20140338 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171206

[i lei ZIkLei Oki IZLYwa_1.W
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
►TIF -AZ MEAN AlI All k1[0L1%flei,11.19344kI
Chatham County, NC
NCDFQ Contract 005793
DMS ID No. 96314
Data Collection Period: March - September 2017
Draft Submission Date: November 14, 2017
Final Submission Date: December 6, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
INC7k� I
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
wON
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 6, 2017
Jeff Schaffer
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 �002
RE: Monitoring Year 2 Report for Marley Farm Mitigap�r{
Cape Fear River Basin — CU# 03030002
Chatham County, North Carolina
Contract No. 005793
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
We have reviewed the comments on the Monitoring Year 2 Report for the above referenced project
dated November 29, 2017, and have revised the report based on these comments. The revised
documents are submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your
convenience, the comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
1) DMS received the digital submissions on November 14, 2017. The digital data and drawings have
been reviewed and determined to meet DMS requirements. However, DMS is calling to your
attention that while Wildlands did provide reach breakdowns and mitigation approaches for each
reach, in future submittals, please provide the reach lengths as required by contract and stated in
DMS's Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to EEP
version 1.0 (03/27/08).
An updated stream alignment GIS file has been submitted that includes reach lengths.
2) In paragraph one of the Executive Summary, paragraph two of Section 1 and Table 1, the assets and
credits do not match up with the approved mitigation plan. Specifically, this DMS comment refers
to:
a) the total stream credits
b) Reach UT 2A
c) Reach UT313
d) Component lengths (If) for Enhancement I and Enhancement II at the bottom of Table 1
Paragraph one of the Excecutive Summary, paragraph two of Section 1, and Table 1 have been
updated to match the assets in the mitigation plan.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
W wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

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 6,092 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams in Chatham County, NC. The Site is
expected to generate 4,922 stream mitigation units (SMUs) by closeout. The Site is located northwest of
Pittsboro, NC and north of Silk Hope, NC in the Cape Fear River Basin 8 -Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002 (Figure 1). The Site is also within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (H UC
03030002050050), which flows into Cane Creek and eventually into the Haw River. The streams are all
unnamed tributaries (UT) to South Fork Cane Creek (SF) and are referred to herein as UTSF, UT1, UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5.
The Site is located within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) which is discussed in DMS's
2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The RBRP identifies the need to improve
aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good riparian conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. Prior to the restoration activities, the Site was maintained as cattle pasture and is one of the
51 animal operations referenced in the RBRP. The Site drains to the Haw River, which flows to B. Everett
Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). The 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates
that Jordan Lake is a drinking water supply (WS -IV), a primary area for recreation, and a designated
Nutrient Sensitive Water which calls for reduction of non -point source pollution. The water supply
watershed boundary for Jordan Lake is just six miles downstream from the Site. The Cape Fear
watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Wildlife Action
Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the Wildlife Action Plan
indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration activities at the Site directly
addressed non -point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable stream
banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 16.69 acres of land under permanent conservation
easement.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) were developed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the Cape Fear RBRP plan. The project goals
included:
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in reduced pollutant inputs including fecal
coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous;
• Stabilize eroding stream banks resulting in reduced inputs of sediment into streams;
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions;
• Improve instream habitat resulting in improved aquatic communities within the streams;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains so that floodplains are inundated relatively frequently
resulting in groundwater recharge, floodplain wetland and vernal pool inundation, and reduced
shear stress on channels during larger flow events;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest resulting in stream shading, reduced thermal
loads, woody input sources, and reduced flood flow velocities allowing for pollutants and
sediments to settle; and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses therefore ensuring that development
and agricultural damage is prevented.
The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing numerous ecological benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others,
such as pollutant removal and reduced sediment loading have farther -reaching effects. In addition,
protected parcels downstream of this site promote cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-1

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 Year2 (MY2) assessments and site visits were completed between March and October, 2017
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream
success criteria for MY2. The overall average stem density for the standard planting zones at the Site is
453 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. Multiple bankfull events have been recorded since project construction and
therefor the Site has met the Monitoring Year 7 hydrology success criteria in which two or more bankfull
events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches. 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 137 consecutive days
during the MY2 monitoring period and therefor met the established hydrologic criteria.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-2

MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-4
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-4
Project Component/ Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-6
Table 2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-6
Project Contact Table
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-6
Table 12a -g
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-6
Cross Section Plots
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-7
Table 13
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-7
Hydrology Summary Data
1.2.6
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-7
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-7
Stream Flow Gage Plot
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/ Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
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
Monthly Rainfall Data
Stream Flow Gage Plot
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-3

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Maney Farm Mitigation Project (Site) is located in northwestern Chatham County within the Cape
Fear River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030002). The Site is located off Center Church Road northwest
of Pittsoboro, and north of Silk Hope, North Carolina. The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural
and wooded land. The drainage area for 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 UT1 (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 of 6,092 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream
channels. The riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water
quality. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in January 2016. Planting
and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in February 2016. A conservation
easement (16.69 ac; Deed Book 1537, Page 876) has been recorded and is in place along the stream and
riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity within a tract owned by the M. Darryl Lindley Revocable
Trust. The project is expected to provide 4,922 stream mitigation units (SMU's) by closeout.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams and vegetative communities on the Site had been severely
impacted due to livestock having direct access to the streams and riparian zones. Table 4 in Appendix 1
and Tables 10a through 10d in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the 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.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-4

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
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 aquatic communities in
Improve instream habitat
restored/enhanced streams. Add woody
materials to channel beds. Construct
project streams.
pools of varying depth.
Reconnect channels with
Raise local groundwater
floodplains so that
Reconstructing stream channels with
elevations. Inundate floodplain
floodplains are inundated
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
wetlands and vernal pools.
relatively frequently
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on channels
during larger flow events.
Create and improve forested
riparian habitats. Provide a
canopy to shade streams and
Restore and enhance native
Plant native tree and understory species
reduce thermal loadings. Create a
floodplain forest
in riparian zone.
source of woody inputs for
streams. Reduce flood flow
velocities on floodplain and allow
pollutants and sediment to settle.
Ensure that development and
Permanently protect the
Establish a conservation easement on
agricultural uses that would
project site from harmful
the site.
damage the site or reduce the
uses
benefits of the project are
prevented.
The design streams were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed conditions
and trajectory. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the DMS in August 2015.
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.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-5

1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY2 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 per 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 are no performance criteria for the stems established within the supplemental planting
zones, these areas are monitored to document survival rates of these species.
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in August 2017. The 2017 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average stem density of 453 stems per acre within the standard planting zones, which is well above
the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3 and approximately 30% less than the
baseline density recorded (647 stems per acre). There was an average of 11 stems per plot as compared
to an average of 16 stems per plot in MYO. All 11 of the plots are on track to meet the success criteria
required for MY7 (Table 9a, Appendix 3).
Stem densities were monitored in the three supplemental planting zone plots to document annual
survival rates within these zones. The overall average survival rate within these plots was 46% since
establishment, indicating a significant mortality rate since the MY1 monitoring (Table 7b, Appendix 3).
The survival rates of the species selected for these supplemental planting zones ranged from 76%
(Carpinus caroliniana) to 0% (Viburnum prunifolium) in MY2 (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
Based on results from the supplemental planting zone plots, significant declines in survival rates
occurred between MY1 and MY2 for the majority of these species. While these monitoring plots are not
associated with the site success criteria, the high mortality rates are noted as an area of concern that
will continue to be monitored and documented.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in March 2017. All streams within the site are stable.
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report 1-6

