20140338 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20181210

[i lei ZIkLei Oki IZLYw llAW
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Chatham County, NC
NCDFQ Contract 005793
DMS ID No. 96314
Data Collection Period: January - October 2018
Draft Submission Date: November 12, 2018
Final Submission Date: December 10, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Maney Farm Mitigation
Project (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance a total
of 6,092 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 (HUC
03030002050050), which flows into Cane Creek and eventually into the Haw River. The streams are all
unnamed tributaries (UT) to South Fork Cane Creek (SF) and are referred to herein as UTSF, UT1, UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5.
The Site is located within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) which is discussed in DMS's
2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The RBRP identifies the need to improve
aquatic conditions and habitats as well as promoting good riparian conditions in the Cane Creek
watershed. Prior to the restoration activities, the Site was maintained as cattle pasture and is one of the
51 animal operations referenced in the RBRP. The Site drains to the Haw River, which flows to B. Everett
Jordan Lake (Jordan Lake). The 2005 NCDWR Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan indicates
that Jordan Lake is a drinking water supply (WS -IV), a primary area for recreation, and a designated
Nutrient Sensitive Water which calls for reduction of non -point source pollution. The water supply
watershed boundary for Jordan Lake is just six miles downstream from the Site. The Cape Fear
watershed is also discussed in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Wildlife Action
Plan where sedimentation is noted as a major issue in the basin. Maps within the Wildlife Action Plan
indicate that Priority Species are present along Cane Creek. Restoration activities at the Site directly
addressed non -point source stressors by removing cattle from the streams, creating stable stream
banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing 16.69 acres of land under permanent conservation
easement.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) were developed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives 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 the Site promote cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 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 Year3 (MY3) assessments and site visits were completed between January and October 2018
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream
success criteria for MY3. The overall average stem density for the standard planting zones at the Site is
361 stems per acre, meeting the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. Chinese privet has been
encroaching from outside the conservation easement and was treated in October 2018. 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 MY7 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 for 261 consecutive days during
MY3 and therefor met the established hydrologic criteria.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report 1-2

MANEY FARM MITIGATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 3 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 3 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............................................................................................................1-7
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 3 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
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 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; UT3 (Reach B), EI; and UT4 (Reach A), Ell; UT4 (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.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 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 2023 given the success criteria are met.
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information for the Site.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report 1-5

1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY3 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 MY3 vegetative survey was completed in August 2018. The 2018 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average stem density of 361 stems per acre within the standard planting zones, meeting the interim
requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3 and approximately 56% 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 29% since
establishment, indicating a significant mortality rate since MYO (Table 7b, Appendix 3). The survival
rates of the species selected for these supplemental planting zones ranged from 59% (Carpinus
caroliniana) to 0% (Viburnum prunifolium and Callicarpa americana) in MY3 (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 MYO and MY3 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.
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is located immediately adjacent to the project; however, with the
farm being certified organic the landowner will not allow Wildlands to remove this privet from his
property. As a result, scattered populations of Chinese privet have become established along the
perimeter of the conservation easement. In October 2018, the Chinese privet scattered within the
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report 1-6

easement was treated using glyphosate and triclopyr respectively. A dense population of Chinese privet
along UTSF (Figure 3.0) will be retreated during MY4. Privet will continue to be monitored and treated in
subsequent monitoring years.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in April 2018. All streams within the site are stable.
In general, cross sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio,
or width -to -depth ratio. The deposition noted in MY1 for the pools on UT1C, UT26, UT36, and UT4B
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
increased deposition along the bankfull benches. Bank height ratios fall within the success range 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 MY3 assessments
indicating bank stability .
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 MY3.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. Restoration reaches UTSF Reach 1 and UT5 had multiple
bankfull events throughout the year. The crest gauge on UTSF Reach 2 malfunctioned and no data was
collected. Bankfull events were also 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 77% of the
monitoring period (261 consecutive days and 284 total days). Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
The privet population described in Section 1.2.2 will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
All standard vegetation plots met the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre as noted in CCPV. Chinese
privet was treated sporadically along the boundary of the conservation easement in October 2018. All
streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. A malfunction occurred to the crest
gauge on UTSF Reach 2, prohibiting data from being collected, but multiple bankfull events were
recorded on UTSF Reach 1 and UT5. 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 261
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report 1-7

consecutive days during the MY3 monitoring period and therefor met the established hydrological
criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report 1-8

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored
throughout the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in
accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation
monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 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.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Division of Water Quality
(NCDWR). Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Accessed online at:
http://porta 1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2eddbd59-b382-4b58-97ed-
c4049bf4e8e4&grou pfd=38364
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Accessed online at:
http://www.nceep.net/services/lwps/cape_fear/RBRP%20Cape%20Fear%202008.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed online at:
http://www.ncwildlife.org/portals/0/Conserving/documents/ActionPlan/WAP_complete.pdf
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
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.
WManey Farm Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

= Project Location
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
r• —•
�•—• ! Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
k
tK'
'0,3�3400
03030002050050
70010 _
Rd
J Yaw Lbhnrrr
�Lgok
1
3 +
kjek Gook
Al A�1AN['F _
T' —— -- — --—
CHATHAM
S
fi
150P " 03030002050070
s
t
,a
RO
EP
co el; Y
L
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.
ktWW
WILDLANDS ,`
ENGINEERING
' �I ROCA K
.p f#
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 3- 2018
Chatham County, NC
t.
I
70010 _
Rd
J Yaw Lbhnrrr
�Lgok
1
3 +
kjek Gook
Al A�1AN['F _
T' —— -- — --—
CHATHAM
S
fi
150P " 03030002050070
s
t
,a
RO
EP
co el; Y
L
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.
ktWW
WILDLANDS ,`
ENGINEERING
' �I ROCA K
.p f#
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 3- 2018
Chatham County, NC

