20140338 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

li lei 0IkLei NII,t W".111 I'M
ANNUAL REPORT
A IVLy_113M1L III RUN 0411OIJZ911I:14I
Chatham County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 005793
DMS ID No. 96314
Data Collection Period: February - September 2016
Final Submission Date: November 23, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLA1` DS
ENGINEERING
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Maney Farm Mitigation
Project (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance a total
of 6,112 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams in Chatham County, NC. 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, NC in the Cape Fear River Basin 8- Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002 (Figure 1). The Site is also within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (HUC
03030002050050), which flows into Cane Creek and eventually into the Haw River. The streams are all
unnamed tributaries (UT) to South Fork Cane Creek (SF) and are referred to herein as UTSF, UT1, UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5.
The Site is located within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) which is discussed in DMS's
2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The RBRP identifies the need to improve
aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good riparian conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. Prior to the restoration activities, the Site was maintained as cattle pasture and is one of the
51 animal operations referenced in the RBRP. The Site drains to the Haw River, which flows to B. Everett
Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). The 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates
that Jordan Lake is a drinking water supply (WS -IV), a primary area for recreation, and a designated
Nutrient Sensitive Water which calls for reduction of non -point source pollution. The water supply
watershed boundary for Jordan Lake is just six miles downstream from the Site. The Cape Fear
watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Wildlife Action
Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the Wildlife Action Plan
indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration activities at the Site directly
addressed non -point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable stream
banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 16.69 acres of land under permanent conservation
easement.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the Cape Fear RBRP plan. The following
project goals established included:
• 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;
• Constructing stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions;
• Improve instream habitat resulting in improved aquatic communities within the streams;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently
resulting in groundwater recharge, floodplain wetland and vernal pool inundation, and reduced
shear stress on channels during larger flow events;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest resulting in stream shading, reduced thermal
loads, woody input sources, and reduced flood flow velocities allowing for pollutants and
sediments to settle; and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses therefore ensuring that development
and agricultural damage is prevented.
The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing numerous ecological benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others,
such as pollutant removal and reduced sediment loading have farther -reaching effects. In addition,
protected parcels downstream of this site promote cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report

The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between October 2015 and February 2016. A
conservation easement is in place on 16.69 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments and site visits were completed between February and September,
2016 to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and
stream success criteria for MY1. The overall average stem density for the standard planting zones at the
Site is 548 stems per acre and is therefore on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre.
All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. Hydrologic monitoring
stations with crest gages and pressure transducers were installed on the Site to document bankfull
events on the restoration reaches. A bankfull event was recorded on each restoration reach during the
2016 annual monitoring period, therefor partially fulfilling the Monitoring Year 7 hydrology success
criteria. Additionally, a flow gage was established on the upstream, intermittent reach of UTSF Reach 1
to document flow during the annual monitoring period. The flow gage on UTSF Reach 1 recorded
baseflow daily during the MY1 monitoring period and therefor met the established hydrologic criteria.
VManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report ii

MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................1-1
Appendix 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Vicinity Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Table 1
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Project Activity and Reporting History
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Table 4
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Cross Section Plots
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-4
Table 13
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
Hydrology Summary Data
1.2.6
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section2:
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Visual Assessment Data
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/ Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Appendix 4
Stream Photographs
Table 10a -d
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a -c
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a -b
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -d
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a -b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -g
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Table 13
Bank Pin Table
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Flow Gage Plot
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report iii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Maney Farm Mitigation Project (Site) is located in northwestern Chatham County within the Cape
Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). The Site is located off of Center Church Road
northwest of the town of Silk Hope, North Carolina. The Site is located in in the Carolina Slate Belt of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural
and wooded land. The drainage area for project site is 211 acres (0.33 square miles).
The project streams consist of six unnamed tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek. Stream restoration
reaches included UTSF (Reach 1 and 2) and UT5. Stream enhancement I (EI) and enhancement II (Ell)
reaches included UTI (Reach A and B), Ell; UT1 (Reach C), EI; UT2 (Reach A), Ell; U2 (Reach B), EI; UT3
(Reach A), Ell; U3 (Reach B), EI; and UT4 (Reach A), Ell; U4 (Reach B), EI. Mitigation work within the Site
included restoration and enhancement, and preservation of 6,112 linear feet (LF) of perennial and
intermittent stream channels. The riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat
and protect water quality. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in
January 2016. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in
February 2016. A conservation easement (16.69 ac; Deed Book 1537, Page 876) has been recorded and
is in place along the stream riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity within a tract owned by the
M. Darryl Lindley Revocable Trust. The project is expected to provide 4,948 stream mitigation units
(SMU's) by closeout.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams and vegetative communities on the Site had been severely
impacted due to livestock having direct access to the streams and riparian zones. Table 4 in Appendix 1
and Tables 10a through 10d in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the Maney Farm Mitigation Project area, others such as pollutant
removal and reduced sediment loading have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project
goals were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were
described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water
quality uplift within the watershed.
VManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-1

The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015)
included:
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Exclude cattle from project
Install fencing around conservation
Reduce pollutant inputs including
streams
easements adjacent to cattle pastures
fecal coliform, nitrogen, and
phosphorous.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
Stabilize eroding stream
dimensions. Add bank revetments and
Reduce inputs of sediment into
banks
in -stream structures to protect
streams.
restored/enhanced streams.
Construct stream channels that will
Construct stream channels
maintain a stable pattern and profile
Return a network of streams to a
with that are laterally and
considering the hydrologic and
stable form that is capable of
vertical stable
sediment inputs to the system, the
supporting hydrologic, biologic,
landscape setting, and the watershed
and water quality functions.
conditions.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles and brush toes into
Improve instream habitat
restored/enhanced streams. Add woody
Improve aquatic communities in
materials to channel beds. Construct
project streams.
pools of varying depth.
Reconnect channels with
Raise local groundwater
floodplains so that
Reconstructing stream channels with
elevations. Inundate floodplain
floodplains are inundated
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
wetlands and vernal pools.
relatively frequently
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on channels
during larger flow events.
Create and improve forested
riparian habitats. Provide a
canopy to shade streams and
Restore and enhance native
Plant native tree and understory species
reduce thermal loadings. Create a
floodplain forest
in riparian zone
source of woody inputs for
streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and allow
pollutants and sediment to settle.
Permanently protect the
Ensure that development and
project site from harmful
Establish a conservation easement on
agricultural uses that would
the site.
damage the site or reduce the
uses.
benefits of project are prevented.
The design streams were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed conditions
and trajectory. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the DMS in August 2015.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in January 2016. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2016. Baseline monitoring
(MYO) was conducted between January 2016 and February 2016. Annual monitoring will be conducted
for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2022 given the success criteria are met.
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information for the Site.
VManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-2