In general, cross sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio,
or width -to -depth ratio. The deposition noted in MY1 for the pools on UT1C, UT213, UT313, and UT413
have stabilized and cross-sectional areas fall within the range of the design parameters. Slight increases
in bank height ratios for some cross sections are likely the result of the established vegetation causing
some increases in deposition along the bankfull benches. Bank height ratios fall within the range for
success stated in the mitigation plan.
A bank pin array was established on UTSF Reach 1 to monitor potential meander bend bank erosion at
cross section 4. No changes in exposed length of bank pins were observed during the MY2 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 MY2.
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. Bankfull events were recorded on all restoration reaches
during MY1 and MY2 resulting in attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria. In addition,
the presence of baseflow must be documented within the intermittent reach of UTSF Reach 1 for a
minimum of 30 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 47% of the monitoring period (137 consecutive days and 191 total 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 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 2 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. Multiple bankfull events have been
documented within the restored stream reaches at the Site in both MY1 and MY2, therefor the Site has
met the Monitoring Year 7 hydrology success criteria. Additionally, the flow gage on UTSF Reach 1
recorded baseflow for 137 consecutive days during the MY2 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 2 Annual Report 1-7

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 2 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 2 Annual Report 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

= Project Location
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
r• —•
�•—• ! Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
m
r�ioa�Y!r, rti,y
k
" eE'
•03(1300030700101
4
03030002050050
x` l-Dhnm
:u;
3 +
ro
Mussell Rs1
kjek Crook
4L",W,NC"E _
CHATkAM --—— — — — — ——
a'wCa n,p
..yo
03030002050070
VI d
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.
WILDLANDS MkEmGINFF.RING
E ppm 03 rk I�ka
I
�'irelr
,r#JJ
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 I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
Chatham County, NC

Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Reach 2
Stream Enhancement II [
�.....� � _ • •. �' � .�. Non -Project Streams
UT4B '
UT2A
WILDLANDS rj�
fmGINFF,RiNG
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
0 250 500 Feet DMS Project No. 96314
I i i i I Monitoring Year 2- 2017
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Mitigation Credits
Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Stream Riparian Wetland NontftN�/�A]
Type R RE R RE R Totals 4,922 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
As -Built Stationing Existing Footage/ Credits
Reach ID Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage/ Acreage Mitigation Ratio
/Location Acreage (SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
UTSF- Reach 1
100+00- 108+39
108+80-121+63
2,298
Pi
Restoration
2,122
1:1
2,122
UTSF - Reach 2
121+63 -132+24
1,209
P1
Restoration
1,061
1:1
1,061
UT1A
250+00-253+90
390
Ell
Restoration
390
2.5:1
156
UT1B
199+08-200+00
101
Ell
Restoration
92
2.5:1
37
UT1C
200+00-202+60
166
EI
Restoration
260
1.5:1
173
UT2A
295+15 - 300+00
485
Ell
Restoration
484
2.5:1
194
UT2B
300+00-300+74
44
EI
Restoration
73
1.5:1
49
UT3A
395+79-400+00
418
Ell
Restoration
421
2.5:1
168
UT3B
400+00-401+63
84
EI
Restoration
162
1.5:1
108
UT4A
497+87-500+00
217
Ell
Restoration
212
2.5:1
85
UT4B
500+00-501+38
40
EI
Restoration
138
1.5:1
92
LITS
602+00-608+77
778
Pi
Restoration
677
1:1
677
Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for Monitoring Year 2 after discusions with NC IRT.
Component Summation Am
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
(acres) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,860 -
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
633
Enhancement II
1,599
Creation
Preservation
-
High Quality Preservation
- -
Credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream centerlines for Monitoring Year 2 after discusions with NC IRT.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
July 2014
7Design
August 2015
ction Plans July 2014
August 2015
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)
Stream Survey February 2016
April 2016
Vegetation Survey February 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey September 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey September 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey March 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
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 2 - 2017
Name
Project Information
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
County
Chatham County
Project Area (acres)
16.69
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project
35°50'18.00" N, 79° 20'38.00"'A
Watershed Summary Information
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
D W R Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
211
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
r69—%_Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 28%– Forested/Scrubland; 3%- Developed
Parameters
Reach Summary Information MEN
UTSF-RI UTSF-R2 LIT1A LIT113 LIT1C LIT2A/B UT3A/B LIT4A/B LITS
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
2,122 1,061 390 92 260 557 583 350 677
Drainage Area (acres)
115 211 16 4 19 11 10 20 76
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
27/37 37 21 25.5 28 26/30 20.75 22.5 32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type)
I/P
P
I
I
I
I/P
I
I
P
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
II/IV
II/IV
III
I V
II/IV
II/V
V/VI
II/V
II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Cid Silt Loam, Cid-Lignum Complex, Nanford-Badin Complex, Georgeville Silty Clay 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 SHPO on
March 24, 2014 indicating they
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
were not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected
by the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(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

:UTSF � l �
Reach 2'
s
UT4B
r.
UT4A F d
5 y p
i
r !Y
Conservation Easement
I -
Culvert Crossing
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
UT5 Cross Section
Bank Pins
n Photo Point
® Barometric Gage
® Stream Gage
® Flow Gage
UTSF
Reach 1 Rain Gage
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
Meets Criteria
UT2A
+ - UT26 -
JF ;,�- W�i
UTSF f f
Reach
UT1c
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS rk Monitoring Year 2-2017
Fr+G I N E k R i NG 0 250 500 Feet
IIIA Chatham County, NC

UT38 -.
i 27
0.
I
UT3A
1
iFirtl ri i 2 r UT28
-` �4
Reach 1 3
Conservation Easement
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot , "3A � }
Culvert Crossing
Stream Restoration `
Stream Enhancement I l
Stream Enhancement II UT1C F
f 21L 1
Cross Sections `� ® yy,.# 12
Stationing
® Barometric Gage i �
U_Ti&
® Stream Gages
Rain Gage ism.
i
® Flow Gage i� _
una i �r
170''
z�, Photo Points'
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY2 . r Y.
Meets Criteria
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLAIVDS ,` Monitoring Year 2-2017
Fr+GIhlEk RING 0 50 100 Feet
Chatham County, NC
I I I I I

i 16:
5r 1� 14
Ir
.. � 13
UT4A!', a .
*�`
W.1
�
' !.
� ♦. 11 Z
Reach 1
WILDLANDS rk
ENO N F F. R i NO
.t
*:� :w'"� •�� +� .I i.f �•� 1* _��j��'": � � - ;.7;17:
;t'-
Ar
4 7-
�Y f 4.0-:_
If
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
1 1 1 1 1 Chatham County, NC
Conservation Easement
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
10
Cross Sections
' 4
Bank Pins
Stationing
® Stream Gages
.� 9. '.
Q Photo Points
Y
6
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY2
Meets Criteria
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
1 1 1 1 1 Chatham County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
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
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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
n
bend Rulweg
37
37
100%
Thameander
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 undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
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 >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
14
14
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
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
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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
bend Run
16
16
100%
Thameander
lweg 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 undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
t
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 >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UIT1C 1256 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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%
Thaat downstream of
lweg centering
meander bend Glide
8
8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, 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
a
Structures
ia. 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 >_ 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 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2B (70 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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
bend Run
2
2
100%
Thameander
lweg 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. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, 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
a
Structures
ia. 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 16%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 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 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UIT3B (155 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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
bend Run
4
4
100%
Thameander
lweg 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. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, 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
a
Structures
ia. 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 >_ 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 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UIT4B (133 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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
bend Run
4
4
100%
Thameander
lweg 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. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, 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
a
Structures
ia. 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 >_ 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 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
LITS (680 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
S. 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
n
bend Rulweg
16
16
100%
Thameander
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 undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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
t
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 >_ 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 2 - 2017
Planted Acreaee 16
Easement Acreage 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Numberof
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)
Numberof
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

UTSF R1— Photo Point 4 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 4 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UTSF R1— Photo Point 5 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 5 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UTSF R1— Photo Point 6 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 6 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1

- y ;• � �' � k'� Y -r;� �� i„4._ '••-��.. ��' ;. - A .`.' . '� i. �a ., k ga. A.,:. ” ��5�
pj
�f ,L
y w a , P R'
'
Ar
ela b /j•Y �r
�t
Photo '• •• •stream (0310912017) UTSF RI — Ph• • Point 8 looking••wnstream (03109120
klv
9
3GVdp
�r � G.