2
W, -
WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
•ar
B
r�VJA
UT2Bi-'iFa
I'—'—'..
_ _ ! Conservation Easement
*4� Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non -Project Streams
�i.
UTSF -
Reach 1
.'
' "57
40 . M1
.UT1B
w ,
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 3- 2018
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Mitigation Credits
Summation
Stream Riparian Wetland Non Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type
R RE R RE R RE
Totals 4,922 0 N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A N/A I N/A
—W Project Components
As -Built Stationing Ezlsting 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
MComponent
Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
(acres) (acres) (square feet) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverme
Restoration
3,860 -
Enhancement
-
Enhancement 1
633
Enhancement II
1,599
Creation
- -
Preservation
- - - -
Nigh 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 3 - 2018
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled D -
Mitigation Plan July 2014
August 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans July 2014
August 2015
Construction October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area October 2015 -January 2016
January 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' October 2015 - January 2016
January 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments February 2016
February 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey February 2016
April 2016
Vegetation Survey February 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey September 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey September 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey March 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey April 2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey August 2018
Invasive Vegetation Treatment
October 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 3 - 2018
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 3 - 2018
Project 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
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002050050
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 UT4A/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 1 22.5 32.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type)
1/11
I
1
1
I/P
I
I
P
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) -Pre-Restoration
II/IV
II/IV
III
V
II/IV
II/V
V/VI
II/V
II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Cid Silt Loam, Cid-Lignum Complex, Nanford-Badin Complex, Georgeville Silty Clay Loarr
Drainage Class
Well Drained - Moderately Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Cid-Lignum Complex 2 to 6 percent slopes - Hydric
Slope
0.0131 1 0.0086 1 0.0187 0.0396 1 0.0187 1 0.0366 1 0.0377 1 0.0232 1 0.0139
FEMA Classification
X
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Post -Restoration
0%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
and DWR 401 Water Quality
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maney Farm Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Chatham County listed
endangered species. The USFWS
responded on April 4, 2014 and
concurred with NCWRC stating
Endangered Species Act
X
X
that "the proposed action is not
likely to adversely affect any
federally -listed endangered or
threatened species, their formally
designated critical habitat, or
species currently proposed for
listing under the Act."
Correspondence from 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

ir' X1.4 Conservation Easement
2 41
a t Z1\ Photo Point
r ® Barometric Gage
UTSF4
a` ® Flow Gage
Reach 2
® Stream Gage
Bank Pins
0 4 UT5 + Cross Section
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
UT4B
Culvert Crossing
Stream Restoration
NQ j Stream Enhancement
Re
`k L Stream Enhancement II
I � �
UTSF Vegetation Plot Condition - MY3
a Reach 1
w Meets Criteria
14
W Vegetation Problem Areas - MY3
a ( F Privet
UT36
__ 1My� t UT2A II
d ; �.
r
U3A j
0
t _
rot
`SII UTSF � �
k Reach 1 '
ws.
1
r
UT1B
r
i pppF
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
# DMS Project No. 96314
WILDLANDS +lam Monitoring Year 3-2018
ENGINEERING 0 250 500 Feet
i i i I Chatham County, NC
2017 Aerial Photography

-� �� r ;Y � � � Y s �e;9o- prT'1z 8
��"�
M ♦r4
6
Ak
r l v "i•t t. - ..
27
j `'fir f r tit .
Ato
zz♦ .4,. ..
r
13
F r
UT3A
�.
WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
l i i i l Chatham County, NC
2017 Aerial Photography
UT28
-
Y
UTSF
Reach 1
Conservation Easement
F
Photo Points
® Barometric Gage
/�'`
® Flow Gage
�
; ; 1
j
J F
® Stream Gages
UT1c
3K
-
21Q n
Cross Sections
12
f
— Stationing
�O
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
Culvert Crossing
J#
UT18
i♦
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
uT1a_
vim`
Stream Enhancement II
!, '
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY3
Meets Criteria
j
WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
l i i i l Chatham County, NC
2017 Aerial Photography

4.
:r ti + .:: �€ ' M1'� ~+ ..; +1 ; vel ':;�;'•i�'�kd'�-� x
rA 1 UTSF #� 'f � d � '" CAV
f'wiF
ay ., r+
each 2
� - r ��� '� 'r °�ti�'{'� :��`.lrF '� y ,rt. i' I .' r' `: �� �iR': • `�' i -� �:
,BUTS'
V'Isi .. —
3 4 13
}
*� s
UT4A; r. Lir i a
Y'
Conservation Easement
• x.' 1 . � - _ � � � :1 I mss'
s - ♦ ' Photo Points
,t < " '�1� ® Stream Gages
t 7 Bank Pins
f Cross Sections
♦. '11 � z
�' '' ♦'s Stationing
Supplemental Planting Monitoring Plot
WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
%.. 10
:�• + �. Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
1 ♦ Stream Enhancement II
' Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY3
15 9n
Meets Criteria
6 Q Vegetation Problem Areas - MY3
® Privet
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
0 50 100 Feet Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
l i i i l Chatham County, NC
2017 Aerial Photography

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Marley Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF Reach 112.122 LFl
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable ,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
38
38
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
38
38
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
38
38
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
37
37
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
38
38
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
14
14
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF Reach 2 (1.077 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable ,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1C(256 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable ,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
9
9
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
8
8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sid. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT213 170 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable ,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
3
3
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
2
2
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
2
2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
2
2
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
2
2
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT3B (155 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Numb
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,er
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sf. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT413 (133 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable ,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sig. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT51680 LF1
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Numb
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,er
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
S. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth 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
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Planted Acreaee 16
Easement Acreage 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
none
0
0
0%
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
1 0
1 0.0
1 0.0%
Easement Acreage 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
1
0.2
1.2%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT to South Fork Reach 1

PHOTO POINT 4 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 4 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 5 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) PHOTO POINT 8 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 11— looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT to South Fork Reach 2

PHOTO POINT 13 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1C

PHOTO POINT 17 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 18 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 18 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 20 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 21— looking upstream (04/10/2018) I PHOTO POINT 21— looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT2

PHOTO POINT 22 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 22 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 23 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 23 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 24 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 24 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT3

PHOTO POINT 25 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 25 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 26 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 27 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 27 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT4

PHOTO POINT 28 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) PHOTO POINT 28 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 29 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 29 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT5

PHOTO POINT 30 — looking upstream (04/10/2018) 1 PHOTO POINT 30 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 31— looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 31— looking downstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 32 — looking upstream (04/10/2018)
PHOTO POINT 32 — looking downstream (04/10/2018)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS

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 3 - 2018
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 3 - 2018
Plot MYO Stems/Plot MY1 Stems/Plot MY2 Stems/Plot MY3 Stems/Plot MYl Survival (%) MY2 Survival (%) MY3 Survival (%)
MY1 Mean
Survival (%)
MY2 Mean
Survival (%)
MY3 Mean
Survival (%)
12 16 13 5 3 81% 31% 19%
83%
46%
29%
13 16 15 10 8 94% 63% 50%
14 16 12 7 3 75% 44% 19%
Table 7c. Percent Survival by Species Table (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Scientific Name
Common Name
MYO Stems
MY3 Stems
MY2 Stems
MY3 Stems
MY1 Survival (%) MY2 Survival (%) MY3 Survival (%)
Aesculus pavia
Red buckeye
3
3
1
1
100% 33% 33%
Callicarpo americana
American beautyberry
11
9
1
0
82% 9% 0%
Calycan thus floridus
Sweet -shrub
6
4
2
1
67% 33% 17%
Corpinuscaroliniono
American hornbeam
17
16
13
10
94% 76% 59%
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
ICoralberry
1 10
7
5
2
1 70% 1 50% 20%
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black haw
1 1
1
0
0
1 100% 1 0% 0%

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Report Prepared By
Carolyn Lanza
Date Prepared
8/3/2018
Database Name
Maney Farm MY2- cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
F:\Projects\005-02144 Maney Farm\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
JOELOVENSHIMER
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 NameManey
Farm
Description
Stream Mitigation
Sampled Plots
114