1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream and vegetation success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria
presented in the Maney Farm Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 13
standard 10 -meter by 10 -meter vegetation plots and one non-standard 5 -meter by 20 -meter plot were
established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement area. Plots were established to
monitor both the standard planting zones (11 plots) as well as the supplemental planting zones (3 plots).
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the standard
planting zones at the end of the seven-year monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative
success within the standard planting zones will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at
the end of year three of the monitoring period (MY3) and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the
fifth year of monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each standard
planting zone 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 provided written approval is provided by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
While there is not a performance criteria for the stems established within the supplemental planting
zones, these areas were monitored to document survival rates of these species.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2016. The 2016 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 548 stems per acre within the standard planting zones, which is well above
the interim requirement of 320 stems/acre required at MY3 and approximately 15% less than the
baseline density recorded (647 stems/acre). There is an average of 14 stems per plot as compared to 16
stems per plot in MYO. All 11 of the plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7
(Table 9a, Appendix 3).
Stem densities were monitored in the three supplemental planting zone plots to document annual
survival rates within these zones. The overall average survival rate within these plots was 83% since
establishment (Table 7b, Appendix 3). The survival rates of the species selected for these supplemental
planting zones ranged from 100% (Aesculus pavia and Viburnum prunifolium) to 67% (Calycanthus
floridus) in MY1 (Table 7c, Appendix 3).
Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and
Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
No vegetation areas of concern were identified during MY1.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in September 2016. All streams within the site are
stable.
In general, cross sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio,
or width -to -depth ratio. Pool cross sectional areas have decreased due to deposition within the pools on
UT1C, UT213, UT313, and UT413. The pools within these reaches were constructed deeper and therefore
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-3

the MY1 cross sectional areas now fall within the range of the design parameters. Slight increases in
bank height ratios for some cross sections are likely the result of the established vegetation causing
some increases in deposition along the bankfull benches. Bank height ratios fall within the appropriate
Rosgen stream type parameters.
A bank pin array was established on UTSF Reach 1 to monitor potential meander bend, bank erosion at
cross section 4. No changes in exposed length of bank pins were observed during the MY1 assessments
indicating there has been no erosion of the bank at this cross section.
Longitudinal profile surveys are not required on the project unless visual inspection indicates reach wide
vertical instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map, and
reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
In general, substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement reaches indicated maintenance of
coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. A bankfull event was recorded on all restoration reaches
during MY1 resulting in partial attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria. In addition, the
presence of baseflow must be documented within the intermittent reach of UTSF Reach 1 for a
minimum of 30 days during a normal precipitation year. Results from the flow gage established on UTSF
Reach 1 indicate the stream is maintaining baseflow as expected for an intermittent stream. Baseflow
was recorded for 100% of the monitoring period (207 consecutive days). Refer to Appendix 5 for
hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
No maintenance plan is necessary at this time. Wildlands will continue to monitor pool deposition within
the tributary reaches and bankfull depositional features within the restoration reaches. If subsequent
monitoring efforts indicate a trend toward instability associated with these minor stream adjustments, a
maintenance plan will be developed.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. All vegetation plots are on track to
meet the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre as noted in CCPV. Bankfull events have been
documented within the restored stream reaches at the Site resulting in partial fulfillment of the MY7
hydrologic success criteria. Additionally, the flow gage on UTSF Reach 1 recorded baseflow daily during
the MY1 monitoring period and therefor met the established hydrological criteria. All restored and
enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 1-4

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

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Maney Farm Mitigation Project Baseline Monitoring Document and
As -Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Maney Farm Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

— Project Location
- DMS Targeted Local Watershed
L•—• ! Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
ti
z
9
- t 03030002050050
79
RusseU Rd
"nark Rd '
7 1l_4hI:tTJ� F
.—. t°- cil_1rl�.ani
or,,�
ML
Johns%
9003070010
Rook. Farm'A
Johnny I b 03030002050070
72 ft e
o
N-
�7
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight, and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
%�W*
WILDLANDS `
E GINEE RI NG rk
Epps Clark Fro .00I
I�
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
approximately 25 miles, take exit 381 for NC -87 towards Burlington.
Travel approximately 1.8 miles on NC -87 North and turn left onto
Silk Hope Gum Springs Road. Continue for 8.1 miles to Silk Hope
Lindley Mill Road. Take Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road north 3.6 miles.
Turn right on Center Church Road and travel 0.9 miles. The Site is
located north of Center Church Road.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 96314
i i i I Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Chatham County, NC