UTSF R1— Photo Point 10 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 10 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UTSF R1— Photo Point 11 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R1— Photo Point 11 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UTSF R1— Photo Point 12 looking upstream (03/09/2017) UTSF R1— Photo Point 12 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

UTSF R2 — Photo Point 13 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 13 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UTSF R2 — Photo Point 14 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 14 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UTSF R2 — Photo Point 15 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 15 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1

UTSF R2 — Photo Point 16 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UTSF R2 — Photo Point 16 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UT1A — Photo Point 17 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT1A — Photo Point 17 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UT1A— Photo Point 18 looking upstream (03/09/2017) UT1A— Photo Point 18 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

UT1B — Photo Point 19 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT113 — Photo Point 19 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UT1C — Photo Point 20 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT1C — Photo Point 20 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UT1C — Photo Point 21 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT1C — Photo Point 21 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

UT2A— Photo Point 22 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT2A— Photo Point 22 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UT2A— Photo Point 23 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT2A— Photo Point 23 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UT213 — Photo Point 24 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT213 — Photo Point 24 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
.7 .
UT213 — Photo Point 24 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT213 — Photo Point 24 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

UT3A— Photo Point 25 looking upstream (03/09/2017) UT3A— Photo Point 25 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UT3A— Photo Point 26 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT3A— Photo Point 26 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UT313 — Photo Point 27 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT313 — Photo Point 27 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

UT4A— Photo Point 28 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT4A— Photo Point 28 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UT4B — Photo Point 29 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT413 — Photo Point 29 looking downstream (03/09/2017)
UT5 — Photo Point 30 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT5 — Photo Point 30 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

UT5 — Photo Point 31 looking upstream (03/09/2017) 1 UT5 — Photo Point 31 looking downstream (03/09/2017) 1
UT5 — Photo Point 32 looking upstream (03/09/2017) I UT5 — Photo Point 32 looking downstream (03/09/2017)

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS

7 Arti
e41.
n
,TpM�, y.1 ■ (,. � ? f
1
r ::�'

VEGETATION PLOT 7 - (08/24/2017) 1 VEGETATION PLOT 8 - (08/24/2017) 1
VEGETATION PLOT 9 - (08/24/2017) 1 VEGETATION PLOT 10 - (08/24/2017)
VEGETATION PLOT 11- (08/24/2017) 1 VEGETATION PLOT 12 - (08/24/2017)

BOWL .

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 2 - 2017
Success Criteria
Plot Met (Y/N)
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 2 - 2017
Plot MYO Stems/Plot MY1 Stems/Plot MY2 Stems/Plot MY1 Survival (%) MY2 Survival (%)
MY3 Mean
Survival (%)
MY2 Mean
Survival (%)
12 16 13 5 81% 31%
83%
46%
13 16 15 10 94% 63%
14 16 12 7 75% 44%
Table 7c. Percent Survival by Species Table (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Scientific Name
Common Name
MYO Stems
MY1 Stems
MY2 Stems
MY1 Survival (%) MY2 Survival (%)
Aesculus pavia
Red buckeye
3
3
1
100% 33%
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
11
9
1
82% 9%
Calycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
6
4
2
67% 33%
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
17
16
13
94% 76%
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
JCoralberry
1 10
1 7 1
5
1 70% 1 50%
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black haw
1 1
1 1 1
0
1 100% 1 0%

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Report Prepared By
Carolyn Lanza
Date Prepared
8/29/2017
Database Name
Maney Farm MY2- cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
F:\Projects\005-02144 Maney Farm\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
CAROLYN
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
196314
Project Name
I Maney Farm
Description
JStream Mitigation
Sampled Plots
114

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 201
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 1
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation
PnoLS P -all
Plot 2
T
Vegetation Plot 3
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 4
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 5
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 6
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 7
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
2
1
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
2
3
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
7
7
7
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River birch
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
25
Calycanthusfloridus
Sweet -shrub
Calycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
7
7
7
10
10
10
13
13
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
34
3
3
19
6
6
20
20
36
10
2
2
3
2
2
2
6
6
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
15
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
4
4
10
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ulmus alata
Winged elm
Tree
1
2
Ulmus alata
Win ed elm
Ulmus rubra
Slippery elm
Tree
2
12
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery elm
Viburnum prunifolium
Black haw
Shrub/Tree
1
II
1
1
1
1
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
8
8
39
11
11
35
11
11
30
10
10
20
11
11
13
10
10
23
11
11
11
Stem count
14
Size (ares)
16
1
13
19
1
13
28
1
12
35
1
123
238
1
149
149
1
176
176
1
Size (ares)
Size (ACRES) 1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
11
0.02
11
0.02
11
0.02
Size (ACRES)
Species count 1
5 15
5
5
5
6
5
5
7
5
5
6
6
6
7
5
5
6
4
4
4
Species count
5
Stems per ACRE
6
324
1578
445
445
1416
445
445
1214
5
405
809
9
445
526
9
405
931
4
445
445
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017) 1 Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vegetation Plot 8
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 9
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 10
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 11
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (8/2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MYl (9/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
2
3
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
7
7
7
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
13
13
13
19
19
19
25
25
25
Calycanthusfloridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
7
7
7
10
10
10
13
13
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
15
3
3
20
36
36
139
35
35
35
36
36
36
Li uidambar st raciflua
Sweet um
Tree
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tulip poplar
Tree
2
2
2
7
7
7
16
16
16
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
3
3
3
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
11
38
38
44
37
37
37
37
37
37
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
15
15
15
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
15
15
21
15
15
15
16
16
16
Salix ni raBlack
willow
Shrub/Tree
1
Ulmus alata
Win ed elm
Tree
2
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery elm
Tree
1
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black haw
Shrub/Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Stem count
14
14
16
13
13
19
13
13
28
12
12
35
123
123
238
149
149
149
176
176
176
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.27
0.27
Species count
5
5
6
4
4
7
5
5
6
4
4
5
9-T
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
567
567
647
526
526
769
1 526
1 526
1 1,133
486
1 486
1 1,416
453
453
876
548
548
548
647
647
647
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by mor
Volunteers
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stems (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017) 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
MY2 (8/2017)
PnoLS P -all T
M (9/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Aesculus pavia
Red buckeye
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
11
11
11
Calycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
13
13
16
16
16
17
17
17
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Coralberry
Shrub
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
S
5
7
7
7
10
10
10
Viburnum prunifolium
IlBlack haw
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
Stem count
5
5
5
10 1
10
1 10
7 1
7 1
7
22
22
22
40
40
40
48
48
48
Size (ares)
1
1
1
3
3
3
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.07
Species count
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE 1
202
202
202
405
405
405
283
283
283
297
297
297
540
540
540
647
647
647
Supplemental planting zones are monitored to determine survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success.