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96314-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
2
1 3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 3
3
3
Colycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
1
1
1
Corpinus coroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
3
3
83
3
3
55
6
6
21
15
3
3
3
3
3
27
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
Loblolly Pine
Tree
Plotanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
Populus heterophylla
Swamp Cottonwood
Tree
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
4
4
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry
Shrub
12
9
Ulmus alato
Winged Elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
7
Ulmus rubra
iSlippery Elm
lTree
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black Haw
IShrub Tree
Stem count
8
1 8
1 88
12
1 12
1 89
11
1 11
1 37
9
9
1 24
11
1 11
1 11
11
11
42
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
4
5
5
7
5
5
7
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
5
6
Stems per ACRE
324
324
3561
486
1 486
13602
445
1 445
11497i
364
1 364
1 971
445
1 445
1 445
445
1 445
1 1700
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96314-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
96314-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
17
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1 3
3
3
1
1
1
Colycanthus floridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
7
4
4
5
3
3
15
5
5
40
4
4
22
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
1
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Pinus taeda
Loblolly Pine
Tree
1
Platonus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
8 1
8
8
5
5
7
6
6
12
Populus heterophylla
Swamp Cottonwood
Tree
1
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry
Shrub
33
2
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
2
Ulmus americana
lAmerican Elm
ITree
8
1
Ulmus rubra
15lippery Elm
ITree
9
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black Haw
IShrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
11
11
1 13
14
14
52
13
13
25
14
14
86
11
11
40
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02 1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
1 5
7
7
11
4
4
4
1 4
4
8
3
3
7
Stems per ACRE
445
445
1 526
567
567
2104
526
526
1012
1 567
567
3480
445
445
1619
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems (Standard Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3 (2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Boxelder Maple
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
18
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
7
7
7
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
15
15
15
1 13
13
13
19
19
19
25
25
25
Calycanthusfloridus
Sweet -shrub
Shrub
2
2
2
Corpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
10
10
10
13
13
13
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
40
40
293
36
36
139
35
35
35
36
36
36
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1
Liquidambarstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum
Tree
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
1 2
1 2
2
2
7
7
7
16
16
16
Pinus toedo
Loblolly Pine
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
37
37
45
38
38
44
37
37
37
37
37
37
Populus heterophylla
Swamp Cottonwood
Tree
1
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
15
15
15
16
16
16
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
16
16
27
15
15
21
15
15
15
16
16
16
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
1
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Coralberry
Shrub
56
7
7
7
10
10
10
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
2
2
Ulmus americana
lAmerican Elm
lTree
16
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery Elm
ITree
9
13
Viburnum prunifolium
I Black Haw
15hrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5 1
5
Stem count
125
125
1 507
1 123
123
254
157
157
157
187
187
187
size (ares)
14
14
1
1 14 1
1
1 14
size (ACRES) 1
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Species countl
10
10
20
9
9
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
Stems per ACRE 1
361
361
14661
356
356
1 734
1 454
454 1
454
541 1
541
541
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stems (Supplemental Planting Zones)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018) 1 Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 12
PnoLS P -all I T
Vegetation Plot 13
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 14
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (8/2018)
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
Aesculus pavia
Red buckeye
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
0
0
0
1
1
1
9
9
9
11
11
11
Calyconthus 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
2
2
2
5
5
5
3
3
3
10
10
10
13
13
13
16
16
16
17
17
17
Symphoricorpos orbiculatusCoralberry
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
7
7
7
10
10
10
Viburnum prunifolium
Black haw
Shrub Tree
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
3
3
3
8
8
8
3
3
3
14
14
14
22
22
22
40
40
40
48
1 48
1 48
Size (ares)
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Species count
2
2
1 2
3
3
1 3
1
1
1
6
6
1 6
6
1 6
1 6
6
1 6
6
6
1 6
1 6
Stems per ACRE
121
121
1 121
324
324
1 324
121
121
121
189
189
1 189
297
1 297
1 297
540
1 540
540
647
1 647
1 647
Supplemental planting zones are monitored to determine survival rates of these species but the results will not be tied to project success.
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Marey Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
1T Sn Ah Fork Rnarhnc i and 7
Parameter
Gage
UTSF Reach
Pre -Restoration
1
Condition
UTSF Reach
2
Reference
Agony Acres UT1A-Reach 1
Reach
rUT to Cane Creek
UTSF Reach
Design
1
UTSF Reach
2
UTSF Reach
A,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
1.2
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 1.5
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
N/A
4.1
7.1
5.4
5.6
10.7
11.3
8.9
12.2
6.5
10.2
5.3
6.8
10.9
11.0
Width/Depth Ratio
2.5
20.4
4.0
12.3
7.3
10.1
12.3
14.4
14.0
14.0
9.1
9.7
14.5
17.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
12.5
10.0
14.8
>3.9
2.5
2.7
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
6.2
9.5
10.9
11.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
2.2
1.4
1.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
D50(mm)
Medium Sand
Silt/Clay
8.4
10.4
Riffle Length (ft)l
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
0.0432
0.0055
0.0326
Pool Length (ft)
-
--
--
---
%29S
47
23
50
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.5
1.8
1.8
2
2.5
1.8
2.3
1.1
2.1
1.3
2.6
2.6
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
239
44
145
27
73
3
67
4
85
85
45
78
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
5
42
10
37
21
93
102
15
85
19
108
24
56
37
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
4
25
5
13
14
60
23
38
17
55
22
70
9
36
17
28
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.3
2.1
1.1
1.6
1.5
5.8
2.0
3.1
1.8
5.8
1.8
5.81.0
4.1
1.6
2.6
Meander Length (ft)
18
100
21
59
29
156
36
198
68
151
110
144
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
3.5
2.1
4.5
2.3
8.9
8.3
8.9
1.6
8.9
1.6
8.9
2.7
6.5
3.4
5.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
21/13/64/2/0/0
28/10/56/6/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/VFS/MS/11.1/15.4/22.6
SC/SC/SC/6.1/28.5/180
-
SC/2.37/8.4/34.5/55/180
SC/0.40/30.4/37.9/71.7/180
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
ES
ES
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)
19.6
19.3
25.3
40.0
19.0
29.0
19.0
29.0
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
43
67
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
22
34
Q -Mannings
4.8
8.0
6.9
11.0
Valley Length (ft)
1,720
910
--
--
1,720
910
1,720
910
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,2981,209
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
--
0.1
0.0113
0.0103
0.0078
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft)
0.0129
0.0114
0.0102
0.0104
0.0077
1
0.0078
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1C and UT2B
Parameter
Gage
UT1C
UT2B
UTto Varnals
r.
Creek
UT1C
�-
UT2B
UT1C
UT2B
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.1
2.6
9.3
10.5
8.1
4.0
9.8
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.3
4.4
20
64
18
1 41
9
1 20
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.5
1.5
1.7
0.9
1.2
0.5
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
2.3
5.4
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
---
---
1
3.3
1 0.1
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
8 22
11
19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--
---
0.0240
0.0570
0.0086
0.0355
0.0083
0.0342
0.0011 0.0110
0.0073
0.0106
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
6 22
13
19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
--
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 (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
1 10
1
18 1
1
2
15
45
13
72
6
36
16 26
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
9
16
1
3
8
47
11
47
5
23
9 15
13
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
2.2
3.9
0.4
1.2
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.3
5.8
1.0 1.6
1.8
3.3
Meander Length (ft)
54
63
12
---
24
133
12
66
55 73
---
Meander
Meander Width Ratio
2.4
4.4
0.4
0.8
1.0
3.0
1.6
8.9
1.6
8.9
1.7 2.8
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
24/17/58/1/0/0
47/13/37/3/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
---
---
-
SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/34.8/128
SC/SC/0.1/22.6/50.6/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
---
---
---
---
0.15
0.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
--
--
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.03
0.02
0.41
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
13%
0%
---
13%
0%
13%
0%
Rosgen Classification
B5
B5
E4
C
C
C
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
3.4
4.4
1
5.2
1.1
3.1
1.1
1.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
54.0
5.6
3.6
5.6
3.6
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
13
8
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
6
4
Q -Mannings
4.1
57
6.9
7.3
Valley Length (ft)
142
42
---
220
62
231
67
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
166
44
---
260
74
256
70
Sinuosity
1.17
1.04
1.20
1.10
1 1.25
1.10
1 1.25
1.11
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
0.0053
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
0.0083
0.0080
1 0.0078 1 0.0080
1 0.0070 1 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 3 - 2018
UT36 and UT4B
Parameter
Gage
UT3B
UT4B
r. .
UT to Varnals Creek
UT3B
UT4B
UT3B
UT4B
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
0.7
0.5
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
5.31.9
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
5.6
4.0
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
12 23
89
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--
--
0.0240
0.0570
0.0191
07
0.86
0.0088
0.0312
0.0112 0.0419
0.13
0035 0.01
Pool Length (ft)
-
---
---
---
10 22
10 21
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
0.6
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
56 157
---
8
82
1
24
3
31
30 1 36
31
Pool Volume (ft')
Channel Beltwidth (ft)J
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
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/mt
---
---
---
---
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 E5b E4
C C C
E
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2 3.0 4.4 1 5.2
3.3 3.3 2.2
1.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
--- --- 54.0
3.5 5.3 3.5
5.3
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
8 12
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
4 6
Q -Mannings
7.8 1 12.0 4.1 1 5.5
Valley Length (ft)
84 38 ---
138 117 148
1 124
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
84 40 ---
163 138 155
212
Sinuosity
1.00 1.06 1.20
1.10 1.25 1.10 1.25 1.05
1.71
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
--- ---
--- --- 0.0164
0.0043
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--- --- ---
0.0170 0.0073 0.0127 0.0161
0.0059 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 3 - 2018
UT5
Parameter
Gage
UT5
Agony Acres
UT1A-Reac11
UT to Cane Creek
UT5
UT5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.7
9.1
10.4
11.5
12.3
7.2
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
40 >36 31 16 36 100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6 1.0 1 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2 1.8 1.2 1.6 0.8 1 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.5 10.7
11.3 8.9 12.2 4.1 4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1 7.3
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)
---
---
---
5
21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0028
1
0.0638
---
0.0188
1
0.0704
0.0128
0.0541
0.0081
0.0374
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
18
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.4
2.5
1.8
2.3
0.9
1.8
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
9
197
---
27
73
2
44
31
51
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
3
18
21
93
102
12
64
22
40
Radius of Curvature (ft)
3
14
14
60
23
38
13
42
10
37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
0.5
2.5
1.5
5.8
2.0
3.1
1.3
5.8
1.0
3.7
Meander Length (ft)
16
58
---
---
22
118
63
97
Meander Width Ratio
0.5
3.2
2.3
8.9
8.3
8.9
1.6
8.9
2.3
4.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
34/11/54/1/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/SC/8.9/22.6/64
-
--
SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/53.7/90
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
N/A
0.19
0.37
0.31
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
14.0
27.5
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.12
0.30
0.29
0.12
0.12
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0% --- --- 0% 0%
Rosgen Classification
E5 E4 E4 C C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.1 2.2 1 2.4 3.8 2.9 3.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
7.4 25.3 40.0 14.0 14.0
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
32
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
16
Q -Mannings
5.4 1 11.0
Valley Length (ft)
580 --- --- 520 515
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
778 --- --- 677 680
Sinuosity
1.34 1.35 1.40 1.20 1 1.40 1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
0.0111 --- --- --- 0.0114
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--- --- --- 0.0138 0.0110 1
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 3 - 2018
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY1
Section
MY2
2, UTSF Reach I (Pool)
MY3 MY4 MY5
-
MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MYl
Section
MY2
3, UTSF Reach 1 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
567.0
567.0
567.0
567.0
566.4
566.4
566.4
566.5
556.5
556.5
556.5
556.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 567.0
567.0
567.0
567.0
566.4
566.4
566.4
566.5
556.5
556.5
556.5
556.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.6
11.1
10.8
11.5
11.9
9.3
9.0
9.0
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
85
85
85
85
---
---
---
---
85
85
85
85
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.1
1 1.1
1.1
2.6
2.6 1
2.3
2.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.3
5.7
5.4
5.3
13.6
14.0
13.6
13.6
6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
13.3
13.5
13.8
9.1
8.3
9.7
10.4
12.8
13.1
13.0
13.3
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.9
9.9
---
---
9.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Base
1.0
Cross
MYl
1.0
Section
MY2
1.0
4, UTSF
MY3
Reach I (Po��W
MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY1
section
MY2
5, UTSF Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MY5
1.0
MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MYl
Section
MY2
6, UTSF Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
556.0
556.0
556.0
556.2
549.9
549.9
549.9
549.9
547.9
547.9
547.9
547.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 556.0
556.0
556.0
556.4
549.9
549.9
549.9
549.7
547.9
547.9
547.9
547.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.8
13.9
14.115.6
11.6
12.3
12.2
13.6
13.7
13.9
13.9
15.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
17.5
15.7
16.3
17.5
10.9
11.0
10.5
10.9
10.9
10.2
10.4
10.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
12.2
12.1
13.9
12.4
13.7
14.3
16.9
17.3
18.9
18.7
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
12.9
12.2
12.3
11.0
10.9
10.8
10.8
9.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio3
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)1
547.0
547.0
547.0
547.0
572.5
572.5
572.5
572.7
572.4
572.4
572.4
572.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 547.0
547.0
547.0
547.3
572.5
572.5
572.5
572.7
572.4
572.4
572.4
572.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.3
12.0
12.1
12.4
7.6
6.6
7.0
6.3
9.8
9.8
9.9
10.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
60
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.7
14.0
14.5
14.7
7.7
5.5
5.2
7.7
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.3
10.3
10.0
10.4
7.6
7.9
9.3
13.9
19.4
20.7
21.8
23.2
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
6.1
6.1
6.1
5.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.1
1.0
<1.0
'For MY3 through MY7 ban kfull elevation was calculated using the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS
2Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
3Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the ban kfull channel.