i
4,45
t
r
UT3B
UT3A
r
.R ON
PJT1 B
■u
sS -
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
it Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS1 I I Monitoring Year 1-2016
FI
E.GINFR-C
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
*Differences in the El 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 Offset Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
7tLI.11.
RER RE R RE
0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
aProject Components
As -Built Stationing Existing Footage /
Reach ID Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
/Location Acreage
Restoration Footage /Acreage
Credits
Mitigation Ratio
(SMU/WMU)
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
UT4B
500+00-501+33
40
EI
Restoration
133
1.5:1
89
UT5
602+00-608+80
778
Pl
Restoration
680
1:1
680
*Differences in the El 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 1- 2016
Ln�!r Report
Data Collection Complete Completion
or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
July 2014
August 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2014
August 2015
Construction
October 2015 -January 2016
January 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
October 2015 -January 2016
January 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
February 2016
February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
January 2016 - February 2016
April 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
February 2016 - September 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 1- 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 1 - 2016
Project Information
Project Name Maney Farm Mitigation Site
County Chatham County
Project Area (acres) 16.69
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35°50'18.00" N, 79° 20'38.00" W
Pr
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 03030002050050
DWR Sub -basin 03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres) 211
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 3%
CGIA Land Use Classification 69%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 28%— Forested/Scrubland; 3%- Developed
Reach Summary Informatio
Parameters UTSF-R1 UTSF-112 UT1A UT3B UT1C UT2A/B UT3A/B UT4A/B UTS
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration 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) 1/11
I
1
1
I/P
I
I
P
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration II/IV
II/IV
III
V
II/IV
II/V
V/VI
II/V
II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils Cid Silt Loam, Cid-Lignum Complex, Nanford-Badin Complex, Georgeville Silty Clay Loarr
Drainage Class Well Drained - Moderately Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status Cid-Lignum Complex 2 to 6 percent slopes - Hydric
Slope 0.0131 1 0.0086 1 0.0187 0.0396 1 0.0187 1 0.0366 1 0.0377 1 0.0232 1 0.0139
FEMA Classification X
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Post -Restoration 0%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
and DWR 401 Water Quality
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maney Farm Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Chatham County listed
endangered species. The USFWS
responded on April 4, 2014 and
concurred with NCWRC stating
Endangered Species Act
X
X
that "the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect any
federally -listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat, or
species currently proposed for
listing under the Act."
Correspondence from SH PO 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
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Correspondence from Chatham
County Public Works Director on
January 12, 2015 stated that a
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
floodplain development permit is
not required since work is not
occurring is not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

RCa4HI c -'�g� e�
U
,I�YY
5�"
1
UT46 fir a
r
�.
` UTSF
.;A Reach 9'
UT3B
r- �
a.a..
Conservation Easement
Culvert Crossing
CSupplemental
Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Cross Section
Bank Pins
P
Photo Point
Barometric Gage
®
Stream Gage
Flow Gage
Rain Gage
Vegetation
Plot Condition - MY1
=
Meets Criteria
UT2A
UT26
Ott
ch,,1
R ��� i , � • � � �,s tri .
n
I I r
. r i "rSJ-� �` �F�a.+r � •-'Wi,'�,�:,.:"dML�.e.l �^t',4�1e;. -. _ ...
R
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
it Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS1 Monitoring Year 1-2016
E"` INFFIR— 0 250 500 Feet
I i i i I Chatham County, NC

{ .� Ott .il. - � M IY ir6'¢M1� .'�'f.„.P. - •
UT38 �I tt f — f Y Yr• a
27 2, r�
A 22
:.` 6 13
UT3A I` 4P 4 A
I� < 24+ 23
526
MIA
v
} A�
` S
1
�Av
Art �4
UTSF
f Reach 1 a 3
Y 1 Conservation Easement t
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot #' r
Culvert Crossing t"
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II UTIC ry► t
2aZ�\ ,r -
Cross Sections
♦ - 12' I,r
Stationing ��l! ,.
Z �A
20
® Barometric Gage i 's
® Stream Gages i�'� a• rt.
r 9 #..
Rain Gage
_ i
® Flow Gage - i
UTIA
Photo Points y
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
r FI Meets Criteria
WILDLANDS 1 `
ENGINEF. RING
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
1 1 1 1 1 Chatham County, NC

I
13 +
r'
w, .,�.-
r $
_ t 12 I Conservation Easement
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
.,10
Cross Sections
Bank Pins
s' UTSF
! � Stationing
Reach 1
0 Stream Gages
r Photo Points
s
6 �:K;�""a Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
Meets Criteria
AW
WILDLANDS 1
E NCINEF��NG
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
1 1 1 1 1 Chatham County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTSF Reach 1 (2.142 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
38
38
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
38
38
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
38
38
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
37
37
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. (Glide)
38
38
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
30
30
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
16
16
100%
3. Engineered
i
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
14
14
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
14
14
100%
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTSF Reach 2 (1.077 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. Glide
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
o/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
o/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UIT1C f256 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
9
9
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. Glide
8
8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.13an1,
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Scl. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2B 170 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
3
3
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
2
2
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
2
2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
2
2
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. Glide
2
2
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.13an1,
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT3B (155 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.13an1,
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sf. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT4B (133 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.13an1,
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sg. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTS (680 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Perforing as
Intenmded
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
on bend,Run
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend. Glide
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
`Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Planted Acreaee 16
Easement Acreage 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
none
0
0
0%
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
1 0
1 0.0
1 0.0%
Easement Acreage 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
0
0
0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%

Stream Photographs

YY_ '

UTSF R1— Photo Point 4 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 4 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UTSF R1— Photo Point 5 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 5 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UTSF R1— Photo Point 6 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 6 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1

UTSF R1— Photo Point 7 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 7 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UTSF R1— Photo Point 8 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 8 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UTSF R1— Photo Point 9 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 9 looking downstream (09/06/2016)

UTSF R1— Photo Point 10 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 10 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UTSF R1— Photo Point 11 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 11 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UTSF R1— Photo Point 12 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 12 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1

UTSF R2 — Photo Point 13 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 13 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UTSF R2 — Photo Point 14 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 14 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UTSF R2 — Photo Point 15 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 15 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1

UTSF R2 — Photo Point 16 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 16 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UT1A— Photo Point 17 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT1A— Photo Point 17 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UT1A— Photo Point 18 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT1A— Photo Point 18 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1

UT113 — Photo Point 19 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT1B — Photo Point 19 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UT1C — Photo Point 20 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT1C— Photo Point 20 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UT1C — Photo Point 21 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT1C — Photo Point 21 looking downstream (09/06/2016)

UT3A— Photo Point 25 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT3A— Photo Point 25 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UT313 — Photo Point 27 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT313 — Photo Point 27 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1

UT4A— Photo Point 28 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT4A— Photo Point 28 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UT4B — Photo Point 29 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT413 — Photo Point 29 looking downstream (09/06/2016)
UT5 — Photo Point 30 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT5 — Photo Point 30 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1

UT5 — Photo Point 31 looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 UT5 — Photo Point 31 looking downstream (09/06/2016) 1
UT5 — Photo Point 32 looking upstream (09/06/2016) I UT5 — Photo Point 32 looking downstream (09/06/2016) I

Vegetation Photographs

VO. s a
1 � r�
r7.

