20161044 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2019_20200130

ID#* 20161044 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/30/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/30/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
...................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20161044
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
County: Yadkin
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: LoneHickory_97135_MY1_2019.pdf 21.97MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
�X/ I �;" -;-I 1

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT

Final

LONE HICKORY MITIGATION SITE
Yadkin County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 6897
DMS Project No. 97135
DWR No. 20161044
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-00100
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

Data Collection Period: May 2019 – November 2019
Final Submission Date: January 14, 2020

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1652

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

January 14, 2020

Mr. Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

RE: Lone Hickory Mitigation Site – Monitoring Year 1 Report Final
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040101 – Yadkin County
DMS Project ID No. 97135
Contract # 006897

Dear Mr. Wiesner:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year (MY) 1 report for the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site. Wildlands’ responses
to DMS’ report comments are noted below in italics.

DMS comment; Cover Page: Please update the DWR # to 20161044 to be consistent with the DWR
website and document upload page. This is just a minor formatting update.

Wildlands response; The cover page has been updated.

DMS comment; Executive Summary: The summary notes that the project restored and/or preserved a
total of 12,630 linear feet of stream. Table 1 notes 12,621 linear feet. Please update.

Wildlands response; The length has been updated to 12,621 linear feet in the Executive Summary.

DMS comment; Report text & IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes 8/19/2019: During the August 2019 IRT
site visit, the IRT noted a grass that was similar to Johnson grass adjacent to UT1. Please address/discuss
in the report text.

Wildlands response; The Johnson grass-like specimen noted during the August 2019 IRT site visit was later
identified by Wildlands to be barnyard grass (Echinochloa sp.). We expect this grass will be shaded out
over time but will continue to monitor its density and coverage at the Site and treat if it seems to be
crowding out floodplain vegetation diversity. Text has been added to section 1.2.2.

DMS comment; During the August 2019 site visit, DMS and the IRT observed that the BMP overflow
channel from BMP4 had been eroded by recent storm flow. Based on WEI’s assessment, DMS
understands that this damaged area is noncredit generating. The meeting minutes indicate that WEI
planned to repair this area by the end of September 2019. Please address and update the report text
accordingly.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

Wildlands response; Wildlands completed a repair to the overflow channel from BMP4 in September 2019.
Text has been added to section 1.2.5.

DMS comment; Section 1.2 – Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment: The report notes that annual
monitoring for MY1 was conducted from March 2019-November 2019. Based on Table 2, site planting
was not completed until April 2019. DMS recommends updating this to May 2019-November 2019
report wide.

Wildlands response; Wildlands had originally noted the MY1 assessment beginning in March 2019 since
that is when the hydrologic gage data collection began. For consistency, the MY1 assessment dates have
been updated to May 2019 – November 2019 throughout the report.

DMS comment; Section 1.2.4 – Stream Hydrology Assessment & CCPV Maps: Do the CCPV maps show
the October 2019 relocated stream gages on UT2A and UT2B or the MY0-MY1 gage locations? Since
these gages were not relocated until October 2019, DMS recommends showing the previous MY0
locations in the MY1 report and updating the mapped locations (and digital support files) in the 2020 -
MY2 report. Please address and update the report text accordingly.

Wildlands response; The CCPV maps submitted with the MY1 draft report showed the relocated stream
gage locations on UT2A and UT2B. The CCPV maps and digital support files have been updated to show
the previous MY0-MY1 stream gage locations on UT2A and UT2B and text has been added to section 1.2.4.
Going forward, the MY2 report will show the relocated stream gage locations.

DMS comment; Section 1.2.6 – Wetland Assessment: In the report text, please confirm that the
groundwater gage maintenance (GWG 6) and gage calibration was completed as requested/noted in
the August 19, 2019 IRT site visit meeting minutes.

Wildlands response; Text has been added to section 1.2.6 to confirm that groundwater gage maintenance
and calibration was completed in MY1. The manual water level measurement data points have been added
to groundwater gage plots in Appendix 5.

DMS comment; Table 1: In the Project Credits section, the 9.5 WMUs should be placed in the Re-
establishment row.

Wildlands response; Table 1 has been updated.

DMS comment; Groundwater gage plots: For clarity, consider adding the consecutive day number for
each gage on the groundwater gage plots instead of using the currently shown 19-day bar. The 19-day
bar adds some confusion to the plots without a description of what it corresponds too (9.2% of the
growing season).

Wildlands response; For clarity, the maximum number of consecutive days achieved by each gage has been
added to all groundwater gage plots instead of the 19-day bar.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
DMS comment; In-Stream flow gage plots: For clarity, consider reporting the maximum consecutive
days achieved for each gage on the individual graph. It would also be helpful to show a start and end
line that corresponds with the consecutive days reported. Note that gage #1 has a “30 days” line
but the other graphs do not. All gage graphs should be consistent in format.

Wildlands response; For clarity, the maximum number of consecutive days achieved by each gage has been
added to all stream gage plots.

DMS comment; Digital Support File Comments: Please provide all required digital support files as
specified in the applicable DMS monitoring template. The GIS stream and wetland features for this
project were not included in the digital support files. Please provide DMS with GIS features segmented
based on the asset table for which linear feet/ acres of the features match the linear feet/ acres
reported in the asset table.

Wildlands response; All CCPV GIS data has been added to the support files in the electronic submittal. The
stream and wetland GIS features that match the linear feet/acres reported in the asset table are found in
the “LH_ALIGNS_CL” and “LH_Wetland_Reest” shapefiles.

Two (2) hard copies of the Final Monitoring Report and a full electronic submittal has been mailed to the
DMS western field office. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x106 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM
Project Manager

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full-delivery stream and wetland mitigation
project at the Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The project restored and preserved a total of 12,621
linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream and restored 9.5 acres of riparian wetland in Yadkin
County, NC. The Site is located within the DMS targeted watershed for the Yadkin River Basin HUC
03040101130020 and the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03-07-02. The project is
providing 13,164.000 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 9.500 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the
Yadkin River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 (Yadkin 01).
The watershed has a long history of agricultural activity and most of the stressors to stream functions
are related to this historic and current land use practices. The major stream stressors for the Site were
concentrated agricultural runoff inputs, active stream incision and head cutting, lack of stabilizing
streamside vegetation, extensive agricultural manipulation through ditching, and the lack of bedform
diversity. The effects of these stressors resulted in degraded water quality and habitat throughout the
Site’s watershed when compared to reference conditions. The project approach for the Site focused on
evaluating the Site’s existing functional condition and evaluating its potential for recovery and need for
intervention.
The project goals defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2017) were established with careful
consideration of 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and
objectives to address stressors identified in the watershed. The established project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability;
• Reconnect channels with historic floodplains and re-establish wetland hydrology and function in
relic wetland areas;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reduce sediment and nutrient input from adjacent farm fields;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and wetland vegetation; and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses.
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed in April 2019. Monitoring Year (MY) 1
assessments and site visits were completed between April and November 2019 to assess the conditions
of the project.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY1. The
overall average planted stem density for the Site is 491 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring, and streams are functioning as intended. At least one bankfull
event was documented on UT3 Reach 3 and UT2B since the completion of construction. All nine gages
that were initially installed at baseline in the wetland re-establishment area are meeting or exceeding
hydrology success criteria. The MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern including
populations of invasive plant species and an isolated area of bed and bank scour. Wildlands will continue
to monitor these areas, and an adaptive management plan will be implemented as necessary
throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final iii
LONE HICKORY MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-1
Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
Vegetation Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-2
Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity .................................................. 1-3
Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-3
Stream Hydrology Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-4
Stream Areas of Concern ................................................................................................... 1-4
Wetland Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1-4
Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-6
Section 3: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................3-1

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final iv
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5a – 5b Monitoring Component Summary
IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes 8/19/2019

Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 – 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Maps (Key – Sheet 5)
Table 6a – 6k Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs

Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8a – 8b Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a – 10d Planted and Total Stems

Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a – 11c Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11d Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 12a – 12c Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-Section)
Table 13a – 13k Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Stream Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Lone Hickory Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Yadkin County approximately 3.5 miles south of the
town of Yadkinville, NC in the Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101130020 and NCDWR Subbasin 03-07-02
(Figure 1). Located in the Inner Piedmont lithotectonic belt within the Piedmont physiographic province
(NCGS, 1985), the project watershed is dominated by agricultural and forested land.
The Site contains two valleys, separated by a ridge that runs north to south through the project limits.
South Deep Creek flows along the northern boundary of the project. On the east side of the ridge
(herein referenced as the East Side), UT1 flows through a steep, narrow valley that gradually widens and
flattens in slope as it flows downstream to the South Deep Creek floodplain. UT1 is joined by UT1A and
UT1B within the Site limits before flowing offsite to join South Deep Creek. On the west side of the ridge
(herein referenced as the West Side), UT2 and UT3 flow out of steep, narrow valleys into the broad, flat
floodplain of South Deep Creek. UT2A and UT2B join UT2 before the stream’s confluence with South
Deep Creek. The East Side of the Site drains 0.44 square miles and the West Side of the Site drains 0.87
square miles of rural land.
Prior to construction activities, the Site has a history of use for both crop production and as a dairy farm
resulting in degraded in-stream habitat and sediment erosion. Within the East Side of the Site, the
streams were manipulated through ditching, impoundments, and land use changes. The West Side
streams were ditched and re-routed with the adjacent floodplain previously altered for agricultural uses.
The riparian buffers on both sides exhibited a lack of stabilizing streamside vegetation due to
agricultural practices. Tables 11a – 11d in Appendix 4 present the pre-restoration conditions in detail.
Construction activities were completed in April 2019 by KBS Earthworks, Inc. Turner Land Surveying,
PLLC. completed the as-built survey in April 2019. Planting was completed following construction in the
spring of 2019 by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. A conservation easement has been recorded and is in
place on 103 acres. The project is providing 13,164.000 SMUs and 9.500 WMUs for the Yadkin River
Basin 03040101 HUC (Yadkin 01). Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with close-out
anticipated to commence in 2026 given the success criteria are met.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin Valley Basin. The project goals were
established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the NCDWR 2008
Yadkin River Basinwide Plan (NCDWR, 2008) and the RBRP (EEP, 2009).
The following project specific goals and objectives outlined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2017)
include:

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-2
Goals Objectives
Improve stream channel stability.

Restore stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and
profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
Create stable tie-ins for tributaries joining restored channels. Add
bank revetments and in-stream structures to protect restored
streams.

Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
and re-establish wetland hydrology and
function in relic wetland areas.

Remove man-made impoundments, remove culvert crossings,
and restore historic valley profile. Remove historic overburden
from farm fields. Reconstruct stream channels with bankfull
dimensions relative to the floodplain. Restore stream plan form
to promote development of mutually beneficial stream/wetland
complex.

Improve instream habitat.

Remove man-made impoundments and culvert crossings within
easement. Install habitat features such as constructed riffles,
cover logs, and brush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add
woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying
depth.