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
* Bankfull Stage Elevation Changed for Cross Section 13 due to poor baseline bankfull survey shots.
'For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation was calculated using the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS
2Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
3Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Cross Section
10, UT2B
(Pool)
Cross
Section
11, UT2B
(Riffle)
Cross Section
12, UT3B (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY3
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY3
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
564.2
564.2
564.2
564.4
563.9
563.9
563.9
563.9
563.0
563.0
563.0
563.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 564.2
564.2
564.2
564.2
563.9
563.9
563.9
563.9
563.0
563.0
563.0
563.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.7
10.5
10.7
13.2
5.5
6.5
6.8
6.7
6.2
6.3
7.0
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
60
60
60
60
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.7 1
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
8.6
6.3
6.3
8.6
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.3
3.8
3.0
3.2
3.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
17.4
17.9
20.2
13.2
15.7
16.5
19.3
10.1
13.4
15.5
31.2
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
10.8
9.3
8.8
9.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
---
---
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MYS MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
563.0
563.0
563.0
563.2
553.8
553.8
553.8
554.0
553.6
553.6
553.6
553.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 563.0
563.1
563.1
563.1
553.8
553.8
553.8
553.8
553.6
553.6
553.6
553.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
4.7
4.6
6.6
5.7
6.4
6.7
9.9
6.3
5.7
5.5
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
60
25
25
25
25
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.6 1
0.6
0.8
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
1.9
1.7
2.7
3.6
2.4
2.4
3.6
4.5
3.0
3.2
4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
11.5
12.4
16.5
9.1
17.3
19.2
27.4
8.7
11.0
9.4
9.8
Entrenchment Ratio
14.1
12.8
13.0
9.1
4.3
3.9
3.7
2.5
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1
<1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
---
---
Dimension and Substrate Base
Bankfull Elevation (ft)1 552.6
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 552.6
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.0
Floodprone Width (ft) ---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) 7.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 8.0
Entrenchment Ratio ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ---
MY1
552.6
552.6
7.6
---
1.1
1.7
8.0
7.2
---
---
MY2
552.6
552.6
7.3
---
1.1
1.7
7.9
6.8
---
---
MY3 MY4
552.7
552.8
8.1
---
1.0
1.8
7.9
8.3
---
---
MYS MY6 MY7 Base
552.5
552.5
8.1
100
0.5
0.9
4.0
16.6
12.3
1.0
MY1
552.5
552.5
8.1
100
0.4
0.8
3.5
18.7
12.4
1.0
MY2
552.5
552.5
8.2
100
0.5
0.8
3.8
17.8
12.2
1.0
MY3 MY4
552.6
552.4
8.4
100
0.5
0.9
4.0
17.7
11.9
<1.0
MY5 MY6 MY7
* Bankfull Stage Elevation Changed for Cross Section 13 due to poor baseline bankfull survey shots.
'For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation was calculated using the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS
2Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
3Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT South Fork Reach ]
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
I Min Max
I Min Max
I Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8 9.3
8.7 9.0
8.6 9.0
8.6 9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
85
85
85
85
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.7
0.6 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0 1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1 1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.3 6.8
5.7 6.2
5.4 6.2
5.3 6.8
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8 14.6
13.1 13.3
13.0 13.5
13.3 13.8
Entrenchment Ratio
9.1 9.7
9.4 9.8
9.4 9.9
8.9 9.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
8.4
14.1
3.3
2.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9 50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0058 0.0432
Pool Length (ft) 12 47
Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.4 2.6
Pool Spacing (ft) 29 85
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
24 56
Radius of Curvature (ft) 9 36
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.0 4.1
Meander Wave Length (ft) 68 151
Meander Width Ratio 2.7 6.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
C4
2,185
1.27
0.0103
0.0102 0.0104
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
21/13/64/2/0/0
25/9/52/14/0/0
27/22/33/18/0/0
27/20/46/7/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/2.37/8.4/34.5/55/180
SC/2.4/14.1/60/107/256
SC/0.14/3.3/70/121/256
SC/0.16/2.4/34.8/
73.4/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
1 0%
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT South Fork Reach 2
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.7 13.7
12.3
13.9
12.2
13.9
13.6
1 15.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
ISO
150
ISO
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8 0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.3 1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1 1.S
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.9 11.0
10.2
11.0
10.4
10.5
10.9
Width/Depth Ratio
14.5 17.3
13.7
18.9
14.3
18.7
16.9
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio
10.9 11.8
10.8
12.2
10.8
12.3
9.8
1 11.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.4
14.6
7.3
8.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9 40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0055 0.0326
1
Pool Length (ft) 23 50
Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.1
Pool Spacing (ft) 45 F 78
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
37 54
Radius of Curvature (ft) 17 28
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.6 2.6
Meander Wave Length (ft) 110 144
Meander Width Ratio 3.4 5.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
C4
1,077
1.18
0.0078
0.0077 0.0078
---
28/10/56/6/0/0
15/16/43/26/0/1
23/21/44/11/1/0
14/15/67/4/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.4/10.4/37.9/72/180
0.13/4.7/15/85/124/256
SC/0.14/3.3/70/121/256
0.1/2.5/8/33/53.7/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0% 1
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1C
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min I Max
Myl
Min I Max
Min I Max
MY4
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.8
9.8
9.9
10.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.9
Width/Depth Ratio
19.4
20.7
21.8
23.2
Entrenchment Ratio
6.1
6.1
6.1
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0
<1.0
D50 (mm)l
3.3
1 12.9
1 8.9
1 5.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8 22
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0011 0.0110
Pool Length (ft) 6 22
Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 22 38
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
16 1 26
Radius of Curvature (ft)l 9 15
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.0 1.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)l 55 73
Meander Width Ratiol 1.7 2.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
C4
256
1.11
0.0053
0.0078 0.0080
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
24/17/58/1/0/0
15/10/67/8/0/0
27/10/47/16/0/0
29/13/55/3/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.21/3.3/22.6/35/128 0.15/5.1/12.9/41/79/180
SC/0.63/8.9/64/107/180
SC/0.19/5.3/35.4/
56.9/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2B
(---): Data was not provided
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
6.5
6.8
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.3
2.7
2.8
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
15.7
16.5
19.3
Entrenchment Ratio
10.8
9.3
8.8
9.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)l
0.1
1 0.2
1 0.2 1
SC
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 (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--
Radius of Curvature (ft) 13
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.8
3.3
Meander Wave Length (ft) ---
Meander Width Ratio ---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
C4
70
1.04
0.0101
0.0070 0.0084
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
47/13/37/3/0/0
39/23/31/8/0/0
44/26/21/9/0/0
61/32/4/3/0/0
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 I
SC/SC/SC/0.6/32/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 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 3 - 2018
UT3B
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min I Max
Myl
Min I Max
Min I Max
MY4
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
3.9
3.4
6.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftp)
1.6
1.1
1.0
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
13.0
11.8
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio14.1
15.5
11.5
9.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.3
<1.0
D50 (mm)l
5.6
1 2.8
1 0.2
1 0.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)12
1 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0112 0.0419
Pool Length (ft) 10 1 22
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.3
Pool Spacing (ft) 30 36
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
12 1 23
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 47
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.7 7.6
Meander Wave Length (ft) 55 68
Meander Width Ratio 1.9 3.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
C4
155
1.05
0.0164
0.0127 0.0161
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
32/14/51/3/0/0
33/14/43/10/0/0
29/39/20/12/0/0
45/17/26/12/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
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
SC/SC/0.2/48.3/
104.7/180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--(: Data was not provided