Vegetation Plot 7 (09/05/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (09/05/2016) 1
I Vegetation Plot 9 (09/05/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (09/05/2016)
Vegetation Plot 11 (09/05/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 (09/05/2016)

d
t
=
!P
i
s
t
.A i

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Plot MY1 Success Criteria
Tract Mean
1 y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 y
11 Y
Table 7b. Percent Survival by Plot Table (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Plot MYO Stems/Plot MY1 Stems/Plot Survival (%)
Mean Survival (%)
12 16 13 81%
83%
13 16 15 94%
14 16 12 75%
Table 7c. Percent Survival by Species Table (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Scientific Name
Common Name
MYO Stems
MY1 Stems
Survival (%)
Aesculus pavia
Red buckeye
3
3
100%
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
11
9
82%
Calycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
6
4
67%
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
17
16
94%
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
ICoralberry 1
10 1
7
1 70%
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black haw I
1 1
1
1 100%

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Report Prepared By
Jason Lorch
Date Prepared
42633.63137
Database Name
Maney Farm MY1- cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
F:\Projects\005-02144 Maney Farm\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
JASON -PC
File Size
94806016
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
96314
Project Name
Maney Farm
Description
Stream Mitigation
Sampled Plots
14

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
species Type
Vegetation Plot 1
PnoLs P -all T
Vegetation Plot 2
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 3
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 4
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 5
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 6
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 7
Pnol-S P -all T
Alnusserrulata
Tag alder
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
3
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub/Tree
2
2
1
1
1
10
2
2
2
13
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
7
7
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
37
Platanus occidentalis
JAmerican sycamore
I Tree
2
2
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus palustris
IPin oak
I Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
lWillow oak
I Tree
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
Viburnum prunifolium
IBlack haw
I Shrub/Tree
3
3
3
16
16
16
16
16
149
1
1
1
176
1 176
Size (ares)
1
1
Stem count
10
10 J
10
13
13
13
15
15
15
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
0.02
Size (ares)
0.02
1
0.27
1
0.27
1
1
6
6
1
6
6
1
7
7
1
5
5
S
Size (ACRES)
9
0.02
9
1 9
0.02
0.02
567
1 567
0.02
1 567
1 567
0.02
1 567
1 567
0.02
1 647
1 647
0.02
1 548
1 548
548
Speci�counti
5
5
5
1 7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE 1
405
405
405
1 526
526
526
607
607
1 607
526
526
1 526
526
526
1 526
526
1 526
526
567
567
567
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016) 1 Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 8
PnoLSP-all T
Vegetation Plot 9
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 10
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 11
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (9/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Alnusserrulata
Tag alder
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
19
19
25
25
25
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
10
10
10
13
13
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
35
35
35
36
36
36
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
16
16
16
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
37
1 37
37
37
37
37
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
15
15
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
15
15
15
16
16
16
Viburnum prunifolium
Black haw
Shrub/Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Stem count
14
14
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
149
149
1 149
176
176
1 176
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
11
11
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.27
Species count
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
5
5
S
9
9
9
9
1 9
9
Stems per ACRE 1
567
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 647
1 647
1 647
1 548
1 548
548
647
1 647
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 9b. Planted and Total Stems (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Current Plot Data (MY12016) 1 Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 12
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 13
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 14
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(9/2016)
Pnol-S P -all T
MYO (2/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Aesculus Pavia
Red buckeye
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1 3
Callicar a americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
9
9
9
11
11
11
Calycanthusfloridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
8
8
8
16
16
16
17
17
17
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Coralberry
Shrub
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
10
10
10
Viburnum runifolium
Black haw
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
13
1 13
13
15
15
15
12
12
12
40
40
40
48
48
48
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.07
species count
5
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
526
1 526
1 526
607
607
607
486
486
486
540
540
540
647
647
647
Supplemental planting zones are monitored to determine survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success.