Reduce sediment and nutrient input from
adjacent farm fields.
Construct two step pool stormwater conveyance and three dry
detention BMPs to slow and treat runoff from farm fields before
entering Site streams.
Restore and enhance native floodplain and
wetland vegetation.
Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone where
currently insufficient.
Permanently protect the project site from
harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on the Site.
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY1 (May to November 2019) to assess the condition of the
project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success
criteria presented in the Lone Hickory Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017).
Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation plot monitoring is being conducted in post-construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Permanent plots are monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the
Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) and the 2016 USACE Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Guidance to assess the vegetation success. A total of 25 permanent vegetation plots
were established within the project easement area. All of the permanent plots were established as a

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-3
standard 10 meter by 10 meter square plot. In addition, 15 mobile vegetation plots were established in
monitoring year 1 throughout the planted conservation easement to evaluate the random vegetation
performance for the Site. These plots will be subsequently reestablished in different random locations
in monitoring years 2, 3, 5 and 7. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document stems,
species, and height using a circular or 100 meter square/rectangular plot. The final vegetative
performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted riparian areas at
the end of the required seven-year monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetative success for the
Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of MY3 and at least 260 stems
per acre at the end of MY5.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in October 2019, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 491 stems per acre for all monitored permanent and mobile vegetation plots. The Site is on
track to meet the MY3 density requirement of 320 planted stems per acre with all (25) of the permanent
plots individually on track to meet this requirement. For the mobile vegetation plots, 11 of the 15 plots
are individually on track to meet the interim MY3 density requirement. Three of the four mobile plots
not meeting the MY3 density requirement were located within the west side of the Site in areas where
dense herbaceous cover is competing with planted stems.
Approximately 74% of the planted stems in permanent plots are thriving with a health score (vigor) of 3
or greater. However, about 10% of the stems have a vigor of 2 or less indicating that some may not
survive next year and 3% of the stems were missing. The poor tree health is a result of suffocation from
dense herbaceous cover, insects, deer, or other unknown factors. This leaves a mortality rate of about
13% of the baseline planted stem count in permanent vegetation plots. Furthermore, tulip poplars
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and swamp chestnut oaks (Quercus michauxii) were the planted tree species
with the highest mortality rates in MY1. Please refer to Appendix 2 for permanent vegetation plot
photographs, Figures 3.0-3.5 for vegetation plot locations, and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
MY1 visual assessments indicate that some invasive plant populations are present within the
conservation easement. These species include: kudzu (Pueraria montana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Asian
spiderwort (Murdannia keisak). In MY1, adaptive management occurred in September and October of
2019 by Wildlands staff. Primary focus areas for treatment included populations of kudzu re-sprouts
within the Site near UT2, UT3, and UT3A that were previously treated prior to construction. In addition,
aquatic invasive plant species including Asian spiderwort were treated within UT1. During the August
2019 IRT site visit, a grass noted to be similar to Johnson grass adjacent to UT1 was later identified by
Wildlands to be barnyard grass (Echinochloa sp.). It is expected that this grass will be shaded out over
time. Along UT3, small areas of the floodplain were re-seeded to promote stronger herbaceous cover.
These vegetation areas of concern will continue to be monitored and addressed by Wildlands
throughout the monitoring period. Current vegetation areas of concern are shown in Current Condition
Plan View (CCPV) Figures 3.0-3.5 in Appendix 2.
Stream Assessment
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration and enhancement I reaches should be stable and show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. Per the Interagency Review
Team (IRT) guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least
1.4 for restored B channels and 2.2 for restored C channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross-
sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-4
signs of instability. Indicators of instability include trends in vertical incision or bank erosion. Changes in
the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the
width-to-depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Please note that the downstream extent
of UT3 Reach 3 was designed to deepen relative to its floodplain as it transitions to meet the invert of
South Deep Creek, and this reach is expected to have a bank height ratio greater than 1.0 and an
entrenchment ratio less than 2.2.
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted during October 2019. Cross-section survey results
indicate that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration reaches with
minimal adjustments. Some in-stream vegetation is visible within the channel along UT1, UT2, UT2A,
and UT2B but has not adversely affected stream form or function with little change in bankfull
dimensions in comparison to the baseline survey. In future years, as woody stems become more
established in-stream vegetation is expected to be shaded out and diminish.
Reachwide pebble counts along all restoration reaches indicate maintenance of coarser materials in
riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability
assessment tables, CCPV maps, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological
tables and plots.
Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four or more bankfull flow events must have occurred
in separate years within the restoration reaches. In MY1, at least one bankfull event was recorded on
two of the stream restoration reaches (UT3 Reach 3, and UT2B).
Consistent flow must be documented in the restored intermittent channels (UT1 Reach 1, UT2A, and
UT2B) at the Site. Under periods of normal rainfall, stream flow must be documented to occur every
year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven-year monitoring period. On UT1 Reach 1 and
UT2A, 209 and 64 consecutive days were documented respectively in MY1 indicating that these two
reaches exceeded success criteria for intermittent channels. UT2B did not meet the success criteria for
this initial monitoring year with 23 consecutive days of stream flow documented in MY1. Per the IRT
recommendations following the site walk on August 19, 2019, the stream gages on UT2A and UT2B were
relocated upstream above mid-reach on these intermittent channels on October 25, 2019. The CCPV
maps in Appendix 2 show the original locations of the stream gages on UT2A and UT2B. Please refer to
Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
Stream Areas of Concern
MY1 visual assessments indicate that very few stream areas of concern exist on the Site, and project
streams are functioning as designed. Along UT3 Reach 1, one isolated area of bank scour and bed
degradation was observed along the riffle at station 304+20. After construction, storm flow caused
scour along the outflow channel from BMP4. A repair was completed in September 2019 to stabilize the
outflow channel from BMP4 above the start of UT2B. Wildlands will continue to monitor stream areas of
concern for accelerated instability and will be addressed as needed throughout the monitoring period.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for current CCPV Figures 3.0-3.5 and stream stability tables.
Wetland Assessment
Nine groundwater monitoring gages (GWGs) were initially installed during baseline monitoring within
the wetland re-establishment area using In-situ Level TROLL® 100 pressure transducers. Following
recommendations from the August 19, 2019 IRT site walk, an additional gage (GWG 10) was installed
adjacent to GWG 4 but outside of the former ditch location at the end of October 2019. A reference