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT4B
(---): Data was not provided
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.7
6.4
6.7
9.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
25
25
25
25
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.6
2.4
2.4
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
17.3
19.2
27.4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.3
3.9
3.7
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)l
4.0
1 6.9
1 0.4 1
0.5
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)l
19 1 23
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10 20
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.8 3.6
Meander Wave Length (ft) 59 69
Meander Width Ratio 3.3 4.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
C4
212
1.71
0.0043
0.0059 0.0067
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
22/20/57/1/0/0
31/12/43/14/0/0
18/43/34/5/0/0
38/16/29/17/0/0
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
SC/SC/0.5/66/98.3/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
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 3 - 2018
UTS
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min I Max
Myl
Min I Max
Min I Max
MY4
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
3.5
3.7
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
18.7
17.5
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio.2.4
12.
11.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
1.0
1.5
�J.0
D50 (mm)l
5.9
1 19.0
1 4.7 1
0.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5 21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0081 0.0374
Pool Length (ft) 18 1 42
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.7
Pool Spacing (ft) 31 51
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
22 40
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10 37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.0 3.7
Meander Wave Length (ft) 63 97
Meander Width Ratio 2.3 4.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
C4
680
1.32
0.0114
0.0110 0.0114
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
34/11/54/1/0/0
30/10/46/14/0/0
31/16/40/13/0/0
34/22/25/8/0/0
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10D SC/0.08/5.9/29.8/54/90
SC/0.18/19/61/101/180 I SC/0.17/4.7/57.8/87/180 SC/0.14/0.7/45/75.9/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0
1 0% 1
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 13. Bank Pin Table
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT South Fork Reach 1- Cross Section 4 Pool (Station 118+63)
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
Upstream
10/22/2018
0.0
Midstream
0.0
Downstream
0.0