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring year 1- 2016
1T Soufh Fork Rnerhnc t and 7
I
Parameter
Gage
Pre
UTSF Reach
-Restoration
1
Condition
UTSF Reach
2
Reference
Agony Acres UTSA-Reach 1
Reach Data
UT to Cane Creek
UTSF Reach
1
UTSF Reach
2
UTSF Reach
1
UTSF Reach
2
Min
Max
Min
Max
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
1
9.3
12.7
13.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
15
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
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
2.0
1.5
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
1 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)l
1
9
1
50
1 9
1
40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0036
0.0274
0.0062
0.0255
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
73
3
67
4
85
29
85
45
78
Pool Volume (fta)
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.S
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
SC/0.40/10.4/37.9/71.7/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/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/m'
--
---
--
---
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)
2.8
1
4.8
3.4
3.6
2.2
T
2.4
3.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
1
3.6
2.6
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
1
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
2,1631,061
2,185
1,077
Sinuosity
1.34
1.33
1.35
1.40
1.20
1.40
1.20
1.40
1.27
1.18
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
0.0084
0.0075
--
---
0.0095
0.0113
0.0103
0.0078
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft)
0.0129
0:0114
0.0102
0.0104
0.0077
1
0.0078
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year i - 2016
UT1C and UT2B
ELILr.
Parameter
Gage
UT1C
UT2B
UT to Varnals
Creek
UTlC
�-
UT2B
UT1C
UT2B
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min 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
41
9
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.S
1.7
0.9
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
N/A
2.1
1.1
10.3
12.3
S.2
1.S
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
6.12.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
6.1
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
2.3
5.4
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)l
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 1 19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
---
---
2.52.6
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
2
15
45
13
72
6
36
16 26
---
Radius of Curvature (ft
9
16
1
3
8
47
11
47
5
23
9 15
13 25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
2.2
3.9
0.4
1.2
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
5.8
1.0 1.6
1.8 3.3
Meander Length (ft)
54
63
12
---
24
133
12
66
55 73
---
Meander Width Ratio
2.4
4.4
0.4
T
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
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
-
---
---
SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/34.8/128
SC/SC/0.1/22.6/50.6/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
---
---
---
---
0.15
0.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
--
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
---
--
--
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.03
0.02
0.41
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
13%
0%
-
13%
0%
13%
0%
Rosgen Classification
B5
B5
E4
C
C
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
3.4
4.4
1
5.2
1.1
3.1
1.1
1.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
54.0
5.6
3.6
5.6
3.6
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
13
8
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
6
4
Q -Mannings
4.1
1 5.7
6.9
1 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
1.25
1.10
1.25
1.11
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
--
---
--
-
--
0.0053
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--
---
---
0.0083
0.0080
0.0078 0.0080
0.0070 0.0084
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Marley Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT36 and UT4B
11,
Parameter
dwa•
Gage
- •-
UT3B
UT4B
.. ... r.
UT to Varnals Creek
UT3B
r-_
UT4B
UT3B
.
UT48
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
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
120
11
1 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---1
0.7
0.6
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
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
P0-0 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
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
8
47
5
23
7
29
11
47
10
20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
0.5
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
5.8
1.7
7.6
1.8
3.6
Meander Length (ft)
---
11
]]2�2
---
12
66
15
82
55
68
59
69
Meander Width Ratio
---
0.5
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/ftr
N/A
--
---
---
---
0.33
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at Bankfull
---
--
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
--
--
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.02
0.03
0.41
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0%
0%
-
0%
0%
0%
0%
Rosgen Classification
E5b
E5b
E4
C
C
C
E
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2
3.0
4.4
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
1 12.0
4.1
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 <D.Ob2 mm diameter particles
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTS
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Pre -Restoration
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
UT5
Agony Acres UT1A-Reach 1
UT to Cane Creek
UT5
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 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 (ft')
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 Ratio7.1
>3.9 2.5 2.7 2.2
5.0 12.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.4 --- --- 0.9
1.1 1.0
D50 (mm)
Silt/Clay 5.9
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
5
21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0028
1
0.0638
---
0.0188
1 0.0704
0.0128
0.0541
0.0081
0.0374
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
18
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.4
2.5
1.8
2.3
0.9
1.8
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
9
197
---
27
73
2
44
31
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
I
I
---
I
---
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 1 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
Q -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 1 1.40 1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0111 --- --- --- 0.0114
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--- --- --- 0.0138 0.0110 10.0114
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table Ila. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS 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
567.0
566.4
566.4
556.5
556.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
8.7
11.1
10.8
9.3
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
85
85
---
---
85
85
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.3
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
2.6
2.6
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.3
5.7
13.6
14.0
6.8
6.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
13.3
9.1
8.3
12.8
13.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.1
9.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Section
MY1 MY2
1, U 000-
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
SectionCross,
MY1 MY2 MY3
(Riffle
MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7 Base
•r t s
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
556.0
556.0
549.9
549.9
547.9
547.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.8
13.9
12.7
12.3
13.7
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
150
150
150
150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4 1
2.3 1 1
1 1 1 1 1.4 1
1.4 1 1 1
1 1
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
17.5
15.7
11.0k13.7
10.9
10.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
12.2
14.5L
17.3
18.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
11.8Bankfull
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross Section
MY1 MY2
7, UTSF Reach 2 (Pool) �&L
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross Section
MY1 MY2 MY3
UTIC (Pool��JNL.
MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7 Base
cross section 9, UTlC (Rlffle��
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
547.0
547.0
572.5
572.5
572.4
572.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
12.0
7.6
6.6
9.8
9.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.6
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.7
14.0
7.7
5.5
4.9
4.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
10.3
7.6
7.9
19.4
20.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---6.1
6.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS 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
564.2
563.9
563.9
563.0
563.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.7
10.5
5.5
6.5
6.2
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
60
60
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.3
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
8.6
6.3
2.3
2.7
3.8
3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
17.4
13.2
15.7
10.1
13.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
10.8
9.3
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NONE&--
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Base
1.2
Cross Section
MY1 MY2
13. UT3R t
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
1.0
MY7 Base
1.0
MY1 MY2
1.0
t
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
1.0
�e
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY
based on fixed bankfull elevation
562.8
562.8
553.8
553.8
553.6
553.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
3.9
5.7
6.4
6.3
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
25
25
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.6
1.4
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1.6
1.1
3.6
2.4
4.5
3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
13.0
9.1
17.3
8.7
11.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
14.1
15.5
4.3
3.9
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.0
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
552.6
8.0
---
1.0
1.7
7.9
8.0
1.0
MYl MY2
552.6
7.6
---
1.1
1.7
8.0
7.2
---
1.0
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7 Base
552.5
8.1
100
0.5
0.9
4.0
16.6
12.3
1.0
MY1 MY2
552.5
8.1
100
0.4
0.8
3.5
18.7
12.4
1.0
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT South Fork Reach 1
(--): Data was not provided

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT South Fork Reach 2
(--): Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UTSC
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2B
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT3B
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT4B
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UTS
(---): Data was not provided