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 1-5
gage was established in a nearby reference wetland and will be utilized to compare the hydrologic
response within the restored wetland areas at the Site. All monitoring gages are downloaded on a
quarterly basis and maintained as needed. As requested during the August 19, 2019 IRT site walk, the
filter sock on GWG 6 was trimmed and bentonite was added to gages as needed. Calibration was
completed by manually measuring water levels on all gages which confirmed the downloaded data. The
final performance standard for wetland hydrology is the presence of groundwater within 12 inches of
the ground surface for 19 consecutive days (9.2%) of the defined growing season for Yadkin County
(April 4 through October 27) under typical precipitation conditions. The Site does not contain a rainfall
gage; therefore, the daily precipitation data was collected from closest NC Climate Retrieval and
Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NC CRONOS) Station, Yadkinville 0.2 E, NC.
Of the nine GWGs that were installed during baseline monitoring, all met or exceeded the success
criteria for MY1 and ranged from 11.1% to 52.7% of the growing season. Monthly rainfall data in 2019
indicated higher than normal rainfall amounts occurred during the months of February, June, and
October and lower than normal rainfall amounts occurred during March, July, and September 2019.
Please refer to Figures 3.0-3.5 in Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for
hydrology data and plots.
As discussed at the beginning of this section, GWG 10 was installed at the end of the growing season in
2019. The reporting of monitoring data for GWG 10 will begin in MY2 and GWG 4 will be omitted in
future monitoring reports.
Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY1. The
overall average planted stem density for the Site is 491 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring, and streams are functioning as intended. At least one bankfull
event was documented on UT3 Reach 3 and UT2B since the completion of construction. All nine gages
that were initially installed at baseline in the wetland re-establishment area are meeting or exceeding
hydrology success criteria. The MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern including
populations of invasive plant species and an isolated area of bed and bank scour. Wildlands will continue
to monitor these areas, and an adaptive management plan will be implemented as necessary
throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 2-6
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Stream gages were installed in riffles and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - Final 3-1
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.
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), February 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2019. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Yadkinville 0.2 E, NC. Accessed
October 2019.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), April 2015. DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout
Reporting Template.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), October 2015. DMS Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Survey,
General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc4
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE,
NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2017. Lone Hickory Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh,
NC.
APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
03040101130020
03040101200010
03040101130010
03040102020040
03040101140020
03040101140010
03040101200020
03040101160010
Figure 1 Project Vicinity MapLone Hickory Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 97135Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
0 1 2 Mile
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)DMS Targeted Local Watersh ed
¹
Directions to Site:From Ch arlotte: Head north on Interstate 77 north of Union Grove,NC, take exit 73A to m erge onto US‐421 S towards Yadkinville.Continue to travel on US‐421 for approxim ately 8 m iles, and th entake exit 257 for US-601 towards Yadkinville/Mocksville. Turn righ tonto US-601 S/S State St for approxim ately 2 m iles and th en turnrigh t onto Lone Hickory R oad. Continue on Lone Hickory R oad forapproxim ately 1 m ile and turn righ t onto R eavico Farm s R oad th atcontinues onto th e Site.
Th e sub ject project site is an environm ental restoration site of th e North Carolina Departm ent of Environm ental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encom passed by a recorded conservation easem ent, b ut is b ordered by land under private ownersh ip. Accessing th e site m ay require traversing areas near or along th e easem ent b oundary and th erefore access b y th e general pub lic is not perm itted. Access b y auth orized personnel of state and federal agencies or th eir designees/contractors involved in th e developm ent, oversigh t,and stewardsh ip of th e restoration site is perm itted with in th e term s and tim efram es of th eir defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity b y any person outside of th ese previously sanctioned roles and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
UT2BUT3
U
T
2
U
T
2
A
UT3A UT3
U
T
1
UT1
B
UT1
A
U
T
1South Deep CreekBMP1BMP2
BMP3
BMP4
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
2018 Aerial Photography
0 350 700 Feet
Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
BMP
Existing Wetland
Wetland Re-establishment
¹
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
6,015 5,721 Warm Restoration P1, P2 1.000 5,721 6,698.000
659 659 Warm Preservation P4 10.000 659 66.000
230 282 Warm Preservation N/A 10.000 282 28.000
48 124 Warm Preservation N/A 10.000 123 12.000
2,527 1,703 Warm Restoration P1, P2 1.000 1,703 1,933.000
1,184 655 Warm Restoration P1 1.000 655 699.000
699 784 Warm Restoration P1, P2 1.000 776 893.000
2,008 2,702 Warm Restoration P1, P2 1.000 2,702 2,835.000
N/A 9.5 Warm Re-establishment 1.000 9.5 9.500
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv
13,058.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
9.500 N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
106.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
13,164.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
1. No direct credit for BMPs.
2. Credits reported have been adjusted based on buffer width deviations from standard 50-foot buffer width.
UT1, R1, R2a, R2b, R3
UT1 R4
Project Credits
Coastal Marsh
Totals
Restoration
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
UT3 R1, R2, R3
West Side Wetlands
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
As-Built Footage/
Acreage
Project
Credit 1 2
Mitigation
Category
Project Components
Project Area/Reach Existing Footage
(LF) or Acreage
Mitigation Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration Level Priority Level
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland
UT1A
UT1B
UT2 R1, R2
UT2A
UT2B
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Construction
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
February 2019 - May 2019 June 2019
October 2019
2022
2020
2021
October 2019 November 2019
November 2021
November 20222022
Year 3 Monitoring
Designers
Stream SurveyYear 7 Monitoring
2021
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
November 2023
November 2024
November 2025
2023
2025
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Stream SurveyYear 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation SurveyYear 6 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
2023
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
April 2018 April 2018
February 2019 - April 2019 April 2019
June 2018 June 2018
Oct 2018 - April 2019 Oct 2018 - April 2019
Oct 2018 - April 2019 Oct 2018 - April 2019
Oct 2018 - April 2019 Oct 2018 - April 2019
July - December 2016
404 Permit
December 2017
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Final Design - Construction Plans
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Year 1 Monitoring
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.
Stream Survey
Stream Survey November 20202020Vegetation SurveyYear 2 Monitoring
Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM
Vegetation Survey
Charlotte, NC 28203
Seeding Contractor
KBS Earthworks, Inc.
5616 Coble Church Road
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Freemont, NC 27830
Invasive Species Treatment September 2019 - October 2019 October 2019
2024
2025
Kristi Suggs 704.332.7754
Monitoring Performers
Supplemental seeding applied to UT3 floodplain September 2019 - October 2019 October 2019
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Seed Mix Sources KBS Earthworks, Inc.
Construction Contractors
Planting Contractor
704.332.7754
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
2024
Table 3. Project Contact Table
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Planted Acreage (Acre of Woody Stems Planted)
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWR Sub-basin
R1 R2A/R2B R3 R4 R1 R2 R1 R2 R3
966 3,114 1,641 659 282 123 623 1,080 655 776 779 1,159 764
Confined Confined Confined Unconfined Unconfined
92 31 27 6
I/P P P P P P I/P P
WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III
--G G G G G G G
A B C ---B C C C/Cb Bc C C
VI VI III/IV/V IV/V
None None
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)Yes Yes
Yes
9.5
Riparian Riverine
Codorus loam/Dan River and Comus soils
Somewhat poorly drainage/well drained
Yes/No
Groundwater
Re-establishment
Regulation Applicable?Resolved?Supporting Documentation
Soil Hydric Status
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 4134.
USACE Action ID #SAW-2017-00100
No N/A N/A
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)No N/A N/A
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post-Restoration
PP
Confined to moderately confined Moderately confined to unconfined Moderately confined to unconfined
392
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Drainage area (acres)
FEMA classification Last 400LF in Zone AE backwater from South Deep Zone AE backwater from South Deep Creek
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters West Side Wetlands
III/IV/V III/IV/V IV/VEvolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont Physiographic Province
Project Information
Yadkin River
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre-Restoration
WS-III WS-III WS-III
G, Straigthened E/G
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
UT1 - East Side: Forest (39%), Cultivated (42%), Grassland (4%), Shrubland (7%), Urban (8%), Open Water (0%)
UT2 - West Side: Forest (31%), Cultivated (40%), Grassland (9%), Shrubland (10%), Urban (0%), Open Water (10%)
UT3 - West Side: Forest (57%), Cultivated (22%), Grassland (5%), Shrubland (10%), Urban (3%), Open Water (3%)
UT1 UT2 UT3
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
3% (UT1 - East Side), 1% (UT2 – West Side), 2% (UT3 – West Side)
Project Drainage Area (acres)286 (East Side), 170 (UT2 - West Side), 392 (UT3 – West Side)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
03040101
Regulatory Considerations
Endangered Species Act
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Wetland Type
170286
Yes
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Yes Yes
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Size of Wetland (acres)
Mapped Soil Series
Source of Hydrology
Drainage class
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Yadkin County Floodplain Development Permit #2017-4.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
03040101130020
03-07-02
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Yadkin County
103.000
36° 5' 39.16"N 80° 40' 2.14"W
99.000
Project Name
UT1A UT1B UT2A UT2B
Table 5a. Monitoring Component Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
East Side
UT1 Reach
1
UT1
Reach 2
UT1
Reach 3
UT1 Reach
4 UT1A UT1B
Riffle Cross-Section 1 4 2 N/A N/A N/A
Pool Cross-Section 1 3 2 N/A N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach Wide (RW)
Pebble Count 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3
Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and
or/Transducer (SG)1 SG Semi-Annual 4
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile
plots Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual Assessment Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs Annual
Notes:
22
1 CG & SG
Parameter Monitoring Feature
15 (10 permanent, 5 mobile)
Yes
2
Frequency Notes
1DimensionYear 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Quantity / Length by Reach
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations
indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
1. Cross-sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water,
and thalweg.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used,
will be set to record stage once every 2 hours. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually. A transducer was installed on the intermittent portion of UT1 Reach
1 to document 30 days of continuous flow.
5. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems,
height, and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. 2% of the non-shaded planted acreage will be monitored with permanent plots within the 50’ stream buffer,
and 1% of the non-shaded planted acreage will be monitored with mobile plots beyond the 50’ stream buffer. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
Table 5b. Monitoring Component Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
West Side
UT2
Reach 1
UT2 Reach
2 UT2A UT2B UT3 Reach
1
UT3 Reach
2
UT3 Reach
3
Wetland Re-
establishment
Riffle Cross-Section 1 2 2 2.000 1 1 1 N/A
Pool Cross-Section 1 1 2 2.000 1 1 1 N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach Wide (RW) Pebble
Count 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3
Stream Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and/or
Transducer (SG)1 CG & SG 1 CG & SG N/A Semi-Annual 4
Wetland Hydrology Groundwater Gages 9 Quarterly
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual Assessment Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs Annual
Notes:
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling was collected during the baseline monitoring only.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
Dimension Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1
Parameter Monitoring Feature Frequency Notes
Quantity / Length by Reach
2
1. Cross-sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
1 CG & SG 1 CG & SG
25 (15 permanent, 10 mobile)
Yes
22
5. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems, height, and species using a
circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. 2% of the non-shaded planted acreage will be monitored with permanent plots within the 50’ stream buffer, and 1% of the non-shaded planted acreage will be
monitored with mobile plots beyond the 50’ stream buffer. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate widespread lack
of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage
once every 2 hours. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually. A transducer was installed on the intermittent portion of UT2A and UT2B to document 30 days of continuous flow.
Lone Hickory, Yadkin County, NC
8/19/19 IRT Walk page 1

PROJECT: Lone Hickory, Yadkin County, NC
DATE: August, 19 2019; 10:30 AM
LOCATION: Lone Hickory, Yadkinville, NC

Sign In
Company Name
Wildlands Shawn Wilkerson
Wildlands Ben McGuire
NCDMS Paul Wiesner
NCDMS Kelly Phillips
DWR Mac Haupt
USACE Todd Tugwell

1. Livestakes used onsite: Silky Dogwood 40%, Silky Willow 50%, Black Willow 10%
2. Wildlands Land Management team to identify and address:
a. Vegetation in UT1 stream channel 112+50 – 117+00.
b. Along UT1 from 113+00-160+00 a grass that looks similar to Johnson Grass is growing throughout..
c. A couple of kudzu sprouts were noted on a point bar of the West Side of UT3 around station 305+00.
3. UT2B Stream jurisdiction begins at the end of the overflow channel from BMP4. A short portion of this overflow
channel (upstream of stream resource) has been eroded by BMP outlflow. The area with damage is not
receiving credits.
a. The outlet area and overflow channel will be repaired by the end of September.
4. Ground water gauges:
a. GWG4 is loose. It is also installed over the filled ditch line. Add an additional ground water gauge
adjacent to GWG4 but outside of the ditch.
b. The sediment sock on GWG6 is above the ground level.
c. Make sure the monitoring team is calibrating the gauges, provide manual measure-down to compare to
data download.

General IRT notes for the future:
-Remove Green Ash from future planting plans.
-Stream gauges are to be installed no farther than midway down reaches.
1
Emily Reinicker
From:Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, September 4, 2019 9:45 AM
To:Haupt, Mac; Wiesner, Paul; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:Phillips, Kelly D; Ben McGuire; Shawn Wilkerson; Emily Reinicker; Kristi Suggs
Subject:RE: Lone Hickory_DMS# 97135: As-Built/ MY0 IRT Site Visit (8-19-19) Meeting Minutes
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Paul, I agree with Mac.  I did note that both UT2A&B were both dry.  UT2A did have water in the pools on the steeper 
section, but it had vegetation growing within the bed in the wetland area.   

Todd 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Haupt, Mac [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 2:23 PM 
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) 
<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US) 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Phillips, Kelly D <[e-mail]>; Ben McGuire <[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson 
<[e-mail]>; Emily Reinicker <[e-mail]>; Kristi Suggs 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: Lone Hickory_DMS# 97135: As‐Built/ MY0 IRT Site Visit (8‐19‐19) Meeting Minutes 

Paul, 

I would add two items: 

I was concerned with the placement of both stream gauges on reaches UT2B and UT2A (as you recall, one of my 
comments on the draft mit plan was that stream gauges were to be placed no farther than midway down the reach).  I 
would either like the gauges moved or add a camera at the recommended locations: 

1.       For reach UT2B‐ as seen on record drawings sheet 1.23, on the riffle between topo elevation lines 764 and 763, 
and 