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 1, UTSF Reach 1
107+14 Riffle
570
x -section area (ft.sq.)
I I I
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
8.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
568
c
0
w 566
w
564
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
0 MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) +MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
8.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 2, UTSF Reach 1
107+47 Pool
569
567
c
0
U w 565
563
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.9
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
13.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 3, UTSF Reach 1
118+36 Riffle
6.8
559
9.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.3
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
557
c
0
w
555
U
553
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) MY1(9/2016) +MY2(3/2017) tMY3(04/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.3
width -depth ratio
85.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 4, UTSF Reach 1
118+63 Pool
558
556
c
0
'w 554
w
552
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
17.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.6
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
17.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 5, UTSF Reach 2
126+80 Riffle
10.9
553
13.6
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.9
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
551
oft
itm
cboo
0
M
U w 549
547
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) MY1(9/2016) +MY2(3/2017) tMY3(04/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
10.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.6
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
14.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.9
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 6, UTSF Reach 2
130+09 Riffle
551
549
c
0
U w 547
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) MY1(9/2016)-MY2(3/2017) tMY3(04/2018) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
10.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
15.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.5
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 7, UTSF Reach 2
130+39 Pool
550
548
r
O
v
546
w
544
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.4
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
13.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 8, UT1C
201+44 Pool
577
575
573
0
v
571
569
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) tMY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.4
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
11.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 9, UT1C
201+61 Riffle
576
574
c
0
w 572
w
570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) MY1(9/2016)-MY2(3/2017) tMY3(04/2018) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.7
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
10.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.2
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.6
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 10, UT2B
300+26 Pool
567
565
13.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
13.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.2
width -depth ratio
c
0
.�
w
OWN
w 563
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
- MYO (2/2016) 4 MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
13.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 11, UT2B
300+36 Riffle
567
565
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.7
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.8
c
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.3
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
0
w 563
w
561
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
0 MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) +MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.7
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.3
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 12, UT3B
400+77 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
566
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
31.2
width -depth ratio
564
c
o�i
U 'w 562
,
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
- MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
31.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 13, UT3B
400+91 Riffle
2.7
566
6.6
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
564
PR
ON"c
0
w
w 562
560
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(2/2016) MY1(9/2016)-MY2(3/2017) tMY3(04/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.6
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 14, UT4B
500+26 Riffle
557
555
0
U w 553
551
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) s MY1 (9/2016) s MY2 (3/2017) +MY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.9
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
27.4
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.5
entrenchment ratio
0.7
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 15, UT4B
500+38 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
556
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
554
c
0
w
552
w
550
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
- MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 16, UT5
606+30 Pool
555
553
c
0
w 551
w
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (2/2016) MYI (9/2016) * MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
9.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross Section 17, UT5
606+45 Riffle
555
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.9
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
553
c
2
w
551
U
549
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (2/2016) MY1 (9/2016) +MY2 (3/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.9
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY'-'
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
15
27
27
27
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
4
5
5
32
y 30o
u
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
8
40
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
42
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
2
2
44
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1
3
3
47
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
3
5
5
52
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
1
3
3
55
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
1
6
6
61
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
100
3
3
64
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
2
7
7
71
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
1 1
6
6
77
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
80
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
82
40
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
90
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
3
93
Small
64
90
5
5
5
98
Small
90
128
2
0
2
2
100
`p6
Large
128
180
•M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY1-09/2016 MY2-03/2017 0MY3-05/2018
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
12
100
tpJ�O�Q
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Totall
70
1 30 1
100 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.16
D50 =
2.4
D84 =
34.8
D95 =
73.4
D100 =
128.0
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SIIUCla
avel
bble r
80
a ro
2' 70
j 60
50
E
40
y 30o
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
AMY
Particle Class Size (mm)
-2/2016 MY3-09/2016 MY2-03/2017 MY3-05/2018
UTSF-Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
u 60
v
o 50
40
u2
m 30
20
10
c
0
A.AiLi
m. 1. mi 0�.LJOIL,Lftfi
oo�tiotiyh otih oy ti
ti tiw o- �� � til ti� �ti� 3ti ay ba �,o tiyw tiro tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoyoti��$ ��o
•M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY1-09/2016 MY2-03/2017 0MY3-05/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY'-'
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP!R
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
a
u
d
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
a; 70
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�0
Small
362
512
100
110J
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
FBTERi5ZW
Bedrock
2048
>2048
=401111-
FTI I0
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Slltfcla
Individual Class Percent
avel
100
90
80
bble
er
gp
C
70
a
u
d
60
a ro
a
H
50
a; 70
m
u
40
a 60
m
3
30
v
20
50
10
0
Doti ytih by Oh 'r
o, o, ,-
'L ,L� b 5� y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L ph rJ- -o ,l<b �O 'L 0 0ti 5 ,yo -, ,lA a0 0�O
1, S S 3
E-2/20%
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018
E
�? 40
30
u
u
a 20
10
=401111-
FTI I0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--4---/2016 �M-9/2016 --*-Mtt-03/201) -5/3018
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
u
d
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
Doti ytih by Oh 'r
o, o, ,-
'L ,L� b 5� y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L ph rJ- -o ,l<b �O 'L 0 0ti 5 ,yo -, ,lA a0 0�O
1, S S 3
E-2/20%
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
iu
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
u
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
M-2/2016
Coarse
22.6 1
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
V
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--G---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--G---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UTSF-Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
Doti ytih tih Oh 'r
'L ,L� b 5� � y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L p5 oP o0 ,y`b �O y0 01' ,y'L ,yA aO 0�O
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each
Class
Percentage
Summary
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
11
14
14
14
128.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
2
3
3
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
19
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
21
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
3
3
24
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
4
5
5
29
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
8
9
9
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
41
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
1
4
4
45
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
3
5
5
50
4101
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
1
10
10
60
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
o- e� til ti� �ti� 3ti ay �a �o tiyw 1�o tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoyo tip tpFo
5
5
65
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
7
72
Coarse
22.6
32
4
7
11
11
83
Very Coarse
32
45
7
4
11
11
94
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
96
Small
64
90
1
1
2
2
98
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
`p0
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
SO
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK'`-'
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Total 1
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
100
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.10
D35 =
2.50
D50 =
8.0
Da4 =
33.0
D95 =
53.7
D100 =
128.0
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
UTSF-Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
60
w
a
N
50
u
40
Ti
3
30
a
20
10
0
oo�tiotiy5 oti5 oy ti ti ti$
o- e� til ti� �ti� 3ti ay �a �o tiyw 1�o tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoyo tip tpFo
•MYO-02/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M13-09/2016 •M-3/201) •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�Q
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
d
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
u
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
E-2/2016
Coarse
22.6 1
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
�pQ
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
SO
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--4---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6---/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--4---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6---/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
d
60
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
o�ti ytih by Oh 'r
o, o, o•
'L ,L� P 5� 0 y1 yo ,L�o ,�'L p5 oP CO ,yW �O h6 0ti 1ti ,lA pO 0�O
ti ti ti ti 3 e do yo �o
E-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�Q
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
m
3
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
Coarse
22.6 1
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
�pQ
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
SO
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ✓tial-�-+iyr�'I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--G---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6---/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ✓tial-�-+iyr�'I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--G---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6---/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UTSF-Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
60
d
a
H
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
Lk LE