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Marey Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
1T Snuth Fork Rnarhnc i and 7
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
UTSF Reach 1
Condition
UTSF Reach 2
Reference
Agony Acres UT1A-Reach 1
Reach
,UT to Cane Creek
UTSF Reach
1
Design
UTSF Reach
2
UTSF Reach
As-Built/Baseline
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
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 5.6
10.711.3
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
Medium Sand
1.4 1.9
Silt/Clay
--
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
8.4
1.0
10.4
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)
':::::::::.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'
•
9
50
9
40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0036 0.0274
0.0062 0.0258
--
0.0188
0.0704
0.0120
0.0505
0.0106
0.0447
0.0058
0.04320.0055
0.0326
Pool Length (R)
• ':.: • • • •:::::::
'.'.'.'.'.'.':.:: • • • • •
_-
---
---
---
12
47
23
50
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.5 1.8
1.8 2
2.5
1.82.3
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 (ft)
Pattern
Channel Bel ldth(ft)
5 42
10 37
21 93
102
15
85
19
108
24
56
37
54
Radius of Cuivature(it)
4 25
5 13
14 60
23
38
17
55
22
70
9
36
17
28
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.3 2.1
1.1 1.6
1.5 5.8
2.0
3.1
1.8
5.8
1.8
5.8
1.0
4.1
1.6
2.6
Meander Length (ft)
18 100
21 59
29
156
36
198
68
151
110
144
Meander Width Ratio
1.6 3.5ill
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%
soon-
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
21/13/64/2/0/0
28/10/56/6/0/0
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d 100
SCNFS/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 4.8
3.4 3.6
2.2 2.4
3.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.6
2.6
2.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
N/A
19.6 19.3 25.3 40.0
• 1,720 • • 910 •
19.0
43
22
4.8
1,720
8.0
6.9
29.0
67
34
910
11.0
19.0
1,720
29.0
910
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,298
1,209
--
--
2,163
1,061
2,185
1,077
Sinuosity
1.34
1.33
1.35
1.40
1.20
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
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 2 - 2017
UT1C and UT26
Parameter
Gage
UT1C
UT2B
UTto Varnals Creek
UT1C
UT2B
UT1C
UT2B
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.1
2.6
9.3
10.5
8.1
4.0
9.8
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.3
4.4
20
64
18 1
41
9
F 20
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.5
1.5
1.7
0.9 1
1.2
0.5 1
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
N/A
2.1
1.1
10.3
12.3
5.2
1.5
4.9
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
8.1
6.2
8.1
9.3
13.0
11.0
19.4
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.7
1.9
6.1
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
6.1
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
2.3
--
5.4
---
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
3.3
1.0
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
1
22
13
19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.5
2.6
0.9
1.8
0.6
1.2
2.0
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
34
44
--
8
82
2
44
1
24
22
38
22
Pool Volume (fts)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
1 10
1
18
1 1 1 2 1
15
45
13
72
6
36
16
26
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16
1 3
8
47
11
47
5
23
9
15
13
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A3.9
0.4 1.2
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
Ti
1.0
1.6
1.8
3.3
Meander Length (ft)
W24
63
12
---
24
133
12
66
55
73
---
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
1 0.4 1 0.8
1.0 1
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%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
--
.....
................
--
° r r
.................................................
:::::::::::•:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::.
--
..........
24/17/58/1/0/0
SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/34.8/128
47/13/37/3/0/0
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)43.0
0.02
0.41
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0%
---
13%
0%
13%
0%
Rosgen Classification
B5
E4
C
C
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.4
4.4
5.2
1.1
3.1
1.1
1.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
N/A
--- 54.0
..... .................... .........
5.6
13
6
4.1
5.7
3.6
8
4
6.9
7.3
5.6
3.6
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
142
42
---
220
62
231
67
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
166
44
--
260
74
256
70
Sinuosity
1.17
1.04
1.20
1.10 1
1.25
1.10 1
1.25
1.11
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
--
---
---
0.0053
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
--
0.0083
0.0080
0.0078
0.0080
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
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT36 and UT413
Parameter
Gage
UT36
UT4B
UT to Varnals Creek
JT3B
UT413
UT313
UT413
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
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
20
11
25
60
25
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.7
0.5
1 0.7
0.5
F 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
Pool Length (ft)
""""
""
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)l
1--
2
3
15
45
6
36
8
45
12
23
19
23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
--
2
3
8
47
5
23
7
29
11
47
10
20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
--
0.5
0.7
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
5.8
1.7
7.6
1.8
3.6
Meander Length (ft)
---
11
22
---
12
66
15
82
55
68
59
69
Meander Width Ratio
--
0.5
0.7
1.0
3.0
1.6
8.9
1.6
8.9
1.9
3.7
3.3
4.1
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
................ ................... ................
32/14/51/3/0/0
22/20/57/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
----
--
SC/0.08/5.6/33.4/56.9/90
SC/0.25/4.0/20.1/45/90
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
---
---
•:. •. •. •. •. •. •. •. •. •. •. •. •.
•. •. •.
•. •. •.
---
---
0.33
0.14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at Bankfull
."""""'
..................
....................
....................
--
--
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
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 E56 C C C E
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2 3.0 3.3 3.3 2.2 1.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
"E4
--- --- 3.5 5.3 3.5 5.3
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
8 12
4 6
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
.................... .................... ................. • • • 7.8 12.0 4.1 5.5 • • • • • • • •148 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Valley Length (ft)
84 38 -- 138 117 124
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 1 0.0161 0.0059 1
0.0067
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT5
Parameter
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 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5 10.7 11.3 8.9 12.2 4.1 4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1 7.3 1 10.1 12.3 14.4 13.0 16.6
Entrenchment Ratio
7.1 >3.9 2.5 2.7 2.2 5.0 12.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.4 --- --- 0.9 1.1 1.0
D50 (mm)
Silt/Clay 5.9
Riffle Length (ft)
........................
.......................
---
---
---
S
21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0028
0.0638
---
0.0188
0.0704
0.0128---F-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 ft3
( )
..............
.......
.......
..............
............
..............
...............
..............
.......
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
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)
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%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/SC/8.9/22.6/64--
--
ti•
34/11/54/1/0/0
SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/53.7/90
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ftz
N/A
0.19
0.37
0.31
Max part size (mm) mobilized at Bankfull
14.0
27.5
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
..........
---
---
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 2.21 2.4 3.8 2.9 3.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
7.4 25.3 40.0 14.0 14.0
32
16
5.4 1 11.0
580 --- --- 520 515
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
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)'
0.0111 --- --- --- 0.0114
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--- --- --- 0.0138 0.0110
0.0114
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section 1, UTSF
MY2 MY3
Reach I (Riffle)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY3
Section 2, UTSF
MY2 MY3
Reach I (Pool)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MYl
Section 3, UTSF Reach I (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
567.0
567.0
567.0
566.4
566.4
566.4
556.5
556.5
556.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
8.7
8.6
11.1
10.8
11.5
9.3
9.0
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
85
85
85
---
---
---
85
85
85
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1.1
2.6
2.6
2.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft )
5.3
5.7
5.4
13.6
14.0
13.6
6.8
6.2
6.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
13.3
13.5
9.1
8.3
9.7
12.8
13.1
13.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.9
---
--
---
9.1
9.4
9.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
�M
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
section 4, UTSF
MY2 MY3
Reach 1 (Pool)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY1
Section 5, UTSF
MY2 MY3
Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY1
Section 6, UTSF Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
556.0
556.0
556.0
549.9
549.9
549.9
547.9
547.9
547.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.8
13.9
14.1
12.7
12.3
12.2
13.7
13.9
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
150
150
150
150
150
150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.3
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft )
17.5
15.7
16.3
11.0
11.0
10.5
10.9
10.2
10.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
12.2
12.1
14.5
13.7
14.3
17.3
18.9
18.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
11.8
12.2
12.3
10.9
10.8
10.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
�Ip
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section 7, UTSF
MY2 MY3
1.0
Reach 2 (Pool)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
1.0
MY3
1.0
Cross section
MY2 MY3
1.0
8, UT1C (Pool)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
1.0
MYl
1.0
Cross Section 9, UT1C (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
547.0
547.0
547.0
572.5
572.5
572.5
572.4
572.4
572.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
12.0
12.1
7.6
6.6
7.0
9.8
9.8
9.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft )
14.7
14.0
14.5
7.7
5.5
5.2
4.9
4.6
4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
10.3
10.0
7.9
9.3
19.4
20.7
21.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
L7.6
6.1
6.1
6.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
1.0
1.1
1.0