2.       For reach UT2A, as seen on record drawings sheet 1.20, on the riffle just above station 402+00. 

Thanks, 

Mac 

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A
GFGF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF GF!A
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P
!P South Deep CreekU
T
1
UT
1
B
UT
1
A
UT1UT2B
U
T
2
A
U
T
2
UT3A UT3Reach 1
Reach 2A
Reach 2B
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT3BMP4
BMP3
BMP1
BMP2
Sheet 5
Sheet 3
Sheet 4
Sheet 1 Sheet 2
0 400 800 Feet
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Key)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
Conservation Easement
BMP
Wetland Re-establishment
Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
Cross Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Barotroll
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A New in MY1
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Monitoring Plots (MP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Poor herbaceous cover
Chinese Privet & Japanese Honeysuckle
Kudzu
Tree of heaven
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
Scour
¹
2018 Aerial Imagery
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P
!P 326+00325+00324+00
323+00322+00321+00
320+00319+00318+0031
7
+
0
0
316+00
315+00314+00
313+00312+00311+00
310+00309+00
30
8
+
0
0
307+00
306+00305+00304+00
303+00
302+00301+00
300+00507
+
7
6
507+00
506
+
0
0
505+00
504+00
503+0
0
406+89406+00405+0040
4
+
0
0
403+004
0
2
+
0
0
401+00400+00217+03216+00215+00214+00213+00212+0021
1
+
0
0
210+00209
+
0
0
208+00207+00206
+
0
0
2
0
5
+
0
0
204+0020
3
+
0
0
202+00201+00200+00199+79South Deep Creek
UT2B
UT2A UT
2
UT3A UT3Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT3PP32
PP26
PP39
PP29
PP28
PP23
PP24
PP25
PP38
PP37
PP36
PP35
PP34
PP33
PP43
PP27
XS21
X
S
2
5
XS14
XS15
XS19
XS
3
2
XS22 XS26XS20 XS16XS31X
S
1
7
XS18
XS
2
8
X
S
2
7 XS29XS
3
0
GWG9
GWG6
GWG7
GWG8
GWG5
GWG4GWG3
GWG1
GWG2
GWG10
Barotroll
MP
1
MP
4
MP
5
MP
6
MP
7
MP
8
MP
9
VP
11
VP
12
VP
13
VP
15
VP
14
VP
24
VP
25
VP
23
VP
16
VP
17
VP
22
VP
21VP
20
SG3
SG6
SG4
0 125 250 Feet
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 1)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
Conservation Easement
BMP
Wetland Re-establishment
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
Cross Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Barotroll
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A New in MY1
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Monitoring Plots (MP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
¹
2018 Aerial Imagery
Structures
Brush Toe
Riffle
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Poor herbaceous cover
Tree of heaven
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
Scour
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P
!P 327+37327+00326+00325+00324+00
323+00322+00321+00
320+00319+00318+0031
7
+
0
0
316+00
315+00314+00
313+00312+00311+00
310+00309+00
30
8
+
0
0
307+00
306+00305+00304+00
303+00
302+00301+00
507
+
7
6
507+00
506
+
0
0
505+00
504+00
503+00
50
2
+
0
0
5
0
1
+
0
0
500+
0
0406+89406+00405+0040
4
+
0
0
403+004
0
2
+
0
0
401+00400+00217+03216+00215+00214+00213+00212+0021
1
+
0
0
210+00209
+
0
0
208+00207+00206
+
0
0
2
0
5
+
0
0
204+0020
3
+
0
0
202+00201+00200+00199+79South Deep Creek
UT2B
UT2A
UT
2UT3
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
UT3BMP4
XS21
X
S
2
5
XS19
XS22 XS26XS20
XS14XS1
6
XS24XS23XS15XS31X
S
1
7
XS18
XS29XS
3
0
XS
3
2
PP44PP30
PP31
PP32
PP26
PP39
PP29
PP28
PP22
PP23
PP24
PP25
PP41
PP40
PP38
PP37
PP36
PP35
PP34
PP33
PP43
PP27
Barotroll
GWG9
GWG7
GWG8
GWG5
GWG4GWG3
GWG1
GWG2
GWG10
MP
2
MP
3
MP
4
MP
5
MP
9
MP
10
SG3
SG5
SG6
SG4
VP
11
VP
12
VP
13
VP
19
VP
15
VP
14
VP
24
VP
25
VP
23
VP
18
VP
16
VP
17
VP
21
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 2)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
Conservation Easement
BMP
Wetland Re-establishment
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
Cross Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Barotroll
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY1
!A Criteria Met
!A New in MY1
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Monitoring Plots (MP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
¹
2018 Aerial Imagery
Structures
Brush Toe
Riffle
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Poor herbaceous cover
Chinese Privet & Japanese Honeysuckle
Kudzu
Tree of heaven
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P165+55136+00137+00138+00139+00140+00 141+00142+00143+00144+0014
5
+
0
0
146+00
1
4
7
+
0
0148+0014
9
+
0
0
1
5
0
+
0
0151+00152+00153+00154
+
0
0155+00156+00
1
5
7
+
0
0158+00159+00160+00161+
0
0
162+00
1
6
3
+
0
0
1
6
4
+
0
0
1
6
5
+
0
0
19
0
+
0
0191+00191+24U
T
1
UT
1
B
Reach 2B
Reach 3
Reach 4
BMP3
SG2
MP
13
MP
14
MP
15
VP
7
VP
8
VP
9
VP
10
PP13
PP14
PP15
PP16
PP17
PP18
PP19
PP20
PP21
PP42
XS9
XS13
XS10XS8XS11XS12
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 3)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
Conservation Easement
BMP
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
Cross Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Monitoring Plots (MP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Chinese Privet
Multiflora rose
¹
2018 Aerial Imagery
Structures
Brush Toe
Riffle
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
!P
118+00119+00120+00121+00122+00123+00124+00125+00126+00127+00128+00129+00130+00131+00132+00133+00134+0013
5
+
0
0136+00137+00138+00139+00140+00 141+00142+00143+00144+0014
5
+
0
0
146+00
180+0018
1
+
0
0
18
2
+
0
0182+8219
0
+
0
0191+00191+24UT
1
B
UT
1
A
Reach 2A
Reach 2B
Reach 3
UT1VP
3
VP
4
VP
5
VP
6
VP
7
VP
8
MP
12
MP
13
PP6
PP7
PP8
PP9
PP10
PP11
PP12
PP13
PP14
PP15
PP16
XS9
XS8
XS
6
XS
5
XS
7
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 4)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
Conservation Easement
BMP
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
Cross Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Monitoring Plots (MP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Poor herbaceous cover
Chinese Privet
¹
2018 Aerial Imagery
Structures
Brush Toe
Riffle
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
!P
100+00
101+0
0
102+00
10
3
+
0
010
4
+00105+001
0
6
+
0
0107
+
0
0108+00109+00110+00111+00112+00113+00114+00115+00116+00117+00118+00119+00120+00121+00122+00123+00124+00UT1Reach 1
Reach 2A
BMP2
BMP1
VP
1
VP
2
VP
3
MP
11
SG1
PP1
PP2
PP3
PP4
PP5
PP6
PP7
XS2XS3
XS1XS4
XS
6
XS
5
0 150 300 Feet
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 5)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Yadkin County, NC
Conservation Easement
BMP
Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
As Built Alignment Deviation
Cross Section (XS)
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Monitoring Plots (MP) - MY1
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Poor herbaceous cover
Chinese Privet
¹
2018 Aerial Imagery
Structures
Brush Toe
Riffle
Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT1 Reach 1 (STA 101+39 to 111+05)
Assessed Length:966
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 1 1 100%
Depth Sufficient 0 0 N/A
Length Appropriate 0 0 N/A
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)0 0 N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)0 0 N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
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
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
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
n/a n/a n/a
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
Reach consists of a log-rock
cascade riffle
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT1 Reach 2A (STA 111+05 to 128+51)
Assessed Length:1,746
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 35 35 100%
Depth Sufficient 35 35 100%
Length Appropriate N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.36 36 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 35 35 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.35 35 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
36 36 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
36 36 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT1 Reach 2B (STA 128+51 to 142+19)
Assessed Length:1,368
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 20 20 100%
Depth Sufficient 20 20 100%
Length Appropriate 20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)20 20 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)20 20 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.33 33 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 19 19 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.19 19 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
33 33 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
33 33 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT1 Reach 3 (STA 142+19 to 158+60)
Assessed Length:1,641
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 22 22 100%
Depth Sufficient 22 22 100%
Length Appropriate 22 22 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)22 22 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)22 22 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.38 38 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 17 17 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.17 17 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
38 38 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
38 38 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT2 Reach 1 (STA 200+00 to 206+23)
Assessed Length:623
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 15 15 100%
Depth Sufficient 14 14 100%
Length Appropriate 14 14 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)15 15 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 11 11 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.11 11 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
12 12 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT2 Reach 2 (STA 206+23 to 217+03)
Assessed Length:1,080
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 14 14 100%
Depth Sufficient 14 14 100%
Length Appropriate 14 14 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)14 14 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)14 14 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 6 6 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.6 6 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
12 12 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT2A (STA 400+34 to 406+89)
Assessed Length:655
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 19 19 100%
Depth Sufficient 17 17 100%
Length Appropriate 17 17 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)17 17 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)17 17 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 13 13 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.13 13 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
16 16 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
16 16 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT2B (STA 500+00 to 507+76)
Assessed Length:776
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 17 17 100%
Depth Sufficient 15 15 100%
Length Appropriate 15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)15 15 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
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%.
12 12 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT3 Reach 1 (STA 300+13 to 307+92)
Assessed Length:779
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 1 35 98%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 8 8 100%
Depth Sufficient 8 8 100%
Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
1 15 99%0 0 99%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 1 15 99%0 0 99%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 5 5 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.5 5 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
6 6 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
6 6 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT3 Reach 2 (STA 307+92 to 319+51)
Assessed Length:1,159
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 10 10 100%
Depth Sufficient 10 10 100%
Length Appropriate 10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)10 10 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.7 7 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
7 7 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
7 7 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6k. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Reach: UT3 Reach 3 (STA 319+51 to STA 327+15)
Assessed Length:764
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)4 4 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)4 4 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
6 6 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
6 6 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Planted Acreage 68.3
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 5 0.1 0.2%
Low Stem Density Areas1&2 Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem
count criteria.0.1 4 0.1 0.1%
9 0.2 0.3%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0 0 0.0 0.0%
9 0.2 0.3%
Easement Acreage 103.2
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 12 1.1 1.1%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0.0 0.0%
Total
Cumulative Total
1Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.
2Area with low stem density is less than 0.1 acres.

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1 – UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 1 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 2 – UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 2 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 3 – UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 3 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 4 – UT1 Reach 2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 4 – UT1 Reach 2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 5 – UT1 Reach 2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 5 – UT1 Reach 2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 6 – UT1 Reach 2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 6 – UT1 Reach 2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 7 – UT1 Reach 2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 7 – UT1 Reach 2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 8 – UT1 Reach 2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 8 – UT1 Reach 2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 9 – UT1 Reach 2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 9 – UT1 Reach 2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 9 – UT1A, view upstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 10 – UT1 Reach 2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 10 – UT1 Reach 2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 11 – UT1 Reach 2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 11 – UT1 Reach 2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 12 – UT1 Reach 2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 12 – UT1 Reach 2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 13 – UT1 Reach 2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 13 – UT1 Reach 2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 14 – UT1 Reach 2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 14 – UT1 Reach 2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 14 – UT1B, view upstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 15 – UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 15 – UT1 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 16 – UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 16 – UT1 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 17 – UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 17 – UT1 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 18 – UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 18 – UT1 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 19 – UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 19 – UT1 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 20 – UT1 Reach 3, view upstream (11/12/2019) Photo Point 20 – UT1 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 20 – UT1 Reach 3 BMP 3, view upstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 21 – UT1 Reach 4, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 21 – UT1 Reach 4, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 22 – UT2 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 22 – UT2 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 23 – UT2 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 23 – UT2 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 24 – UT2 Reach 2, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 24 – UT2 Reach 2, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 25 – UT2 Reach 2, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 25 – UT2 Reach 2, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 26 – UT2 Reach 2, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 26 – UT2 Reach 2, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 27 – UT2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 27 – UT2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 28 – UT2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 28 – UT2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 29 – UT2A, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 29 – UT2A, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 30 – UT2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 30 – UT2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 31 – UT2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 31 – UT2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 32 – UT2B, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 32 – UT2B, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 33 – UT3 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 33 – UT3 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 34 – UT3 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 34 – UT3 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 35 – UT3 Reach 1, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 35 – UT3 Reach 1, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 36 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 36 – UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 37 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 37 – UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 38 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 38 – UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 39 – UT3 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 39 – UT3 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 40 – UT3 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 40 – UT3 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 41 – UT3 Reach 3, view upstream (10/22/2019) Photo Point 41 – UT3 Reach 3, view downstream (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 42 – UT1 Reach 3, up valley (10/22/2019) Photo Point 42 – UT1 Reach 4, down valley (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 43 – UT2A, northeast view (10/22/2019) Photo Point 43 – UT2A, north view (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 43 – UT3 Reach 3, northwest view (10/22/2019)

