 \
UTTO 5OUTH FORK
STA: 202,56
Unc
CONFLUENCE
R_CPP.
UT TO SOUTH
FOR\/ /� 1
�0,
o' 1. 4' S'
rywxnV
Sheetlndex
T
N
B

570
585
sm —
29s 00
Note: Asbuiltprofile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
299,50
W ' tGJh
29840p pl
29 oo --� +CRI
PPl3 Ca
} ¢I
k
r
4j'aG NC:MEN..1 PP24
SVP13 } "G ENI ENHNNCEMENT II
I BEGIN ENHANCEMENT
\ EF \ I UCTI
ff
\ ¢ W M i ( CONFLUUTZ
ENCE
f\� 1
300400
0
VP4
300450
570
585
66D
300414
i
1{iE4 /i W
o' Y 4' 1.
NEw�r.�l
0' 20' no' 60'
Uwwo»rw
Sheet Index
Erma

570
585
aso 4-
399-50
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
o/
o/
z/
~I 5TA:400,00
$V 'END ENHANCEMENT II
400+00
400,50
401,00
570
585
5N
401,50 401,63
0' 2' 4' 6-
a—,
Vf 20' 40 6P
/ 1P
Sheet Index
I
1
v�
/
l
0' 2' 4' 6-
a—,
Vf 20' 40 6P
/ 1P
Sheet Index
I
1

0' 2' 4- 6'
ryurcAV
m
0' ]0` 40' 60' Ky Nq�romq
Za°rymm
I��N �a�nmmm�
Qagd_.
s60 560 L-1 d ¢' F u €
�Wm LL
—P
ASI :...'Np�6
555 555
u
r_
AS-BUILTGRAOE ') N 11111\\A55
-7 1
DESIGN A-
550 55G bo
In
499a50 500f00 500+50 501.00 501+38
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment. FSO 0
�Q/) (� v
O
U I,1
/Ij Q
~ISO jFtyN�C
-i Erl
Ed
m a,
J
N; J
41RD `S
499f00 STA, 21+85
99oo UT TJ SOUTHFORK
1'+ lU} STA: SO1+33
UT4UPI
v G9)s\ _
CONFLUENCE
498f00� �¢
PP29
B) �-,-
A9 i 498 6p C0.' 0. '
1 STAINS)+86
jE qI \\ CM�l � SEA: 121485 1a8 5
BEGIN UTA END UFT0S
OUTH F0RK REACH
ENHRNCEMENTII EGINUTTO
DOTH FOR REA[H2 $tlQet Index
F F. SOO4D0 l i y
s I STA: 50G,00 'f +
END ENHANCEMENT II" ___ , ` - - - 1
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT 1.16
rrtz
1.14 _
n
1.13 1.10
1.12
E l / 1.8 wmm
= T
v 0E

560
555
550
54B }
602,00
602150 009+00
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
603-50
604-50
605+00 605+60
606.00
C3f�ll�{
m (E,�s }l✓J (� J] 3J 3J — 3J / 3J /
(�j VV SSS
i
P31
601BEIM,
`W 601• NM �.� y Wy '-
0
SUU
IA. f"
IA. EU urs
RESTOMTION T\
UT5
BRUSH TOE NOT
INSTAnEOTO J I N
SAVFTREE
C3
_ rvPi4
CE — cc
if ]i
0
SBO
555
550
—4 648
608.90
0' Y 4' 6'
P+��I
0' 20' 40' 60'
N
Sheet lnde
Q
'z 0dowm4
�rt
aws�m
�2rn��LL€
�W3 LL
Pq