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 1, UTSF Reach 1
107+14 Riffle
569
568
x
567
c
0 atm 0/
> 566
v
w
565
564
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) s MY1 (9/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.7
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.3
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 2, UTSF Reach 1
107+47 Pool
14.0
570
10.8
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
569
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
568
8.3
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
567
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
C
O
566
v
565
564
563
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) t MY1 (9/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
14.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.8
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
8.3
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 3, UTSF Reach 1
118+36 Riffle
6.2
559
9.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.1
558
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
557
c 556
0
IT
w 555
554
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
0 MYO (2/2016) +MYI (9/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 4, UTSF Reach 1
118+63 Pool
559
558
557
C 556
0
w 555
554
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) 4 MYl (9/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.9
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
15.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 5, UTSF Reach 2
126+80 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
553
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
552
551
x
c 550
0
w 549
548
547
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) tMY1(9/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
11.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.3
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 6, UTSF Reach 2
130+09 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
551
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
14.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
550
549
x
c 548
0
-
M 547
546
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) s MY1(9/2016) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
14.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
18.9
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 7, UTSF Reach 2
130+39 Pool
550
549
548
Oftx
c 547
0
M 546
545
544
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2016) s MY1(9/2016) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
14.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.0
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
13.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
10.3
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 8, UT1C
201+44 Pool
576
575
574
x
c 573
0
w 572
571
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) s MY1 (9/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.6
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
8.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
7.9
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 9, UT1C
201+61 Riffle
4.6
575
9.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
10.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
20.7
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
574
573
c
ago
0
572
vOft
w
Oe
571
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
i MYO (2/2016) 4 MY1 (9/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
10.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
20.7
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 10, UT2B
300+26 Pool
567
566
10.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
17.4
width -depth ratio
565
x
c
i
---
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
564
0
w 563
562
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) tMY1(9/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
17.4
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 11, UT2B
300+36 Riffle
567
566
6.5
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
6.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
565
x
c 564
0
Pilo 0601!1
w 563
562
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) s MY1 (9/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.5
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
6.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 12, UT3B
400+77 Pool
566
565
6.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
564
F
c 563
0
w 562
561
-
— J]
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 13, UT3B
400+91 Riffle
565
3.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
4.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3
hyd radi (ft)
13.0
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.5
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
564
-
563
-
x
c
0
562
v
w
561
-
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
4.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3
hyd radi (ft)
13.0
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.5
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 14, UT4B
500+26 Riffle
557
556
6.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
555
hyd radi (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
x
c 554
0
w 553
552
551
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) s MY1 (9/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 15, UT4B
500+38 Pool
557
556
5.7
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
11.0
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
555
x
c 554
0
w 553
552
551
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) s MY1 (9/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.7
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
11.0
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 16, UTS
606+30 Pool
555
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
554
553
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
_
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
7.2
c 552
0
w 551
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
550
549
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
i MYO (2/2016) 0 MY1 (9/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
8.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
7.2
width -depth ratio
---
W flood prone area (ft)
---
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 17, UT5
606+45 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
555
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
554
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
553
x
c 552
0
w 551
550
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) tMY1(9/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
18.7
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
14.1
25
25
25
25
25
D100 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
29
17[avel
Medium
0.25
0.50
r
2
2
2
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
34
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
60
50
34
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
M
2
2
2
36
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
37
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
1
3
3
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
4
4
44
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
48
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
2
6
6
57
Coarse
22.6
32
8
1
9
9
66
Very Coarse
32
45
9
1
10
10
76
Very Coarse
45
64
8
2
10
10
86
Small
64
90
6
1
7
7
93
Small
90
128
4
4
4
97
Large
128
180
2
2
2
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
C
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
2.37
D50 =
14.1
D%0. =
59.6
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
256.0
C
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Silt/Clay
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Sand
Individual Class Percent
0
100
90
gp
17[avel
bble
r
a ro
70
70
m
�
`w
60
60
50
M
40
u
50
m
30
2
20
40
10
30
0
OOb'LO1�h O.L�9 �y
1 ti ,y`b P yto 0 ,til ti� ��d ,,,'L Py toP �O ,y,1W y�0 ,Ly�o 3�ti ytiti yO'1,P ryOO� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-1- MYO-02/2016 MYl-09/2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
`w
60
a
50
M
40
u
m
30
2
20
10
0
OOb'LO1�h O.L�9 �y
1 ti ,y`b P yto 0 ,til ti� ��d ,,,'L Py toP �O ,y,1W y�0 ,Ly�o 3�ti ytiti yO'1,P ryOO� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
in max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
10.43
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
3
4a
�
`a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
h
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
4
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
7
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
11
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
17
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
27
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
39
Coarse
1 22.6
32
14
14
53
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
67
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
81
Small
64
90
10
10
91
Small
90
128
5
5
96
Large
128
180
4
4
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
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
1000 10000
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
10.43
Di5 =
20.14
D50 =
29.7
D84 =
70.9
D95 =
119.3
D100 =
180.0 7-1
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0 +--
0.01
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
1000 10000
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
4a
�
`a
60
a
h
50
M
40
u
30
m
7
v
20
30
0
oo��otiyh otih o`'
ti ti ti� a h6 ro titi y� ��� 3ti a5 �° oo q%yytiyoyo o�e tp9�
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
6.40
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
8
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
4a
�
`a
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
9
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
9
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
10
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
13
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
8
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
32
OO�'LO1.�h O.th Oy
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
39
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016
Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
55
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
68
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
84
Small
64
90
it
11
95
Small
90
128
5
5
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium512
Large/Very Large
362
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
6.40
Di5 =
18.55
D50 =
28.7
D84 =
64.0