Photo Point 44 – BMP 4 above UT2B, inlet view (10/22/2019) Photo Point 44 – BMP 4 above UT2B, outlet view (10/22/2019)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 2 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 3 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 4 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 5 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 6 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 7 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 8 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 9 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 10 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 11 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 12 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 13 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 14 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 15 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 16 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 17 – (10/22/2019) Vegetation Plot 18 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 19 – (10/21/2019) Vegetation Plot 20 – (10/22/2019)

Vegetation Plot 21 – (10/22/2019) Vegetation Plot 22 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 23 – (10/22/2019) Vegetation Plot 24 – (10/21/2019)

Vegetation Plot 25 – (11/12/2019)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
25 Y
22
23
24
Y
Y
Y
Y
16 Y
20 Y
21
17 Y
18 Y
19 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
Permanent Vegetation Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
Table 8b. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
13 Y
14 N
15 Y
10 N
11 Y
12 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 N
4 Y
5 Y
6 N
Mobile Vegetation Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)Tract Mean
1 Y
73%
2 Y
3 Y
Table 9. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Database Name
Database Location
Computer Name
File Size
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.Vigor by Spp
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Lone Hickory MY1.mdb
L:\Active Projects\005-02163 Lone Hickory FDP\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
MIMI-PC
74551296
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
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.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
Project Name
Description
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.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
River Basin
97135
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
Stream and wetland mitigation project in Yadkin County, NC.
Proj, planted
Proj, total stems
Plots
Vigor
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
25
25
25
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
Sampled Plots
Length(ft)
Stream-to-edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 3 3 3
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
14 14 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 12 12 12 13 13 13
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
567 567 567 526 526 526 567 567 567 486 486 486 526 526 526
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 2 2 2 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 2 4
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 5 5 6 2 2 88 5 5 5
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
9 9 9 11 11 14 14 14 108 12 12 12 13 13 13
4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 5 5 5 6 6 6
364 364 364 445 445 567 567 567 4371 486 486 486 526 526 526
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY1 2019)
1
0.02
1
0.02
Permanent Plot 3 Permanent Plot 5
1
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Stem count
Permanent Plot 2
0.02
1
0.02
Permanent Plot 1 Permanent Plot 4
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
Stem count
Permanent Plot 6 Permanent Plot 7 Permanent Plot 8 Permanent Plot 9 Permanent Plot 10
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
0.02
1 1
Species count
size (ares)1 1 1
0.02
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 3 3 5 2 2 2 3 3 5
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 3 3 3
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 2
11 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 15 15 17 8 8 10
7 7 7 5 5 5 7 7 7 6 6 6 4 4 5
445 445 445 445 445 526 526 526 526 607 607 688 324 324 405
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 2
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 5 5 5 5 5 10 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 3 7
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
13 13 13 15 15 20 13 13 13 10 10 10 15 15 21
4 4 4 7 7 7 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 7
526 526 526 607 607 809 526 526 526 405 405 405 607 607 850
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY1 2019)
size (ares)
Permanent Plot 20
Stems per ACRE
Species count
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
11111
0.02
1
Stem count
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Permanent Plot 16 Permanent Plot 17 Permanent Plot 18 Permanent Plot 19
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
size (ares)1 1 1 1
Stem count
Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Permanent Plot 11 Permanent Plot 12 Permanent Plot 13 Permanent Plot 14 Permanent Plot 15
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 30
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 5
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 13 3 3 8 1 1 1 1 1 3
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
14 14 24 14 14 19 14 14 14 10 10 20 13 13 49
6 6 6 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 7 5 5 8
567 567 971 567 567 769 567 567 567 405 405 809 526 526 1983
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 32
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 3 3 4 3 3 3
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 43 43 61 55 55 55
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 22 22 23 23 23 23
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 6
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 32 32 34 58 58 58
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 75 75 188 77 77 77
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 8 8 8 8 8 8
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 32 32 32 33 33 33
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 18 18 18 23 23 23
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 36 36 36 42 42 42
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 39 39 39 46 46 46
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 2
314 314 489 374 374 374
11 11 14 11 11 11
508 508 792 605 605 605
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Annual Mean
1
Stem count
Table 10c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Permanent Plot 21 Permanent Plot 22 Permanent Plot 23 Permanent Plot 24 Permanent Plot 25
size (ares)1 1 1 1
0.02size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.62
Species count
Stems per ACRE
25 25
size (ACRES)0.62
MY1 (2019)MY0 (2019)
Stem count
size (ares)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
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%
Volunteer species included in total
16 19 3
2 13 41 59
120
8
9 12 8 11 9
445 364
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) Data (MY1 2019)
597
Overall Site Annual Mean
MY1 (2019)
PnoLS
71
6
30
44
135
8
58
18
55
485
40
0.99
11
491
82
6
41
105
40
28
98
590
40
0.99
11
MY0 (2019)
PnoLS
583
43
7
5
56
15
0.37
47
4 5 4 2 5
5 4 4 3 1
216
8
607 769 486 202 647
15 19 12 5 16
3 3 2
4 3 6 2 11
2 1 1
3 7 1 1
1 1 1 1
5 4 5 3 5
0.02
1
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
364 486 324
1
283 445 486 283 283
4 4 2 5
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4
1
7 11 12 7 7
1 1
4
3 3 4 2
1
5 5 3 2
1
1 1
PnoLS
2 3 1
2 1
1 4 5 4
1 7 1 5 1
1
2 1 1
Species count
Stems per ACRE
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
MP14 MP15
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 1 1 1
MY1 (2019)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
MP11 MP12 MP13
Stem count
1 2
4
size (ACRES)0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
size (ares)1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1
Table 10d. Planted and Total Stem Counts
MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 MP6 MP7 MP8 MP9 MP10
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) Data (MY1 2019)
19
171
15
0.37
8
461
Annual Mean
PnoLS
28
8
12
60
26
MY0 (2019)
PnoLS
27
18
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 0 - 2019
East Side
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)10.3 10.5 11.3 12.5
Floodprone Width (ft)15 50 15 50 25 100 25 100 46 65+49+68+60+68+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)4.5 4.6 7.9 8.5 8.3 8.7
Width/Depth Ratio 11.5 11.8 12.9 13.3 15.5 18.0
Entrenchment Ratio 6.3 9.0+4.7+6.6+5.3+5.4+
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)37.0 37.9 35.6 45.0 41.6 47.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.020 0.041 0.011 0.055 0.018 0.045 0.016 0.048 N/A1 N/A1 0.003 0.068 0.013 0.072 0.013 0.055
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.1 3.0 1.3 2.8 1.8 3.1 1.8 3.7
Pool Spacing (ft)5 20 29 42 18 32 14 26 16 39 34 109 48 113 5 76 6 51 18 145 41 129
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)6 12 12 14 31 67 35 71 31 67 35 71
Radius of Curvature (ft)3 8 5 12 20 38 19 38 20 38 19 38
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)0.6 1.7 5 12 1.9 3.6 1.6 3.2 1.9 3.6 1.7 3.0
Meander Length (ft)9 19 14 43 102 190 102 196 102 190 102 196
Meander Width Ratio 1.3 2.5 1.2 1.4 2.9 6.3 3.0 6.0 3.0 6.4 3.1 5.7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 1.06 1.08 0.85 0.88 0.65 0.68
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 52 53 42 43 32 33
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.7 3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)17.7 18.3 32.7 36.2 30.4 31.0
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1. UT1 Reach 1 riffle slopes were not calculated because this reach is comprised of a series of rock steps and cascades.
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
0.7
0.01530.0555 0.0292 0.01820.0622 0.0290 0.0180 0.0156
---
1.301.251.25 1.30
966 1,746 1,368 1,641
0.0256 0.0101
6,015
1.08 1.04 1.13
0.0411 0.0454 0.0049 0.0648
N/A
0.07 0.37 0.45
3%
0.0295
1,368 1,6419661,746
---------
218601304304
0.02030.0313 0.0225
---------
16 34 4211---------
---------
11 35
2.9 4.8 4.1
55
4.84.1 3.7 3.8 4.0
30 38 20.21115
A4 B4 C4C4A4B4C4C4
0.12 0.32 0.440.07
E5b G4 E4
3%3%
0.32 0.440.07 0.12
N/A
97123125228146
1.970.95 0.75 0.761.74---------
0.4/1.8/33.9/
108/156.5/256
0.3/14.1/21.6/
67.2/137/362
0.3/0.4/22.6/
59.2/104.7/362
0.3/16/25.6/
62.4/113.8/180
SC/0.37/3.7/54.2/
75.9/128
1.35/11.0/38/90/
193.1/2048
0.19/0.39/0.73/
26.3/52.5/90
N/A2 N/A2N/A2 N/A2---
N/A
---
N/A2
N/A2 N/A2N/A2 N/A2---
N/A2
2.2+2.2+
N/A2 N/A2
3.2 2.9
---
N/A2N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
---
N/A2 N/A2---
N/A2 N/A2
1.7 1.81.4 1.4 1.7N/A
------
1.5
15.1 41.0 19.6
1.03.8 2.6 1.7
59.6---
1.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
7.5
4.2
11.5
2.2+2.2+3.1
14.2 14.6 14.3 14.6
N/A
0.5
1.9
0.8 1.3
1.0 1.0
4.2 8.1
0.8
3.8 7.2 13.4 3.0
0.5
1.0
9.5
0.6 0.80.8 0.8 0.6
4.2
2.7
2913.1 13.2 31.1
UT1 Reach 1UT1 Reach 3 UT1 Reach 2A UT1 Reach 2B UT1 Reach 3 UT1 Reach 2A
6.9 7.36.5 7.84.8 8.9 10.0
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1
10.7 11.8
1.4 1.3
11.06.2
UT1 Reach 2B UT1 Reach 3
1.1
Pre-Restoration Condition Design
0.6 0.7 1.0 1.0
As-Built/Baseline
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
West Side - UT2, UT2A, UT2B
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)3.4 4.7 3.9 4.1 11.8 11.9 5.4 5.7 7.2 9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)5.4 11.4 5.1 6.4 65+72+51+57+56+66+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.6 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)2.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 9.1 10.2 1.9 2.4 3.9 4.3
Width/Depth Ratio 5.1 9.5 11.4 13.0 13.6 15.6 13.6 15.2 13.4 21.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 2.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.2+5.5+6.1+9.0+10.5+6.9+7.8+
Bank Height Ratio 2.7 3.1 6.5 7.2
D50 (mm)25.4 33.4 21.0 28.1 25.1 30.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.020 0.034 0.003 0.025 0.006 0.045 0.004 0.056 0.006 0.034 0.004 0.035 0.001 0.046 0.001 0.037
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.8 1.1 2.5 0.6 1.4 0.8 1.9 1.2 2.5 2.1 3.2 0.9 1.3 1.5 2.7
Pool Spacing (ft)24 30 22 44 23 68 8 45 39 77 19 39 26 53 15 78 45 127 18 58 7 58
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)39 88 19 44 26 60 39 88 19 44 26 60
Radius of Curvature (ft)20 39 10 19 14 23 20 39 10 19 14 23
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 3.5 1.8 3.5 1.8 3.0 1.7 3.3 1.9 3.3 1.9 2.4
Meander Length (ft)72 154 36 77 49 105 72 154 36 77 49 105
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.3 7.4 3.5 7.7 3.6 6.3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.33 0.38
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 16 19
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)2 3 23.6 28.9 3.7 5.1 10.1 10.1
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)0.0045 0.0130 0.0057 0.0170 0.0060 0.0400
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)0.0030 0.0120 0.0050 0.0140 0.0040 0.0280
1. Pattern data is not applicable for B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1,080 655
0.0110 0.01150.0180 0.0072
1.10
776
0.0154 0.0062 0.0043 0.0052 0.0107 0.0200
1.10 1.30 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.20
623 1080 655 776
1.01 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.20
2,527 1,184 699
------------
623
0.0205 0.0123 0.0086 0.0028 0.0027 0.0280
18 29
331 75 52 124
9
---
------4---------
------------
24.014108420
3.4