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 10, UT2B
(Pool)
Cross
Section 11,
UT2B (Riffle)
Cross Section 12, UT3B (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY3
MY2 MY3
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
564.2
564.2
564.2
563.9
563.9
563.9
563.0
563.0
563.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.7
10.5
10.7
5.5
6.5
6.8
6.2
6.3
7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
60
60
60
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.3
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft )
8.6
6.3
6.3
2.3
2.7
2.8
3.8
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
17.4
17.9
13.2
15.7
16.5
10.1
13.4
15.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
10.8
9.3
8.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
Section 13, UT3B
MY2 MY3 MY4
(Riffle)
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY1
Section 14,
MY2 MY3
UT4B (Riffle)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
Cross Section 15, UT4B (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
562.8
562.8
562.8
553.8
553.8
553.8
553.6
553.6
553.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
3.9
3.4
5.7
6.4
6.7
6.3
5.7
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
25
25
25
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft )
1.6
1.1
1.0
3.6
2.4
2.4
4.5
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6 1
13.0 1
11.8 1 1 1
1 1 1 9.1 1
17.3 1
19.2 1 1
1 1 1 1 8.7 1
11.0 1
9.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
14.1 1
15.5 1
17.5
4.3 1
3.9 1
3.7 1 1
1 1 1 --- 1
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
---
MENOFMCross
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 (ft )
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Base
552.6
8.0
---
1.0
1.7
7.9
8.0
---
---
MY3
552.6
7.6
---
1.1
1.7
8.0
7.2
Section 16, UT5
MY2 MY3 MY4
552.6
7.3
---
1.1
1.7
7.9
6.8
(Pool)
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
552.5
8.1
100
0.5
0.9
4.0
16.6
12.3
1.0
MY1
552.5
8.1
100
0.4
0.8
3.5
18.7
12.4
1.0
Cross Section
MY2 MY3
552.5
8.2
100
0.5
0.8
3.8
17.8
12.2
1.0
17, UT5 (Riffle)
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
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 2 - 2017
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 2 - 2017
UT1C
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2B
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
MinMax
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
6.5
6.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.3
2.7
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
15.7
16.5
Entrenchment Ratiol
10.8
9.3
8.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)l
0.1 1
0.2
1 0.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11 19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0073 0.0106
Pool Length (ft)
13 19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
22
Pool Volume (WI
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
13 25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.8 3.3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
70
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0070 1 0.0084
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
47/13/37/3/0/0
39/23/31/8/0/0
44/26/21/9/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10D SC/SC/0.1/22.6/50.6/128
SC/SC/0.2/33.9/81.9/180
SC/SC/0.2/36.3/95/128
91 of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT3B
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
MinMax
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
3.9
3.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.6
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1.6
1.1
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
13.0
11.8
Entrenchment Ratiol
14.1
15.5
11.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.3
D50 (mm)l
5.6 1
2.8
1 0.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0112 0.0419
Pool Length (ft)
10 22
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
30 36
Pool Volume (WI
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
12 1 23
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
11 1 47
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)l
1.7 1 7.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)l
55 1 68
Meander Width Ratiol
1.9 1 3.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
155
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0164
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0127 0.0161
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
32/14/51/3/0/0
33/14/43/10/0/0
29/39/20/12/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10D
SC/0.08/5.6/33.4/57/90
SC/ 0.2/2.8/41.3/85/180
SC/0.1/0.2/53.7/83/128
91 of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT4B
(---): Data was not provided
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.7
6.4
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
25
25
25
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.6
2.4
2.4
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
17.3
19.2
Entrenchment Ratiol
4.3
3.9
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)l
4.0 1
6.9
1 0.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8 19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0035 0.0113
Pool Length (ft)
10 21
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
31
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
19 23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
10
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
59
M4.1
Meander Width Ratio
3.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
212
Sinuosity (ft)
1.71
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0043
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0059 0.0067
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
22/20/57/1/0/0
31/12/43/14/0/0
18/43/34/5/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10D
SC/0.25/4.0/20.1/45/90
SC/0.19/6.9/59.2/90/180
SC/0.2/0.4/34.8/64/128
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
LITS
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
MinMax
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.1
8.1
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
3.5
3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
18.7
17.5
Entrenchment Ratiol
12.312.4
12.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)l
5.9 1
19.0
1 4.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5 21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0081 0.0374
Pool Length (ft)
18 42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
31 51
Pool Volume (WI
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
22 1 40
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
10 1 37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)l
1.0 1 3.7
Meander Wave Length (ft)l
63 1 97
Meander Width Ratiol
2.3 4.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
680
Sinuosity (ft)
1.32
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0114
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0110 0.0114
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
34/11/54/1/0/0
30/10/46/14/0/0
31/16/40/13/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10D
SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/54/90
SC/0.18/19/61/101/180
1 SC/0.17/4.7/57.8/87/180
91 of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 1, UTSF Reach 1
107+14 Riffle
570
568
77"x
c
0
'w 566 AA
w
564
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 2, UTSF Reach 1
107+47 Pool
570
568
ML
566
0
v
564
562 LLLL I i I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
4 MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) t MY2 (3/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.5
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
13.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 3, UTSF Reach 1
118+36 Riffle
559
557
x
c
0
'w 555
w
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) -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 perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.0
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 4, UTSF Reach 1
118+63 Pool
558
556
x
c
0
v
u, 554
552
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) t MY2 (3/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
16.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
15.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 5, UTSF Reach 2
126+80 Riffle
553
551
x
c
0
'w 549
w
547 71 1.,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
10.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 6, UTSF Reach 2
130+09 Riffle
551
549
x
c
0
'w 547
w
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
10.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
14.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.7
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 7, UTSF Reach 2
130+39 Pool
549
547 ZZ 00 ha.
x
c
0
U:i 545
543
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
4 MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) -s.— MY2 (3/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
13.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 8, UT1C
201+44 Pool
577
575
lktt
573
c
0
v
571
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
4 MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) t MY2 (3/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.0
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 9, UT1C
201+61 Riffle
575
Ow
573
x
c
0
'w 571
w
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017)-Bankfull-Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.8
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 10, UT26
300+26 Pool
567
565
c
0
v 563
w
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) 4 MY2 (3/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.7
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 11, UT213
300+36 Riffle
567
565
x
c
0
'w 563
w
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) MY1(9/2016) s MY2(3/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 12, UT3B
400+77 Pool
566
564
x
c
0
'w 562
w
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
4 MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) t MY2 (3/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 13, UT3B
400+91 Riffle
564
x
c
° 562
v
w
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.4
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.4
max depth (ft)
3.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.8
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
17.5
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 14, UT4B
500+26 Riffle
2.4
557
6.7
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.2
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
555
00
x
c
0
'w
553
w
551
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) 4 MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.7
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.2
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 15, UT4B
500+38 Pool
556
5.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
6.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.4
width -depth ratio
554
x
c
0
v 552
u,
550
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
4 MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) t MY2 (3/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
6.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 16, UTS
606+30 Pool
555
553
x
c
0
'w 551 woo
w
549
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
4 MYO (2/2016) MYl (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.3
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
8.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 17, UTS
606+45 Riffle
555
553
mdkm 06x
c
0
'w 551
w
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.8
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.14
D50 =
3.3
Da4 =
Class
Percent
120.7
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
26
27
27
27
Very fine
0.062
0.125
7
7
7
34
Fine
0.125
0.250
m
�
`m
7
7
7
41
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
5
6
6
47
Coarse
0.5
1.0
40
2
2
2
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
is
3
30
49
Very Fine
®®®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
49
®®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
10
2
2
51
•?••?••?•••°a s s � •o�•o�•oro; Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
53
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
55
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
• MVO -02/2016
2
2
57
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
1
4
4
61
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
64
ess's,?%,?%'�gzgz®sus Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
68
o;°-o;°-;•?%<�aaaa;;;s;;;s;;;s;;;s;;;. Very Coarse
32
45
7
1
8
8
76
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
82
Small
64
90
8
8
8
90
Small
90
128
6
6
6
96
Large
128
180
3
3
3
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
11HN Small
362
512
100
HHH:Medium
512
1024
100
:: Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.14
D50 =
3.3
Da4 =
69.7
D95 =
120.7
D300 =
256.0
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/cla
avel
bble r
80
0a ro
0 70
60
50
E
90
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�HMVO-02/2016
�MYl-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
`m
60
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
a
20
10
0
ooetiotiyh otih oy ti ti tiw
o- �� � ti' ti� �ti� 3ti ay ba �,o tiyw tiro tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoyoti��$ ��o
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO -02/2016
• MVI -09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