555hum^Irt9q
550
5
DESIGN GRADE
/ — `
ASBUILTGRADE
1+1
B55
— END
595
0' ]`
Nr�.11
0' 20'
Al
4' 6'
AO` 60'
N
Q
'z Ov ow wo
�� a/� Z o z m m m
Ejj�r"zF LL E
r� w3 a
606f30 008+50 607+00
607150 606+00
606+50 80897
Note: As -built profile stations and match lines based on design alignment
O
�
Ej
U
+ o
00
0
2s
3J �
1
O W
I
0
uP�.0
•1�
IO
BRUSH mE
REP EER
i
w
555 V`rf
SOD MAI ! 1
-
w
/
rra s
-r-^sDienD.
+`
STA 126+0]
wETIAIiO q /�
_ AlIEA 1,
'C]. /' \ !
60W
�- OTTO SOUTH FORK W
STA: 60B+60
I
1�.y
➢' - /k` 4N
_ _ /�' \ -/ 2 �'�
UTS
/2 q a CONFLUENCE
>
F-1
a
Sheet Index
r
1.15
wET,AND
- EA -P
1 r +
1.16
€ /
s
!l, zF i
1.14
_
1.13
1.10
/ —G
ce
I /
1
1.12
/ E
c
G /
1.8
Erma

STA 253.89
U&
N
\\\UTZc
STA: BEGINWO.
UTTOSOU H'FOBR
\`'\'
0' 40' 80' 120'
MOW➢MPL)
E
'`'' '",\'
mliLv
STk 10 184
kCONFLUM
:►�+ii
►_+i►1 + ► �'i
�vo•��fkv10
MATCHLINE- SHEET 2.5
Sheet Index
2.4 II®jN ` ¢�° mq
awx��LL€
2.3
2.2
2.5
T"
L
I
N
x IAF

\
\
A0.10
j\\\ \\\ `\\
o' Lo' aa' izo'
\,\
Sheet Index
�n n
N N
2.F t�2aUgmY
ass mmm
N w3�rLL _R
� � m
2.3
2,2
2.5
vv �O�3J
CG
\a \\ \\\ \ \\ \ \\
\ \ \ STA\ 121485
ENO HE TO SOUTH FORK REACH
\\,O
� aJ , ll — 3o BEGIN TTO SOUTH FORK REACH
\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\\ \ \\\ �\
\ \\, \ \\\ \ \\, \\, \\, \ ,,\ Ax
V\
\\ 1� \\ \\` a` \` �a VV\1 `\` \\\ Al \,\ `b ,\ \ \ Al
\v X\
\\\ \\\ \` 3 , `\\ `\ \,\ \,y� \\\ UT TO S9U7H FORK \ \ \\ ,\ \,\ \\\ \\ \
�` ` ` , ` \ \ ` \ \ \\\ \,\ , \\\. Q\\` \
a\\\ \ `\\ a CC \ \ ` ` a \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ +l\q \ \` `\\ a \\\ J
`
SSTMO \,\ \\ \\ \\\ \` \\\ \\, ` ,,\ ` ,
\` , \ V , \ V\` \ V `
N A
\ \` Al \` \` \ \ `\`\```\,` ff-
\ STA 112�39SOUTHFORK
\ l\\ `\\ \\\\` \\\ \\\\\
\`\\\\\\, `,`\\\\\\` \\l
OTT
\ STTAAA'.401+55 \\` , `\` �(+� `\` ,\\ `\\ \\\ \\ \\` CE`3i CE1\- ce `
\ CONFLUENCE © E �_ \tel ce `\ _ STA: 121+85
OTTO SOUTH FO \
\ STA: 501133 /.f\
\ CONFLUENCE
1,
R
10

C /
\ / STA 126+07
FORK
UT TO SOUTH FORK Q
\ n srn: 66e.R0 d
cONEWENCE
\
`\\
\
\
\
Q \
A
0 0
Q �
a°
\ \\`
UT TO SOUTH FORK \ \\ \\\ \ \\\ \ \\ t\\
N\\
`\\
0' 40' 80' 120'
woa:oN,nn
STP: 132+62
ENO WORK
UTTO SOUTH FORK
SheeL Index
Ln
a
zo9�m�4
aigmmm<
Qo€a_x

BE61N U 1
0' 40' 80' 120'
Sheet Index
Iff
►_