---------------
2.3 1.8
19 14 4
C4 C/Cb4
3.93.4 1.9 2.02.6
------1%---
C4 C4B4C4G5G5G5
---1%------1%
B4 C4
N/A
0.14 0.26 0.14 0.260.27 0.02 0.04
G4 G5
0.14 0.26 0.02 0.050.05 0.02
221 ------39------112------------
------0.66 1.66 ---
---
------
SC/SC/0.5/47.3/
90/128
SC/SC/SC/42/
71.7/180------
---------0.79
---SC/SC/0.5/42.5/
90/180---SC/SC/0.4/43.3/
82.6/256
---
---0.37/1.38/7.1/
49.5/75.9/128 0.25/0.59/1.1/17.9/35.9/90 ---N/A
N/A1 N/A1
N/A1 N/A1------
---------------
---------
---------
N/A1
N/A1 N/A1------
N/A1
---------------
N/A1---
N/A1
N/A
------------
N/A ------
------
1.2 1.5 1.5
1.01.0
26.9------------
1.04.4 2.3 3.1
34.4 11.4 ---
1.0 1.01.0 1.01.0
------
1.4 1.1
16.0 14.0 14.0
8.3+1.5 2.2+2.2+2.2+
4.13.9 7.8 2.1
11.3
6.15.7 6.1 5.7
0.5 0.7
14.013.1 9.8 12.3
0.7 0.3
0.8 1.0
0.8
1.2
0.7
0.6 0.9
0.4
0.9 1.2 1.1 0.9
8.3
250+100+100+130+
5.511.0
69+
0.5
N/A
8.7 7.7 8.4
10.7 13.0
0.7
12.3
Pre-Restoration Condition Design As-built/Baseline
UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2
7.56.5
UT2 Reach 2 UT2AUT2 Reach 3 UT2A UT2BUT2 Reach 1 UT2B UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2UT2B UT2A
Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
West Side - UT3
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)42 219
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2+
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.012 0.017 0.002 0.022 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.023 0.002 0.012 0.0002 0.005
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.9 3.3 1.5 3.5 1.7 3.9 2.8 3.9 2.5 4.1 3.3 3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)12 87 48 185 169 1014 57 113 67 133 64 163 53 186 83 180
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)4 10 57 130 67 152 57 130 67 152
Radius of Curvature (ft)4 8 29 57 34 67 29 57 34 67
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)0.4 0.7 1.8 3.5 1.8 3.5 1.7 3.4 1.8 3.5
Meander Length (ft)15 28 105 227 124 266 105 227 124 266
Meander Width Ratio 0.4 0.9 3.5 8.0 3.5 8.0 3.4 7.8 3.5 7.9
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)0.0030 0.0140
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)0.0020 0.0110
1. Pattern data is not applicable for B-type channels
2. UT3 Reach 3 post-restoration combines flow from the existing conditions UT2 Reach 3 and UT3.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1.2
75
Pre- Restoration Design As-Built/Baseline
UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 3
10.0
UT3 Reach 3 UT3 Reach 1UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2
13.7 16.7 19.2
17.4 150+
13.0 16.2 19.0
73+76+71+100+
1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.01.0 0.9
2.0 1.5 1.9 1.9
13.7 10.2
1.4 1.71.8 2.1
21.1 12.8 16.5 19.5
9.1 9.9
12.1 16.2
17.1 14.7 17.0 19.0
1.3 14.9+
14.4 16.2
5.3+4.5+3.7+
2.6 1.4
2.2+2.2+
1.0
12.5 0.9
1.0 1.01.0 1.0 1.0
50.0 31.2 47.0
N/A
---------
N/A
11.2
1.9 2.7
N/A
---N/A1 N/A1
---N/A1 N/A1
---N/A1 N/A1
---N/A1 N/A1
N/A
---N/A1 N/A1
------
0.22/0.87/2.5/
22.6/47.7/64
SC/0.12/0.24/
4.63/7.7/16
SC/SC/0.2/41.6/
61.5/180
SC/SC/SC/64/
151.8/362---SC/0.2/0.4/
59.2/107.3/180------
0.42 ------0.61 ------
------------21---106---
N/A
0.59 0.65
2%
G4
0.63 0.88
2%2%
0.88 0.630.63 0.63
B4c C4 C4
4.0 2.0
C4 C4G5B4c
3.0 0.8
54.8 20.4
3.6 2.7 1.8
38.6 16.0454555
1.9
------
---------------
31.1
------
715356
370 39 N/A2
1.20
------
2,008
0.0022 ---0.0145 0.0050 0.0120
0.0020
779 1,159 764
1.06
779 1159 764
1.10 1.40
0.0027 0.00050.00750.0107 0.0034
1.40 1.201.01 1.10
0.0110
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)6.1 8.4 6.1 6.2 7.0 8.6 14.7 18.1
Floodprone Width (ft)26.0 31.0 45.0 49.0
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)6.4 8.7 4.5 5.3 3.5 4.1 13.6 14.9
Width/Depth Ratio 5.8 8.0 7.4 8.3 14.9 18.3 14.6 24.1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.7 4.3 5.7 6.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.1
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0150 0.1200 0.0229 0.0615 0.0202 0.0664 0.0055 0.0597 0.0019 0.009 0.0027 0.0130
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.3 3
Pool Spacing (ft)7 52 13 77 28 63 15 28 29 103 19 35
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)18 34 12 31 45 71 22 30
Radius of Curvature (ft)8 26 9 20 19 32 18 33 14 38
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.2 4.1 1.5 2.4 2.7 3.7 1.4 2.6 0.9 2.3
Meander Length (ft)27 94 45 72 39 44 95 130 58 70
Meander Width Ratio 2.8 5.3 1.8 4.6 9.6 13.3 2.4 3.0 3.5 5.5 1.3 1.8
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
12.9
135.0
1.4
9.6
10.5
1.0
---
Profile
Pattern
---
1.4
------
3.2
---
---
0.8
3.6
13.4
3.0
1.0
---
6.0
12.5
1.5
1.0
---
1.6
---
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
6.4
9.1
0.7
0.9
8.6
13.3
0.7
6.7
0.5
UT to S. Fork Catawba
- Vile Preserve UT to Lyle Creek
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
200+
1.4 1.6
Deep Creek
Mitigation Cooleemee Plantation
0.5
------
0.0027
---
---
---
1.8
1.10
C5
21
Table 11d. Reference Reach Data Summary
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT to Kelly Branch Pilot Mountain Trib
20.0
Lone Hickory UT3 -
Onsite Reference UT to South Crowders
N/A
0.25
Reference Reach Data
1.0
140+
0.67 0.68
NA/0.07/0.17/0.54/
4.0/8.0
SC/0.2/0.2/1.1/
8.9/22.6
---
0.94
2.3
8.8+
1.0 1.01.0
------------
45
2.0
---
17.1
------------
30+
0.0260
------
N/A
N/A ---
0.2/1.5/16.8/69.7/
115.7/180
0.25/3.2/9.4/45/
140/---
SC/5.6/20.1/128/
322.5/>2048
2.0
---
------
0.8/12.1/19.7/49.5/
75.9/180
81
------
---
---
---
---
---
1.3
---
55 ---
N/A
0.17 0.22
1219
N/A
0.03 - 0.065 0.0378
------
1.2
5.3
---
B4
18 41
E5 C5
2.93.2 11
---
32
0.27
---
22
---
C4 E4
1.10
------
1.32 2.20
---
---
1.03
---
26
---
---------
------
1.05
---
0.0028
54
------
0.0068 0.0057
---
0.0185 0.0091
------
1.60
------
---
---
---
---
------
C5
4.7 2.4
---
4.4
9.4
0.08
A4
4.5
9.2
1.4
1.0
---
Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
East Side (UT1)
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 918.84 918.82 918.21 918.21 870.19 870.39 868.46 868.68
low bank height elevation 918.84 918.82 918.21 918.21 870.19 870.39 868.46 868.68
Bankfull Width (ft)8.2 8.5 6.9 7.0 9.2 9.9 7.3 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)------29 27 ------46 46
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8 1.6 1.0 0.9 2.1 2.5 0.9 1.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)8.5 7.3 4.2 3.5 11.4 12.1 4.5 5.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 7.8 9.9 11.5 13.9 7.4 8.0 11.8 16.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------4.2 3.8 ------6.3 5.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------1.0 0.9 ------1.0 1.1
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 844.23 844.26 843.72 843.72 817.28 817.14 809.31 809.23
low bank height elevation 844.23 844.26 843.72 843.72 817.28 817.14 809.31 809.23
Bankfull Width (ft)7.3 8.1 9.1 9.5 10.3 10.1 12.6 13.0
Floodprone Width (ft)65+65+------68+68+------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0 1.2 1.9 2.5 1.2 1.3 2.6 2.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.6 5.3 10.5 13.6 7.9 7.5 15.4 12.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.5 12.4 7.9 6.6 13.3 13.7 10.3 13.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 9.0+8.1+------6.6+6.7+------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 ------1.0 1.0 ------
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 804.58 804.64 794.10 793.96 791.15 791.06 787.94 787.82
low bank height elevation 804.58 804.64 794.10 793.96 791.15 791.06 787.94 787.82
Bankfull Width (ft)10.5 11.5 11.3 10.8 12.5 11.6 16.7 16.2
Floodprone Width (ft)49+49+60+60+68+68+------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 2.4 2.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)8.5 8.9 8.3 8.3 8.7 7.7 18.7 17.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.9 15.0 15.5 14.1 18.0 17.4 14.8 14.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.7+4.3+5.3+5.5+5.4+5.8+------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 ------
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 783.88 783.76
low bank height elevation 783.88 783.76
Bankfull Width (ft)15.6 16.3
Floodprone Width (ft)------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.4 1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.6 3.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)22.4 22.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.9 11.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------
UT1 Reach 3 Cross-Section 11, Riffle UT1 Reach 3 Cross-Section 12, Pool
UT1 Reach 3 Cross-Section 13, Pool
UT1 Reach 3 Cross-Section 10, Riffle
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
UT1 Reach 1 Cross-Section 1, Pool UT1 Reach 1 Cross-Section 2, Riffle UT1 Reach 2A Cross-Section 3, Pool UT1 Reach 2A Cross-Section 4, Riffle
UT1 Reach 2A Cross-Section 5, Riffle UT1 Reach 2A Cross-Section 6, Pool UT1 Reach 2B Cross-Section 7, Riffle UT1 Reach 2B Cross-Section 8, Pool
UT1 Reach 2B Cross-Section 9, Riffle
Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
West Side (UT2 & UT2A)
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 772.71 772.82 772.61 772.56 759.49 759.31 758.87 758.82
low bank height elevation 772.71 772.82 772.61 772.56 759.49 759.31 758.87 758.82
Bankfull Width (ft)9.3 10.4 8.3 8.3 11.8 12.2 11.9 13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)------69+69+65+65+72+72+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)7.6 8.9 6.1 6.1 10.2 9.0 9.1 9.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.4 12.0 11.3 11.5 13.6 16.4 15.6 18.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------8.3+8.2+5.5+5.3+6.1+5.5+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 758.62 758.70 763.99 763.94 761.60 761.65 760.53 760.46
low bank height elevation 758.62 758.70 763.99 763.94 761.60 761.65 760.53 760.46
Bankfull Width (ft)15.2 16.3 5.4 5.5 6.9 6.6 5.7 5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)------57+57+------51+51+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.4 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.6 0.5 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)21.8 24.0 1.9 2.0 4.1 3.7 2.4 2.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.6 11.1 15.2 15.0 11.6 11.7 13.6 17.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------10.5+10.4+------9.0+8.8+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------1.0 1.0 ------1.0 0.8
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 760.53 760.60
low bank height elevation 760.53 760.60
Bankfull Width (ft)7.2 9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.3 4.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.1 18.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------
UT2 Reach 1 Cross-Section 14, Pool UT2 Reach 1 Cross-Section 15, Riffle UT2 Reach 2 Cross-Section 16, Riffle UT2 Reach 2 Cross-Section 17, Riffle
UT2 Reach 2 Cross-Section 18, Pool
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
UT2A Cross-Section 19, Riffle UT2A Cross-Section 20, Pool UT2A Cross-Section 21, Riffle
UT2A Cross-Section 22, Pool
Table 12c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
West Side (UT2B & UT3)
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 761.34 761.26 761.16 761.07 760.67 760.61 760.71 760.69
low bank height elevation 761.34 761.26 761.16 761.07 760.67 760.61 760.71 760.69
Bankfull Width (ft)9.9 10.1 9.6 7.9 7.2 6.9 12.2 12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)------66+66+56+56+------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.3 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.6 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 2.6 2.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)8.8 8.4 4.3 3.6 3.9 3.7 15.8 14.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.2 12.1 21.1 17.4 13.4 12.9 9.4 10.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------6.9+8.3+7.8+8.2+------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 ------
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 766.07 766.11 765.76 765.79 759.75 759.84 759.40 759.49
low bank height elevation 766.07 766.11 765.76 765.79 759.75 759.84 759.40 759.49
Bankfull Width (ft)16.0 16.7 13.7 13.3 16.7 17.0 18.7 19.0
Floodprone Width (ft)------73+73+76+76+------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.4 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.6 2.7 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.8 2.6 2.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)21.7 23.0 12.8 12.3 16.5 16.7 26.3 26.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.9 12.1 14.7 14.3 17.0 17.2 13.3 13.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------5.3+5.5+4.5+4.5+------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ------
Dimension and Substrate1 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation 758.39 758.19 758.36 758.21
low bank height elevation 758.39 758.19 758.36 758.21
Bankfull Width (ft)19.2 19.1 25.8 26.9
Floodprone Width (ft)71+71+------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.0 0.9 1.8 1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.9 1.9 3.8 3.7
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)19.5 17.8 45.8 46.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.0 20.5 14.5 15.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.7+3.7+------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 ------
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
UT3 Reach 3 Cross-Section 31, Riffle UT3 Reach 3 Cross-Section 32, Pool
UT2B Cross-Section 23, Pool UT2B Cross-Section 24, Riffle UT2B Cross-Section 25, Riffle UT2B Cross-Section 26, Pool
UT3 Reach 2 Cross-Section 29, RiffleUT3 Reach 1 Cross-Section 27, Pool UT3 Reach 1 Cross-Section 28, Riffle UT3 Reach 2 Cross-Section 30, Pool
Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 Reach 1
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle3