Doti ytih by Oh 'r
'L ,L� b 5� � y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L p5 oP o0 ,y`b �O y0 01' ,y'L ,yA aO 0�O
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1C, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY'-'
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
21
29
29
29
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
E
U= 40
29
y 30
u
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
10
10
39
Medium
0.25
0.50
39
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
2
2
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
42
AMY
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
44
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
45
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
4
6
6
51
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
60
w
1
1
52
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
58
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
1 1
8
8
66
Ta 30
3
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
6
72
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
9
81
0
Very Coarse
32
45
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M-9/2016 .--/201) •M-5/2018
10
10
91
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
97
Small
64
90
2
2
2
99
Small
90
128
1
1
1
100
`p6
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
tpJ�O�Q
Medium
512
024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
8€DROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Totall
60
1 40 1
100 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.19
D50 =
5.3
Da4 =
35.4
D95 =
56.9
D100 =
128.0
li Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/clay
Sand 0
ravel
bble r
80
a ro
2° 70
j 60
-23 50
E
U= 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 30 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
AMY
-2/2016 MY30112016 M-3/2017 -5/2018
li Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
60
w
a
50
N
40
u
Ta 30
3
a
20
10
0
oo4ti It, otih oy ti
ti tiw o- 5� til ti� �ti� 3ti ay 6o- Co 'p tiro tiyp 3�ti ytiti yoyo 10�$
•M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M-9/2016 .--/201) •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
iu
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
u
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
Coarse
1 22.6
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
V
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--*---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--*---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UT1C, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
H
50
M
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
Doti ytih by Oh 'r
o, o, p•
'L ,L� b 5� � y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L U5 oP o0 ,y`b �O y0 01' ,y'L ,yA aO 0�O
'1, S S 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
E-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT26, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY'-'
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
31
30
61
61
61
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
4
4
65
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
2
9
9
74
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
3
7
7
81
SPO'
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
3
8
8
89
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
93
j 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
94
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
94
Fine
4.0
5.6
E
94
Fine
5.6
8.0
40
94
JFK
Medium
8.0
11.0
94
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
94
Coarse
16.0
22.6
94
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
95
Very Coarse
32
45
a
95
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
97
Small
64
90
1
1
1
98
Small
90
128
1
1
1
99
`p6
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
UT213, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
100
Small
362
512
80
100
tpJ�O�Q
Medium
512
1024
70
v
u 60
v
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
8€DROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Totall
60
1 40 1
100 1
100 1
100
UT213, Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35=
Silt/Clay
D50=
Silt/Clay
D84 =
0.6
D95 =
32.0
D100 =
180.0
UT213, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
avel
bble
11
r
80
a ro
2° 70
j 60
50
E
40
y 30
u
20
a
FM
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
AMY -2/2016 - MY109/2016 MY203/2017 MY305/2018
UT213, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
u 60
v
a 50
40
u2
m 30
20
10
c
0
o�ti titih tih oy ti ti ti$ o- 5� titi tie tib 3ti ah bo- 0o yw �o h6 eti titi yo- p �o
o• o, o• ti ti ti ti 3 5 10 ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY /2016 MY1-09/2016 MY2-03/2017 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT26, Cross Section 11
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP!R
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
iu
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
.'
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
0gal 11 1
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
4
1 4
63
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018
Coarse
1 22.6
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
d 30
U
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
V
Small
362
512
Particle Class Size (mm)
-&-2/2016 � M-9/2016 --*- M-3/2017 -41 -5/3018
100
110J
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
UT26, Cross Section 11
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
UT26, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT26, Cross Section 11
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
SIIVClay
avel
80
bble
r
C
70
gp
iu
60
a ro
50
a; 70
m
u
40
m
3
60
M
.'
20
50
10
VL
E
0gal 11 1
I..d 11116 '
o5ti 1tih 1h oy 1
0 0 0'
It. 0 11 10 ,L�o ,5'L by rJ- Co 0ti
,yb 1'O 1ti ,lA aO 0�O
6 h
ti 1 ti 3 e 10 yo �o
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018
�? 40
d 30
U
at 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-&-2/2016 � M-9/2016 --*- M-3/2017 -41 -5/3018
UT26, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
vI
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
M
.'
20
10
VL
0gal 11 1
I..d 11116 '
o5ti 1tih 1h oy 1
0 0 0'
It. 0 11 10 ,L�o ,5'L by rJ- Co 0ti
,yb 1'O 1ti ,lA aO 0�O
6 h
ti 1 ti 3 e 10 yo �o
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT313, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach
Class
Percentage
Summary
Percent
Cumulative
SIL TICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
15
30
45
45
45
180.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
45
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
7
7
52
Medium
0.25
0.50
52
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
2
7
7
59
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1
3
3
62
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
63
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
63
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
63
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
20
2
2
65
4101
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
68
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
ooetiotiyh otih Oh ti ti ti$
3
3
71
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M-9/2016 •MY2-03/2012 •M-5/2018
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
72
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
75
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
83
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
88
Small
64
90
4
4
4
92
Small
90
128
7
7
7
99
`p0
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
SO
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK'`-'
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Total 1
60
1 40 1
100 1
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)
MY -2/2016 --*--MY-/2016 MY2-03/2012 -5/2018
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.2
Ds4 =
48.3
D95 =
104.7
D100 =
180.0
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)
MY -2/2016 --*--MY-/2016 MY2-03/2012 -5/2018
UT313, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
Ta
3
30
a
2
20
10
0
ooetiotiyh otih Oh ti ti ti$
b 5� 0 y1 0 �Lo �L a5 6P �p q% 'p "0 3�ti ytiti yOyb tip ��0
•-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M-9/2016 •MY2-03/2012 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT36, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
m
3
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
Coarse
1 22.6
32
11
11
74
0
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
V
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--4---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--4---/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UT36, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
60
iu
a
vI
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
Jill!
I
10
0
Doti ytih tih Oh 'r
'L ,L� P 5� 0 y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L p5 ra0' �O ,11b �O h6 0ti yti ,lA
0p 0�O
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT46, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
30
38
38
38
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
42
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
5
7
7
49
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
1
1
1
50
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
3
4
4
54
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
u
40
54
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
3
4
4
58
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
61
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
63
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
ooetiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti�
63
4101
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
65
ORk
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
68
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
72
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
74
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
9
83
Small
64
90
11
11
11
94
Small
90
128
4
4
4
98
`p0
Large
128
180
1
1
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�0
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK'`-'
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Total 1
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
100
UT413, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.5
Da4 =
66.0
D95 =
98.3
D100 =
180.0
UT413, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
UT413, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
Ta
3
30
a
20
10
0
ooetiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti�
o- e� til ti� ��� 3ti ay ba �o tiyw tiro tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoy tip
•MYO-02/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M-9/2016 •M-3/201) •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT46, Cross Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
m
3
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
Coarse
1 22.6
32
11
11
74
0
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
V
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
Large/Very Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--*--MYO-02/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
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)
--*--MYO-02/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6-M-3/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UT46, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
60
iu
a
vI
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
1,11.1 I.&AILIkIRTRICA
Doti ytih tih Oh 'r
'L ,L� b 5� � y1 y0 ,L�o ,�'L p5 ra0' �O ,lib �O y0 01' y'L ,lA aO 0�O
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTS, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY'
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
7
27
34
34
34
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
34
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
6
6
40
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
2
2
2
42
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
4
14
14
56
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
u
40
56
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Ti
3
30
56
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
58
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
60
Fine
5.6
8.0
60
4101
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
61
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
63
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7 1
7
70
Coarse
22.6
32 1
3
2
5
5
75
Very Coarse
32
45
7
2
9
9
84
Very Coarse
45
64
5
3
8
8
92
Small
64
90
4
2
6
6
98
Small
90
128
1
1
1
99
`p0
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180 1
256
100
Small
256
362
100
�0
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 1 2048
100
BEDROCK'`-'
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Total 1
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
100
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.14
D50 =
0.7
Ds4 =
45.0
D95 =
75.9
D100 =
180.0
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
UT5, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
w
60
a
N
50
u
40
Ti
3
30
a
20
10
0
oo�tiotiy5 oti5 oy ti ti tiw
o- �� til ti� �ti� 3ti ay ba �o tiyw 1�o tiy� 3�ti ytiti yoy tip �0
•MYO-02/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
•M-9/2016 •M-3/201) •M-5/2018