27.78
D50 =
40.5
Class
Percent
D95 =
115.6
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
a r
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
2
®®®®®®®®
v
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
2
sace •o •o •o; ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p..p...J; 9..g..$..y
`1a1a1�'6`'6`°6`'•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
5
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
5
5
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
8
1 8
27
gec��aeApq� Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
41
`1a�a¢�`3;•'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
54
Very Coarse
45
64
21
21
76
Small
64
90
12
12
88
Small
90
128
10
10
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
10
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
IIIII"'IIIIIIIII
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
... Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048 1
0
1
1 100
--41-- WO -02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Totall
98
1 100
1 100
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
14.35
Di5 =
27.78
D50 =
40.5
D84 =
81.1
D95 =
115.6
D100 =
180.0
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
silticla
Individual Class Percent
avel
100
90
80
bble
er
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a r
50
� 70
UM
U
40
60
m
3
30
v
20
50
10
0
E
o5ti titih tih oy ti ti ti�
o, o, o•
a �� til tie tie 3ti a5 �° �o yw �o h6 eti titi ya p'0
,
ti ti ti ti 3 e do yo to
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017
�? 40
r
u 30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41-- WO -02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
o5ti titih tih oy ti ti ti�
o, o, o•
a �� til tie tie 3ti a5 �° �o yw �o h6 eti titi ya p'0
,
ti ti ti ti 3 e do yo to
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I E I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MY"2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
12.99
D50 =
23.5
Class
Percent
D95 =
115.2
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11
11
11
Very fine
0.062
0.125
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
15
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
17
sace •o •o •o; ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p,.p,..J; 9..g..g..,y
`1a1a1�'6`°6`'6`'•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
21
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
10
10
31
asto' ^'%°o%tato Medium
11.0
16.0
9
9
40
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYM2/2016
MY3-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
49
qec�®aeApq� Coarse
.sp�;,oywy.y.o.s`s�so^;pyw
22.6
32
9
9
58
<�a�a¢�`:;;'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
67
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
78
Small
64
90
10
10
88
Small
90
128
10
10
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
.... iiiii Small
256
362
100
1.Small
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I E I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MY"2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
3.35
Di5 =
12.99
D50 =
23.5
D84 =
78.5
D95 =
115.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I E I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MY"2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
t
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
O�'L ytih by Oh ti ti ti�
b y�o 4 y1 y�o ,L�o .5'L p5 1k �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYM2/2016
MY3-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle ClassClass
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
21
23
23
23
D300 =
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
0.125
0.250
0.50
1.0
2.0
1
10
7
2
1
10
7
3
1
10
7
3
1
23
33
40
43
44
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
bibler
44
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
gp
1
1
45
60
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
50
2
2
47
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
40
4
4
51
60
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
Ta
3
3
3
54
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
1
4
4
58
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
62
Coarse
22.6
32
6
2
8
8
70
Very Coarse
32
45
8
2
10
10
80
•MYO-02/2016
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
8
88
Small
64
90
6
1
7
7
95
Small
90
128
3
3
3
98
Large
128
180
1
10
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
------- ??
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
0
Small
362
512
100
l
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
1024:::#
2048
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.30
D50 =
7.3
Da4 =
53.7
D95 =
90.0
D300 =
362.0
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Silt/clay
Sand avel
80
bibler
C
70
gp
w
u
w
60
a ro
50
0 70
u
40
60
Ta
3
30
M
50
2
20
E
10
0
1? 40
O�4ry It, Otih Oy ti It,
ti$
11 y(o 0 1> tib ,L'1,6 3ti Rh 6C` Ap V, 'p ,Ly`0 3roti y1'l''yC` A'b �0
Particle Class Size (mm)
w 30
•MYO-02/2016
POO
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMY-2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 tMY2-03/2017
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
w
u
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
Ta
3
30
M
2
20
10
0
O�4ry It, Otih Oy ti It,
ti$
11 y(o 0 1> tib ,L'1,6 3ti Rh 6C` Ap V, 'p ,Ly`0 3roti y1'l''yC` A'b �0
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-02/2016
MYl-W/2016 •MYM3/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
19.02
D50 =
28.5
Class
Percent
D95 =
123.6
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
a r
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
0
30
v
Very Fine
sace •o •o •o;
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p,.p,..J; 9..g..g..,y
`1a1a1�'6`'6`'6`'•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
5
5
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
14
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
6
6
20
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
42
qec®®aeA;q� Coarse
1 22.6
32
12
12
54
<�s�a¢�`:;;'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
64
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
72
Small
64
90
14
14
86
Small
90
128
10
10
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
10
100
Small
iiiiiiiii II MHHHHE—U IIIIIIII
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024 1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
8.90
Di5 =
19.02
D50 =
28.5
D84 =
85.7
D95 =
123.6
D100 =
180.0
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiIVClay
Individual Class Percent
avel
100
90
80
bble
er
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a r
50
� 70
UM
U
40
60
m
3
30
v
50
10
0
k1l,kiijkli
E
a e� til tie tie 3ti a5 �° �o yw �o h6 3en, titi ya ae ��
ti ti ti ti e do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017
�? 40
cwu 30
a 20
10
19
—LL0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
k1l,kiijkli
o�ti titih tih oy ti ti ti�
o, o, o•
a e� til tie tie 3ti a5 �° �o yw �o h6 3en, titi ya ae ��
ti ti ti ti e do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 �, — 0 -ice+iyr- - - - — �I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
25.09
D50 =
36.7
Class
Percent
D95 =
158.4
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
a
H
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
UM
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
0
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
sace •o •o •o; ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p..p...J; 9..g..$..y
`1a1a1�°6`'6`°6`'•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
8
9
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
9
9
18
asto' ^°%°o%tato Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
24
O�'L 1tih o' by 1P 1L ',L�
o• o•
b ��0 4 11 110 "1 1 raP �O 11 o110
ti 1 ti 3 5 do ,yo �
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
32
gec��aeApq� Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
42
`1a�a¢�`3;•'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
1 32
45
20
20
62
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
76
Small
64
90
8
8
84
Small
90
128
6
6
90
Large
128
180
8
8
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
..Small
256
362
100
Ilill"'IIIIIIIII Small
362
512
100
H. MHUHHHHHH: Medium
512
1024 1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 �, — 0 -ice+iyr- - - - — �I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
10.25
Di5 =
25.09
D50 =
36.7
D84 =
90.0
D95 =
158.4
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 �, — 0 -ice+iyr- - - - — �I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
O�'L 1tih o' by 1P 1L ',L�
o• o•
b ��0 4 11 110 "1 1 raP �O 11 o110
ti 1 ti 3 5 do ,yo �
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1C, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.63
D50 =
8.9
Da4 =
Class
Percent
107.3
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
7
20
27
27
27
Very fine
0.062
0.125
C
27
Fine
0.125
0.250
m
`m
60
27
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7
7
34
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
3
3
37
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
is
3
30
37
Very Fine
®®®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
Z
37
®®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
37
•?••?••?•••°a s s� •o�•o�•oro; Fine
4.0
5.6
3
1
4
4
41
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
3
4
7
7
48
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
6
6
54
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
57
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
60
ess's,?%,?%'�gzgz®sus Coarse
1 22.6
32 1
9
9
9
69
i'�oi'�oi'�;•?%<#a�af:<;?:;;?:;;?:;;?:;;. Very Coarse
32
45
8
1
9
9
78
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
84
Small
64
90
9
9
9
93
Small
90
128
4
4
4
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
60
40
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.63
D50 =
8.9
Da4 =
64.0
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT1C, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
`m
60
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
a
Z
20
10
0 16
ooetiotiyh Z, oy ti ti tiw
o- �� ti' ti� ti� 3ti ay 6o- Co 'p tiro tiyp3�ti ytiti yoyo tip ��o
Particle Class Size (mm)
• M-02/2016
• MYI-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1C, Cross Section 9
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
7.39
D50 =
12.5
Class
Percent
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
12
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
14
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
18
sace •o •o •o; ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p,.p,..J; 9..g..g..,y
`1a1a1�'6`°6`'6`°•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
10
10
28
Fine
5.6
8.0
9
9
37
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
10
10
47
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
9
56
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
64
qec�®aeA;q� Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
73
<�s�a¢�`:;;'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
1 32
45
7
7
80
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
88
Small
64
90
5
5
93
Small
90
128
4
4
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
---------------------
..Small
256
362
100
IIIII"'IIIIIIIII Small
362
512
100
H. MHUHHHHHH: Medium
512
1024 1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
3.35
Di5 =
7.39
D50 =
12.5
D84 =
53.7
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-02/2016 �MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
a
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
Doti titih tih oy ti ti ti�
�, 0, p•
a 5� s2 til tie tie 3ti a5 0° oo ,yw so h6 eti titi ,ya ae e`°
-y S S 'L 3 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT26, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT213, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.2
Da4 =
36.3
Class
Percent
D300 =
128.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
22
30
52
44
44
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
44
60
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
7
11
9
53
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
12
10
64
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
7
70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
70
®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
70
®®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
71
•?••?••?•••°a s s � •o�•o�•oro;
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
• MYI-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017
1
1
72
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
5
77
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
4
81
Medium
11.0
16.0
81
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
83
ess's,?%,?%'�gzgz®sus
Coarse
22.6
32
83
�o�'�oi'�;•?%<#a�af:<;?:;;?:;;?:;;?:;;.
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
86
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
5
91
Small
64
90
4
4
3
94
Small
90
128
7
7
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
€€€€€€
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
61
57
118
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT213, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.2
Da4 =
36.3
D95 =
95.1
D300 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT213, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT26, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
`m
60
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
M
20
C
10
0
oOra'Loylh Z, Oh ti ti ti$
b h� 0 y1 ,y/o ,L�o 3ti Py 6P �p y,j' 1qp "03�ti ytiti yO,yb tip tpo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYM2/2016