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
128.0 7-1
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
4a
�
`a
60
a
h
50
M
40
u
30
m
7
v
20
10
0
OO�'LO1.�h O.th Oy
1 'L ,L� b h6 4 ,1 ,(o �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �O y,LW y�0 �y0 ��ti ytiti yO.lb �ObO �9�
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.13
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
13
15
15
15
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
16
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
2
2
22
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
26
u,
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
3
5
5
31
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
33
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
4
37
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
3
4
4
41
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
S
6
6
47
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
S3
Coarse
22.6
32
4
2
6
6
59
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
64
Very Coarse
45
64
10
0
10
10 1
74
Small
64
90
10
2
12
12
86
Small
90
128
9
1
10
10
96
Large
1 128
180
2
1
3
3
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
................................................
Small
2S6
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
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 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.13
Das =
4.73
D50 =
14.6
D%0. =
85.0
D95 =
123.6
D100 =
256.0
C
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SiltlClay
Sand
Individual Class Percent
100
90
avel
bble
90
r
80
gp
a r
70
m
`w
60
a
50
60
u,
40
U
50
m
Z
30
9
40
10
30
0
oOb'Loy�h O,L�9 05
20
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-1- MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
`w
60
a
50
u,
40
U
m
Z
30
9
20
10
0
oOb'Loy�h O,L�9 05
1 ti ,y`b P yto 0 ,til ti� ��d 3ti Py 0�' 0� yti0 tiq�0 �y0 3toti yyti y�1,P ry�0� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
in max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
26.23
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
56.7
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
4a
�
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
h
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
3
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
9
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
11
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
13
Coarse
1 22.6
32
7
7
20
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
33
Very Coarse
45
64
26
26
59
Small
64
90
22
22
81
Small
90
128
15
15
96
Large
128
180
4
4
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
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , iT. � ,,., I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
26.23
Di5 =
46.24
D50 =
56.7
D84 =
96.6
D95 =
125.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , iT. � ,,., I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section S
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
4a
�
60
a
h
50
M
40
u
30
m
7
v
20
30
0
oO�'Loy.�h O.lh Oh
'Y 'L ,L0 b 56 4 y1 y6 �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �p y,LW $ �y0 ��ti yyti y�.lb ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
in max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
19.02
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
45.0
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
1
1
1
4a
�
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
5
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
11
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
15
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
17
Coarse
22.6
32
12
1 12
29
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
50
Very Coarse
45
64
27
27
77
Small
64
90
13
13
90
Small
90
128
10
10
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIII
...........
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512 1
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
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)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.02
Di5 =
35.27
D50 =
45.0
D84 =
76.9
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
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)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
4a
�
60
a
h
50
M
40
u
30
m
7
v
20
30
0
QOC3 y.�h Q;wh Qh,L�
b 56 4 y1 ,�/o �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �O 1,1<b y�0 ryy0 ��ti yyti y�.lb �ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT1C, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.15
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
12
15
15
15
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
15
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
3
4
4
19
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
25
u,
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
2
2
2
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
4
7
7
37
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
4
41
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
47
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
4
7
7
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
10
10
10
64
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
10
74
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
14
88
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
92
Small
64
90
5
5
5
97
Small
90
128
2
2
2
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
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
Total
60
40
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
U= 40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-1- MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.15
D35 =
5.09
D50 =
12.9
D%0. =
40.8
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
U= 40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-1- MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
UT1C, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
`w
60
a
50
u,
40
U
m
Z
30
s
20
10
0
OOb'LO1�h O•t) 05
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
in max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
7.69
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4a
�
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
h
1
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
4
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
9
9
17
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
16
16
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
21
21
63
Coarse
1 22.6
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
83
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
93
Small
64
90
6
6
99
Small
90
128
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
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i - 1 I i y I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ii I I I I I I I I i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
7.69
Di5 =
13.58
D50 =
18.2
D84 =
46.6
D95 =
71.7
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i - 1 I i y I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I ii I I I I I I I I i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
4a
�
60
a
h
50
M
40
u
30
m
7
v
20
30
0
000tiotiyh otih o`'
ti ti ti� a h6 ro titi y� ��� 3ti a5 �a oo tiyw tiro ryy� ��ti yytiyoyaoae X90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
14
26
40
39
39
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
39
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
8
15
15
54
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
55
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
6
6
61
w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
62
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
63
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
66
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
3
4
4
70
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
3
3
73
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
1
3
3
75
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
oOb'Lo1,�h O•Ly 05
1
1
76
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
4
1
5
5
81
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
83
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
4
87
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
92
Small
64
90
4
4
4
96
Small
90
128
2
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
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
Total
51
51
102
100
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT213, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-D2/2016 MYl-09/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.2
D%0. =
33.9
D95 =
81.9
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT213, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-D2/2016 MYl-09/2016
UT213, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
60
w
a
h
50
40
u
m
30
2
20
10
0
oOb'Lo1,�h O•Ly 05
1 'L ,y`b P y(� 0 titi ti� ��d 3ti Py 0P �O yy<b y�0 �y0 3�'L yy'L y�,l,P ryO� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY -2/2016 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT26, Cross Section 11
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.22
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
9
9
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
17
Medium
0.25
0.50
17
Coarse
0.5
1.0
17
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
17
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
18
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
22
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
25
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
37
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
47
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
55
Coarse
1 22.6
32
8
8
63
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
71
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
81
Small
64
90
9
9
90
Small
90
128
6
6
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
I
Sma I
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
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0
UT26, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-OJ/JOl6 M11-09/,016
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
`a
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
v 20
10
0
UT26, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
oOpo1.L5 o y0 ph 'Y 'L ,L0 b y� 'b y1 y6 �p q% 'p �o �qtiyyti y�.lb �O0 'CO
0MVO-02/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
Myl-09/2016
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.22
Di5 =
10.04
D50 =
18.2
D84 =
71.7
D95 =
120.7
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0
UT26, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-OJ/JOl6 M11-09/,016