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT5, Cross Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min I max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
23
23
23
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
37
SP�Q
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
38
iu
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
S
5
51
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
55
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
59
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
63
Coarse
22.6 1
32
11
11
74
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
92
Small
64
90
S
5
97
Small
90
128
3
3
100
�pQ
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
SO
Small
362
512
100
�pJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK''';'
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ✓,yW-r�Ti�+�uli T 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)
--*--MYO-02/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6---/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.21
D50 =
7.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
78.5
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
a; 70
a 60
-23 50
E
�? 40
d
30
U
a 20
10
UT5, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ✓,yW-r�Ti�+�uli T 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)
--*--MYO-02/2016 �M-9/2016 --- 6---/201) ---&-MY3-05/3018
UT5, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
iu
60
a
vI
50
m
u
40
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
LL A LL
Doti 1tih O• by 1P 1L
O• O•
',L� P 5� 0 11 10 '1� 0 oP o0
'L
M-2/2016
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY109/2016 •M-3/2017 0-5/2018

APPENDIX S. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
'Hurricane Florence
•'Crest gauge data malfunctioned
Monthly Rainfall Data
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Maney Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018 Siler City, NC
Date of Data
Date of
Reach
Collection
Occurrence
Method
7/3/2018
5/16/2018
UTSF Reach 1
0
Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18
Date
2018 Rainfall Data -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
10/22/2018
9/17/2018*
Crest Gage/
Pressure
Transducer
UTSF Reach 2 10/22/2018 **
7/3/2018 5/16/2018
UT5
10/22/2018 1
9/17/2018*
'Hurricane Florence
•'Crest gauge data malfunctioned
Monthly Rainfall Data
Maney Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Maney Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018 Siler City, NC
12
10
c 8
`o
6
a`
4
2
0
Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18
Date
2018 Rainfall Data -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
' 2018 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).

Recorded In -stream Flow Events
Maney Farm Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96314
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
559.00
558.50
x
v
v
J
d
is
558.00
557.50
Maney Farm: In -Stream Flow Gage for UTSF Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
C -0 i LT C 7Stlq O_ >
li QJ 0
5 Q S Q Vf O Z
Rainfall UTSF Reach 1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — •Bankfull
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 m
C
M
Cz
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0