• MYI-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT213, Cross Section 11
UT26, Cross Section 11
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16=
Summary
Particle Class
5.60
D50 =
13.9
Class
Percent
D95 =
122.5
D100 =
Count
90
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
30
30
30
Very fine
0.062
0.125
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
bble
30
Medium
0.25
0.50
a
H
30
Coarse
0.5
1.0
UM
30
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
a r
30
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
sace •o •o •o; ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p,.p,..J; 9..g..g..,y
`1a1a1�°6`'6`'6`'•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
35
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
39
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
�3GS; O: •�a;�9..g..G:
8.0
11.0
6
6
45
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
53
50
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
59
oc®®®®®®®®®®®a c®
qec�®aeApq� Coarse
spj
22.6
32
8
8
67
<�a�a¢�`:;;'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
74
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
78
Small
64
90
10
10
88
Small
90
128
8
8
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
111111 Small
256
362
100
Small
E—UHIIIIIII
362
512
100
€IIII'
Medium
512
1024
10
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
UT26, Cross Section 11
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
5.60
D50 =
13.9
D84 =
78.5
D95 =
122.5
D100 =
180.0
UT26, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT26, Cross Section 11
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
90
Silt/Clay
80
U
avel
407.
C
70
bble
d
�
t
60
er
a
H
80
UM
U
40
a r
� 70
m
3
30
v
20
60
9...111
10
L d
0
OlAkI.416 id
�5o 1tih by 1P 1 I. ,L�
0 0 0'
b 5� 1b 11 1� ,L�o .5'L p5 �P �O ,yW �O h6 4ti 1ti ,lP p 'CO
ti 1 1 L 3 5 10 , to
yo
50
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017
E
�? 40
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—41—MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT26, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
d
�
t
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
9...111
10
L d
0
OlAkI.416 id
�5o 1tih by 1P 1 I. ,L�
0 0 0'
b 5� 1b 11 1� ,L�o .5'L p5 �P �O ,yW �O h6 4ti 1ti ,lP p 'CO
ti 1 1 L 3 5 10 , to
yo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT313, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT313, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.10
D50 =
0.2
Da4 =
Class
Percent
83.4
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
23
29
29
29
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
9
9
38
Fine
0.125
0.250
15
5
20
20
58
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
2
7
7
65
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
1
3
3
68
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
u
40
68
Very Fine
®®®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
is
3
68
®®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
a
68
Fine
4.0
5.6
68
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
C
10
68
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
P y(� 0 1ti 1� �,L�o 3ti Py 6P �O y,�'b 1�0 �y0 3toti ytiti Ne ti��$ tp
2
2
70
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
71
Coarse
16.0
22.6
71
ess's,?%,?%'�gzgz®sus Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
75
�o�'�oi'�;•?%<#a�af:<;?:;;?:;;?:;;?:;;.
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
80
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
88
Small
64
90
9
9
9
97
Small
90
128
3
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
HH:111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
MHUHMHUH�i
512
1024
100
:: Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
60
40
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT313, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.10
D50 =
0.2
Da4 =
53.7
D95 =
83.4
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT313, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WW2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT36, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
60
`m
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
a
20
C
10
0
oOra'Loylh O.�h Oh ti ti ,y`b
P y(� 0 1ti 1� �,L�o 3ti Py 6P �O y,�'b 1�0 �y0 3toti ytiti Ne ti��$ tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
• MYI-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT313, Cross Section 13
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT36, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41--MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
5.52
D50 =
15.6
Class
Percent
D95 =
79.0
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
15
15
15
Very fine
0.062
0.125
15
Fine
0.125
0.250
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
18
Coarse
0.5
1.0
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
20
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
20
30
v
Very Fine
sace •o •o •o;
2.8
4.0
20
20
ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p..p...J; 9..g..$..y
`1a1a1�'6`'6`'6`'•o;°;alalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
16
16
36
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
40
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
3
3
43
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
60
gec��aeApq� Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
76
`1a�a¢�`3;•'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
1 32
45
8
8
84
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
90
Small
64
90
8
8
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
---------------------
..111111 Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIIII Small
362
512
100
H. MHUHHHHHH: Medium
512
1024 1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
101
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT36, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41--MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.33
Di5 =
5.52
D50 =
15.6
D84 =
44.7
D95 =
79.0
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT36, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41--MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT36, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
d
�
t
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
�5o ytih by Oh ti ti ti�
b y�o 4 y1 y�o ,L�o .5'L p5 'k �O �<b �O h6 0ti yti ,1A b0 0�O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT46, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT413, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.20
D50 =
0.4
Da4 =
Class
Percent
64.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
14
18
18
18
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
4
5
5
23
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
10
17
17
40
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
10
16
16
56
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
61
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
is
3
30
61
Very Fine
®®®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
62
®®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
62
•?••?••?•••°a s s � •o�•o�•oro; Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
64
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
66
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
1
4
4
70
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
4
74
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
3
3
3
77
ess's,?%,?%'�gzgz®sus Coarse
22.6
32
5
1
6
6
83
$..$..,. ,o •o.,.
Very Coarse
32
45
3
1
4
4
87
Very Coarse
45
64
6
2
8
8
95
Small
64
90
2
1
3
3
98
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
€€€€€€ Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT413, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.20
D50 =
0.4
Da4 =
34.8
D95 =
64.0
D300 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT413, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT46, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
`m
60
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
a
20
10
0
oOra'Loylh Z, Oh ti ti ti$
b h� 0 yti y0 ,L�o 3ti Py 0A CO 'p 100 "y0 30ti yyti y�ny ti0p �00
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
• MYI-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT413, Cross Section 14
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT46, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41--MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
0.39
D50 =
9.1
Class
Percent
D95 =
82.3
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
17
17
29
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
10
39
Coarse
0.5
1.0
UM
39
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
39
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
39
m
3
30
v
Very Fine
sace •o •o •o;
2.8
4.0
39
ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p,.p,..J; 9..g..g..,y
<a$a�a�o;;,o;;,o;;,o•;;°�aalst� Fine
4.0
5.6
39
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
45
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
14
14
58
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
72
qec�®aeA;q� Coarse
1 22.6
32
9
9
81
<�s�a¢�`:;;'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
91
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
92
Small
64
90
4
4
96
Small
90
128
4
4
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
111111 Small
256
362
100
HHHHHHHSmall
362
512
100
€IIII''`€€€€€€€€€
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
101
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT46, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41--MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.15
Di5 =
0.39
D50 =
9.1
D84 =
35.3
D95 =
82.3
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT46, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--41--MYO-02/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UT46, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
d
�
t
60
—
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
A J.I
r
1
0
�5o ytih by 1P 1 'L ,L�
b ��0 4 y1 ,�o ,L�o ,5'L p5 �P �O ,ti`b �O y0 �'L ,y'L ,yA p 'CO
-y 1 S 'L 3 5 y0 ,y0 tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT5, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.17
D50 =
4.7
Da4 =
Class
Percent
86.5
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
30
31
31
31
Very fine
0.062
0.125
C
31
Fine
0.125
0.250
m
`m
10
10
10
41
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
43
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
47
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a
47
Very Fine
®®®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
47
®®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
49
•?••?••?•••°a s s� •o�•o�•oro; Fine
4.0
5.6
2
1
3
3
51
Fine
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
4
1
5
5
56
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
1
6
6
62
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
65
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
66
ess's,?%,?%'�gzgz®sus Coarse
1 22.6
32 1
1
1
2
2
68
io�'io�'�;•?%<#a�af:<;?:;;?:;;?:;;?:;;. Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
76
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
87
Small
64
90
9
9
9
96
Small
90
128
3
3
3
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
51
101
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.17
D50 =
4.7
Da4 =
57.8
D95 =
86.5
D100 =1
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYM2/2016 �MYI-09/2016 MY2-03/2017
UTS, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
`m
60
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
a
Z
20
C
10
SOL
0
A 16
ooetiotiyh otih Oh ti ti ti$
b h� 0 titi y0 �Lo 5L Py OA 00 ylb y00 �y0 30ti yyti Ne ti0p �FO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYM2/2016
• MYI-09/2016 • MY2-03/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT5, Cross Section 17
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—*—YO -02/2016 —MY3-09/2016 --4--MY2-03/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
D1fi=
Summary
Particle Class
18.48
D50 =
26.0
Class
Percent
D95 =
72.7
D100 =
Count
90
min
max
80
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
UM
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
4
®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
m
3
30
v
Very Fine
sace •o •o •o;
2.8
4.0
4
ssa c:
g..g..J. p•..p..p...J; 9..g..$..y
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
%<a$a�a�o;;,o;;,o;;,o•;;°�aalst�
s.s.a `J"J"J•os s s
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
8
®®®®®
'saee:6� 'aee: Medium
scce• 'ssce
8.0
11.0
10
10
18
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
42
gec��aeApq� Coarse
1 22.6
32
20
20
62
`1a�a¢�`3;•'�;•'�;•';;;'<>'<a��3`;;; Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
80
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
92
Small
64
90
8
8
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
111111 Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—*—YO -02/2016 —MY3-09/2016 --4--MY2-03/2017
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
10.32
Di5 =
18.48
D50 =
26.0
D84 =
50.6
D95 =
72.7
D100 =
90.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
u 30
a 20
10
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—*—YO -02/2016 —MY3-09/2016 --4--MY2-03/2017
UT5, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
as
�
t
60
a
H
50
UM
U
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
Doti titih tih oy ti ti ti�
�, 0, p•
a e� � til tie tie 3ti a5 0° oo ,yw so h6 eti titi ,ya ae e`°
-y 1 S 'L 3 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-02/2016
Y,O0 /2016 • MY2-03/2017