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
`a
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
v 20
10
0
UT26, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
oOpo1.L5 o y0 ph 'Y 'L ,L0 b y� 'b y1 y6 �p q% 'p �o �qtiyyti y�.lb �O0 'CO
0MVO-02/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
14
19
33
33
33
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
33
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
1
3
3
36
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
37
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
8
8
45
u,
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
40
2
2
47
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
2
3
3
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
4
5
5
55
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
57
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
6
6
63
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
3
4
4
67
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
69
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
1
7
7
76
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
78
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
86
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
90
Small
64
90
6
6
6
96
Small
90
128
2
2
2
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
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
Total
60
40
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UT36, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-D2/2016 MYl-09/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.20
D50 =
2.8
D%0. =
41.3
D95 =
85.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UT36, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-D2/2016 MYl-09/2016
UT313, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
`w
60
a
50
u,
40
U
m
Z
30
9
2
20
To
10
0
OOb'LO1�h O•Ly 05
1 ti ,y'b P yto 0 ,til ti� ��d ,>,'L Py ]off' X10 yti0 tiq�0 tihfo 3d'L ytiti y�1,P ry�0� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT36, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
S
25
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
8
38
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
10
48
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
55
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
57
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
63
Coarse
1 22.6
32
8
8
71
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
85
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
95
Small
64
90
95
Small
90
128
3
3
98
Large
128
180
2
2
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
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT3B, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-OJ/JOl6 MVl-09/,016
UT36, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
7
v 20
Z
30
0
oO�'Lo1.�5 oy0 Oy 1 'L ,L0 b 56 4 ,y1 y6 �,L�o ,�'L p5 �P �O 1,1,'6 1�0 �y0 ��ti y1ti Ne ObO tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
4.94
D50 =
8.8
D84 =
43.9
D95 =
64.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT3B, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-OJ/JOl6 MVl-09/,016
UT36, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
7
v 20
Z
30
0
oO�'Lo1.�5 oy0 Oy 1 'L ,L0 b 56 4 ,y1 y6 �,L�o ,�'L p5 �P �O 1,1,'6 1�0 �y0 ��ti y1ti Ne ObO tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
2
29
31
31
31
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
31
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
7
7
38
Medium
0.25
0.50
m
�
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
42
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
M
1
1
1
43
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
43
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
45
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
47
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
2
5
5
52
Particle Class Size (mm)
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
53
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
57
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
5
5
5
62
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
65
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
12
77
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
9
86
Small
64
90
9
9
9
95
Small
90
128
3
3
3
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
1
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
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
40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UT46, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.19
D50 =
6.9
D%0. =
59.2
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
3 50
E
40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UT46, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
UT413, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
`
60
w
a
50
M
40
u
m
30
2
20
10
0
oOb'Lo1,�h O,Ly 05
1 'L ,y`b P y(� 0 titi ti� �,ti�o qti Py 0P �O y,1W y�0 �y0 3�'L yy'L y�,l,P ryO� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MY -2/2016 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT46, Cross Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
5.15
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
9
9
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
11
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
13
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
17
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
24
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
30
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
54
Coarse
22.6
32
17
17
71
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
83
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
94
Small
64
90
5
5
99
Small
90
128
99
Large
128
180
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
................................................
Small
256
362
100
I
Sma I
Medium512
Large/Very Large
362
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
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)
� My0-07/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UT46, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
`a
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
7
v 20
30 —
0
oO�'Loy.�h O.lh �h 1 'L ,L� b h6 4 y1 y(o �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �O 1,1<b y�0 ryy0 ��ti yyti Ne�ObO 'CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
5.15
Di5 =
13.27
D50 =
20.5
D84 =
46.5
D95 =
68.5
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
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)
� My0-07/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UT46, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
`a
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
7
v 20
30 —
0
oO�'Loy.�h O.lh �h 1 'L ,L� b h6 4 y1 y(o �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �O 1,1<b y�0 ryy0 ��ti yyti Ne�ObO 'CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 Myl-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT5, 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
19.0
30
30
30
30
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
33
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
m
�
37
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
40
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
M
40
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
42
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
44
To
_
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
45
oOb'Loy,�h O,tih Oh
Medium
8.0
11.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
1
1
1
46
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
4
4
4
52
Coarse
22.6
32
6
1
7
7
59
Very Coarse
32
45
11
1
12
12
71
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
15
86
Small
64
90
7
7
7
93
Small
90
128
6
6
6
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
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
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
5 50
E
40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UTS, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.18
D50 =
19.0
D%0. =
61.1
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
1 180.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
5 50
E
40
y 30
2
a 20
10
UTS, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-02/2016 MY1-09/2016
UTS, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
�
`w
60
a
50
M
40
u
m
30
2
20
To
_
10
0
oOb'Loy,�h O,tih Oh
'v ti ,y!b P y(� 0 titi ti� ��d qti Py 0P �O y,1W y�0 �y0 3�'L yy'L y�,l,P ryO� ��b
Particle Class Size (mm)
Y -/M0 MY1-09/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT5, Cross Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
in max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
14.57
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
28.4
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
3
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
7
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
19
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
35
Coarse
1 22.6
32
23
23
58
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
79
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
90
Small
64
90
8
8
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
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
v 20
30
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UT5, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
oO�' It, O.lh Oh 'Y 'L ,L0 b 56 4 y1 ,�/o �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �O 1,1<b y�0 ryy0 ��ti yyti y�.lb �ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 -Myl-09/2016
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
14.57
Di5 =
22.60
D50 =
28.4
D84 =
52.8
D95 =
79.2
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
C 70
4a
� 60
a 50
h
M 40
u
m 30
v 20
30
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-0J/JOl6 MVl-09/016
UT5, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
oO�' It, O.lh Oh 'Y 'L ,L0 b 56 4 y1 ,�/o �,L�o ,�'L p5 raP �O 1,1<b y�0 ryy0 ��ti yyti y�.lb �ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MVO-02/2016 -Myl-09/2016

Table 13. Bank Pin Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT South Fork Reach 2 - Cross Section 4 Pool (Station 118+45)

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016

Stream Flow Gage Plot
Maney Farm (DMS Project No. 96314)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Maney Farm: Stream Flow Gage for UTSF Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
560.0
4.0
559.5
3.5
3.0
559.0
558.5
2.5
a
558.0
AwALc
-
2.0
c
m
3
M
ce
557.5
1.5
1.0
557.0
556.5
"
0.5
::::u
.11.
1 .
A I 1
110
I
I �I
I
556.0- ,0.0
C -0 > c on n > u
Li N Q 5 N 0 O S Q Z
Rainfall UTSF Reach 1 Water Depth — — Thalweg • Bankfull