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)N/A1 N/A1
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.1 3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)5 76
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1UT1 Reach 1 riffle slopes were not calculated because this reach is comprised of a series of rock steps and cascades.
2Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
3MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
0.6/9.4/21.3/84.1/
137.0/256
0.0555
MY7MY6MY5MY4MY3MY2
0.9
MY1
7.0
27
0.5
0.9
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
4.8
20.2
---
0.4/1.8/33.9/108/
156.5/256
1.97
97
0.07
As-Built/Baseline
6.9
29
0.6
1.0
4.2
966
3%
A4
59.6
3.8
11.5
4.2
1.0
3.5
13.9
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 Reach 2A
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)8.1 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)46 65+46 65+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)4.5 4.6 5.1 5.3
Width/Depth Ratio 11.5 11.8 12.4 16.4
Entrenchment Ratio 6.3 9.0+5.0 8.1+
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)37.0 37.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.003 0.068
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.3 2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)6 51
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 1.06 1.08
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 52 53
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)3.9 4.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)17.7 18.3
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
0.3/6.7/19.9/75.9/
128/256
---
1,746
0.0292
0.12
3%
B4
0.3/14.1/21.6/67.2/
137/362
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
1.0 1.1
0.6
MY6 MY7
7.3
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 Reach 2B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)10.3 10.5 10.1 11.5
Floodprone Width (ft)49+68+49+68+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)7.9 8.5 7.5 8.9
Width/Depth Ratio 12.9 13.3 13.7 15.0
Entrenchment Ratio 4.7+6.6+4.3+6.7+
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)35.6 45.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.013 0.072
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.8 3.1
Pool Spacing (ft)18 145
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)31 67
Radius of Curvature (ft)20 38
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.9 3.6
Meander Length (ft)102 190
Meander Width Ratio 3.0 6.4
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.85 0.88
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 42 43
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)4.1 4.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)32.7 36.2
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
0.3/1.8/15.2/87/
190.9/256
---
1,368
1.25
0.0182
0.3/0.4/22.6/59.2/
104.7/362
0.32
3%
C4
1.0 1.0
0.8
MY7As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 Reach 3
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)11.3 12.5 10.8 11.6
Floodprone Width (ft)60+68+60+68+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)8.3 8.7 7.7 8.3
Width/Depth Ratio 15.5 18.0 14.1 17.4
Entrenchment Ratio 5.3+5.4+5.5+5.8+
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.0
D50 (mm)41.6 47.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.013 0.055
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.8 3.7
Pool Spacing (ft)41 129
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)35 71
Radius of Curvature (ft)19 38
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.7 3.0
Meander Length (ft)102 196
Meander Width Ratio 3.1 5.7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.65 0.68
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 32 33
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)3.7 3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)30.4 31.0
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
3.2/18.3/28.2/62.7/
101.2/256
0.0153
1.1
0.44
3%
C4
---
1,641
1.30
0.3/16/25.6/62.4/
113.8/180
1.0
0.7
As-Built/Baseline MY6MY1MY2MY3MY4MY5 MY7
Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2 Reach 1
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.006 0.034
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.2 2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)15 78
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
3.2/18.3/28.2/62.7/
101.2/256
N/A1
0.79
39
3.9
24.0
0.0180
---
623
1.10
SC/SC/0.5/47.3/
90/128
8.3
69+
6.1
11.3
8.3+
26.9
1.0
1.2
0.14
1%
B4
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
1.0
8.2+
11.5
6.1
1.3
0.7 0.7
69+
MY6 MY7
8.3
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)11.8 11.9 12.2 13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)65+72+65+72+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)9.1 10.2 9.0 9.5
Width/Depth Ratio 13.6 15.6 16.4 18.2
Entrenchment Ratio 5.5+6.1+5.3+5.5+
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.0
D50 (mm)25.4 33.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.004 0.035
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.1 3.2
Pool Spacing (ft)45 127
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)39 88
Radius of Curvature (ft)20 39
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.7 3.3
Meander Length (ft)72 154
Meander Width Ratio 3.3 7.4
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.33 0.38
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 16 19
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)2.6 2.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)23.6 28.9
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
0.7
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC/0.16/9.4/52.7/
86.3/>2048
1,080
1.30
0.0072
0.26
1%
C4
---
SC/SC/SC/42/
71.7/180
1.0
MY6As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY7MY2MY3MY4MY5
Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2A
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)5.4 5.7 5.5 5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)51+57+51+57+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.7
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1.9 2.4
Width/Depth Ratio 13.6 15.2 15.0 17.2
Entrenchment Ratio 9.0+10.5+8.8+10.4+
Bank Height Ratio 0.8 1.0
D50 (mm)21.0 28.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.001 0.046
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.9 1.3
Pool Spacing (ft)18 58
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)19 44
Radius of Curvature (ft)10 19
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.9 3.3
Meander Length (ft)36 77
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 7.7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)1.9 2.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)3.7 5.1
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
0.6
2.0
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC/0.09/5.6/75.9/
139.4/256
0.0110
---
---
C4
---
655
SC/SC/0.5/42.5/
90/180
---
0.02
1.20
1.0
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY7
Table 13h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)7.2 9.6 6.9 7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)56+66+56+66+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)3.9 4.3 3.6 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio 13.4 21.1 12.9 17.4
Entrenchment Ratio 6.9+7.8+8.2+8.3+
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.0
D50 (mm)25.1 30.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.001 0.037
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 2.7
Pool Spacing (ft)7 58
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)26 60
Radius of Curvature (ft)14 23
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.9 2.4
Meander Length (ft)49 105
Meander Width Ratio 3.6 6.3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)2.3 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)10.1 10.1
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
0.5
---
0.05
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
0.17/17.58/26.1/59.0/
86.7/180
---
C4
---
776
1.20
0.0115
SC/SC/0.4/43.3/
82.6/256
---
1.0
MY6 MY7As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 13i. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT3 Reach 1
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.001 0.023
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.8 3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)64 163
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
21
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
1Pattern data is not applicable for B-type channels
SC/2.8/17.1/74.5/
117.2/180
0.0075
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
13.7
73+
0.9
1.5
12.8
14.7
5.3+
3.0
38.6
0.63
2%
B4c
---
779
1.10
SC/0.2/0.4/59.2/
107.3/180
0.42
1.0 1.0
50.0
5.5+
14.3
12.3
1.5
0.9
73+
MY6 MY7
13.3
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 13j. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT3 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio1
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.002 0.012
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.5 4.1
Pool Spacing (ft)53 186
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)57 130
Radius of Curvature (ft)29 57
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.7 3.4
Meander Length (ft)105 227
Meander Width Ratio 3.4 7.8
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC/SC/0.2/60.4/
113.8/256
1,159
1.40
0.0027
0.63
2%
C4
1.9
31.1
---
SC/SC/0.2/41.6/
61.5/180
---
---
31.2
1.0 1.0
4.5+4.5+
17.0 17.2
16.5 16.7
1.9 1.8
1.0 1.0
76+76+
MY6 MY7
16.7 17.0
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Table 13k. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT3 Reach 3
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio1
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0002 0.005
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)3.3 3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)83 180
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)67 152
Radius of Curvature (ft)34 67
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.8 3.5
Meander Length (ft)124 266
Meander Width Ratio 3.5 7.9
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC/SC/SC/32.0/
151.8/362
764
1.20
0.0005
0.88
2%
C4
0.8
16.0
---
SC/SC/SC/64/
151.8/362
---
---
47.0
1.0 1.0
3.7+3.7+
19.0 20.5
19.5 17.8
1.9 1.9
1.0 0.9
71+71+
MY6 MY7
19.2 19.1
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Cross‐Section  1 ‐ UT1 Reach 1Bankfull Dimensions7.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)8.5 width (ft)0.9 mean depth (ft)1.6 max depth (ft) 9.1 wetted perimeter (ft)0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)9.9 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots91691791891992092120 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)106+01 PoolMY0 (2/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  2 ‐ UT1 Reach 1Bankfull Dimensions3.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)7.0 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)0.9 max depth (ft) 7.2 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)13.9 width‐depth ratio26.5 W flood prone area (ft)3.8 entrenchment ratio0.9 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots9169179189199209215 152535Elevation (ft)Width (ft)106+28 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  3 ‐ UT1 Reach 2ABankfull Dimensions12.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)9.9 width (ft)1.2 mean depth (ft)2.5 max depth (ft) 11.4 wetted perimeter (ft)1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)8.0 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream86786886987087187287310 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)113+48 PoolMY0 (2/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  4 ‐ UT1 Reach 2ABankfull Dimensions5.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)9.2 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.1 max depth (ft) 9.5 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)16.4 width‐depth ratio45.6 W flood prone area (ft)5.0 entrenchment ratio1.1 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream86786886987087110 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)113+97 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  5 ‐ UT1 Reach 2ABankfull Dimensions5.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)8.1 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.2 max depth (ft) 8.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)12.4 width‐depth ratio65.4 W flood prone area (ft)8.1 entrenchment ratio1.1 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream84284384484584620 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)122+68 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  6 ‐ UT1 Reach 2ABankfull Dimensions13.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)9.5 width (ft)1.4 mean depth (ft)2.5 max depth (ft) 11.1 wetted perimeter (ft)1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)6.6 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream84084184284384484584620 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)122+81 PoolMY0 (2/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  7 ‐ UT1 Reach 2BBankfull Dimensions7.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)10.1 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.3 max depth (ft) 10.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)13.7 width‐depth ratio68.0 W flood prone area (ft)6.7 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream81581681781881982020 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)134+06 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  8 ‐ UT1 Reach 2BBankfull Dimensions12.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)13.0 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)2.1 max depth (ft) 14.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)13.2 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream80680780880981081181210 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)138+15 PoolMY0 (2/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  9 ‐ UT1 Reach 2BBankfull Dimensions8.