Table 13. Bank Pin Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT South Fork Reach 1- Cross Section 4 Pool (Station 118+63)
Ad
Upstream
4/15/2016
0.0
Midstream
0.0
Downstream
0.0
Upstream
9/14/2016
0.0
Midstream
0.0
Downstream
0.0
Upstream
10/19/2017
0.0
Midstream
0.0
Downstream
0.0

APPENDIX S. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Maney Farm Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.96314)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Monthly Rainfall Data
Maney Farm Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.96314)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Maney Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Siler City, NC
10
Date of Data Date of
Reach
Collection Occurrence
Method
3/9/2017 1/9/2017
UTSF Reach 1
S 6
c
0
m 5
'a
a
10/17/2017 7/23/2017
Crest Gage/
3/9/2017 1/9/2017
UTSF Reach 2
Pressure
10/17/2017 7/23/2017
Transducer
0
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17
Date
3/9/2017 1/9/2017
UTS
10/17/2017 7/23/2017
Monthly Rainfall Data
Maney Farm Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.96314)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Maney Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Siler City, NC
10
9
8
7
S 6
c
0
m 5
'a
a
a` 4
3
2
1
0
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17
Date
2017 Rainfall Data 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
2017 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2002).

Stream Flow Gage
Maney Farm (DMS Project No. 96314)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
562
561
560
v
>
cu.
558
557
556
555
Maney Farm: In -Stream Flow Gage for UTSF Reach 1
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
c - > c 75 on CL > u
QJ LL
S Q vii O Z O
Rainfall UTSF Reach 1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation •Bankfull
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
1.0
0.5
0.0