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)11.5 width (ft)0.8 mean depth (ft)1.4 max depth (ft) 12.1 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)15.0 width‐depth ratio49.1 W flood prone area (ft)4.3 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream80280380480580680710 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)140+89 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  10 ‐ UT1 Reach 3Bankfull Dimensions8.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)10.8 width (ft)0.8 mean depth (ft)1.3 max depth (ft) 11.2 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)14.1 width‐depth ratio59.9 W flood prone area (ft)5.5 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream79279379479579610 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)147+32 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  11 ‐ UT1 Reach 3Bankfull Dimensions7.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)11.6 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.1 max depth (ft) 11.9 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)17.4 width‐depth ratio67.7 W flood prone area (ft)5.8 entrenchment ratio0.9 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream78979079179279310 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)148+80 RiffleMY0 (2/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  12 ‐ UT1 Reach 3Bankfull Dimensions17.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)16.2 width (ft)1.1 mean depth (ft)2.4 max depth (ft) 17.7 wetted perimeter (ft)1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)14.7 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream78578678778878979010 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)151+72 PoolMY0 (2/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  13 ‐ UT1 Reach 3Bankfull Dimensions22.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)16.3 width (ft)1.4 mean depth (ft)3.0 max depth (ft) 18.8 wetted perimeter (ft)1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)11.9 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream78078278478610 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)155+36 PoolMY0 (2/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  14 ‐ UT2 Reach 1Bankfull Dimensions8.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)10.4 width (ft)0.9 mean depth (ft)1.8 max depth (ft) 11.3 wetted perimeter (ft)0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)12.0 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots77077177277377477515 25 35 45Elevation (ft)Width (ft)202+57 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  15 ‐ UT2 Reach 1Bankfull Dimensions6.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)8.3 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.3 max depth (ft) 8.8 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)11.5 width‐depth ratio68.7 W flood prone area (ft)8.2 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots77077177277377477520 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)202+76 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  16 ‐ UT2 Reach 2Bankfull Dimensions9.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)12.2 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.3 max depth (ft) 12.5 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)16.4 width‐depth ratio64.7 W flood prone area (ft)5.3 entrenchment ratio0.9 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75775875976076176215 25 35 45Elevation (ft)Width (ft)214+49 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  17 ‐ UT2 Reach 2Bankfull Dimensions9.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)13.2 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.4 max depth (ft) 13.5 wetted perimeter (ft)0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)18.2 width‐depth ratio72.2 W flood prone area (ft)5.5 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75675775875976076110 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)216+00 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  18 ‐ UT2 Reach 2Bankfull Dimensions24.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)16.3 width (ft)1.5 mean depth (ft)2.6 max depth (ft) 17.4 wetted perimeter (ft)1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)11.1 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75575775976110 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)216+27 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  19 ‐ UT2ABankfull Dimensions2.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)5.5 width (ft)0.4 mean depth (ft)0.6 max depth (ft) 5.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)15.0 width‐depth ratio56.9 W flood prone area (ft)10.4 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots76376476576610 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)401+61 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  20 ‐ UT2ABankfull Dimensions3.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)6.6 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.2 max depth (ft) 7.0 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)11.7 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots76076176276310 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)403+57 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  21 ‐ UT2ABankfull Dimensions2.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)5.8 width (ft)0.3 mean depth (ft)0.6 max depth (ft) 6.0 wetted perimeter (ft)0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)17.2 width‐depth ratio51.4 W flood prone area (ft)8.8 entrenchment ratio0.8 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75976076176215 25 35 45Elevation (ft)Width (ft)405+83 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  22 ‐ UT2ABankfull Dimensions4.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)9.3 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)1.1 max depth (ft) 9.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)18.1 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75976076176210 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)406+04 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  23 ‐ UT2BBankfull Dimensions8.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)10.1 width (ft)0.8 mean depth (ft)1.6 max depth (ft) 10.7 wetted perimeter (ft)0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)12.1 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots75976076176276310 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)504+17 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  24 ‐ UT2BBankfull Dimensions3.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)7.9 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)0.7 max depth (ft) 8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)17.4 width‐depth ratio65.9 W flood prone area (ft)8.3 entrenchment ratio0.9 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots76076176210 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)504+47 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  25 ‐ UT2BBankfull Dimensions3.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)6.9 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)0.8 max depth (ft) 7.1 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)12.9 width‐depth ratio56.4 W flood prone area (ft)8.2 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75976076176210 20 30 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)505+67 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  26 ‐ UT2BBankfull Dimensions14.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)12.0 width (ft)1.2 mean depth (ft)2.2 max depth (ft) 12.9 wetted perimeter (ft)1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)10.3 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringLone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019View Downstream75875976076176210 20 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)505+99 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  27 ‐ UT3 Reach 1Bankfull Dimensions23.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)16.7 width (ft)1.4 mean depth (ft)2.7 max depth (ft) 17.8 wetted perimeter (ft)1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)12.1 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsView Downstream76376476576676776820 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)303+13 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  28 ‐ UT3 Reach 1Bankfull Dimensions12.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.)13.3 width (ft)0.9 mean depth (ft)1.5 max depth (ft) 13.8 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)14.3 width‐depth ratio72.9 W flood prone area (ft)5.5 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section PlotsView Downstream76376476576676776820 30 40 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)303+41 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  29 ‐ UT3 Reach 2Bankfull Dimensions16.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)17.0 width (ft)1.0 mean depth (ft)1.8 max depth (ft) 17.5 wetted perimeter (ft)1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)17.2 width‐depth ratio75.6 W flood prone area (ft)4.5 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots75775875976076176220 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)312+67 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  30 ‐ UT3 Reach 2Bankfull Dimensions26.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)19.0 width (ft)1.4 mean depth (ft)2.9 max depth (ft) 20.0 wetted perimeter (ft)1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)13.6 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots75675775875976076176220 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)314+37 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Cross‐Section  31 ‐ UT3 Reach 3Bankfull Dimensions17.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)19.1 width (ft)0.9 mean depth (ft)1.9 max depth (ft) 19.7 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)20.5 width‐depth ratio70.8 W flood prone area (ft)3.7 entrenchment ratio1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots75675775875976076176215 25 35 45 55Elevation (ft)Width (ft)321+01 RiffleMY0 (4/2019)MY0 Bankfull XS Area ElevationMY1 (10/2019)BankfullFloodprone Area
Cross‐Section  32 ‐ UT3 Reach 3Bankfull Dimensions46.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)26.9 width (ft)1.7 mean depth (ft)3.7 max depth (ft) 28.5 wetted perimeter (ft)1.6 hydraulic radius (ft)15.8 width‐depth ratioSurvey Date: 10/2019Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 1 ‐ 2019Lone Hickory Mitigation Site  NCDMS Project No. 97135Cross‐Section Plots75475575675775875976025 35 45 55 65 75Elevation (ft)Width (ft)321+75 PoolMY0 (4/2019)MY1 (10/2019)Bankfull
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 4 5 5 5
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 R1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 2 3 3 8
Fine 0.125 0.250 8
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 5 7 7 15
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 3 4 4 19
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3 3 22SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 22
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 23
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 2 25
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 7 8 8 33
Medium 8.0 11.0 3 1 4 4 37
Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 8 8 45
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 4 6 6 51
Coarse 22.6 32 2 5 7 7 58
Very Coarse 32 45 6 6 12 12 70
Very Coarse 45 64 4 2 6 6 76GRAVEL
Small 64 90 10 10 10 86
Small 90 128 7 1 8 8 94
Large 128 180 4 1 5 5 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
0.6
9.4
21.3
84.1
137.0
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1 R1, Reachwide
UT1 R1, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 4 5 5 5
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 R2A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 5 5 5 10
Fine 0.125 0.250 2 1 3 3 13
Medium 0.25 0.50 3 4 7 7 20
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 2 2 22
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 3 4 4 26SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 2 2 28
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 4 4 4 32
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 2 34
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 2 36
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 2 2 38
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 3 5 5 43
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 4 11 11 54
Coarse 22.6 32 4 5 9 9 63
Very Coarse 32 45 5 5 10 10 73
Very Coarse 45 64 6 1 7 7 80GRAVEL
Small 64 90 6 2 8 8 88
Small 90 128 6 1 7 7 95
Large 128 180 95
Large 180 256 4 1 5 5 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
0.3
6.7
19.9
75.9
128.0
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1 R2A, Reachwide
UT1 R2A, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 3 4 4 4
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 R2B, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 2 2 2 6
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 5 5 11
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 13 15 15 26
Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 3 29
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 3 7 7 36SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 36
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 36
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 2 2 38
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 2 2 40
Medium 8.0 11.0 1 3 4 4 44
Medium 11.0 16.0 5 2 7 7 51
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 3 5 5 56
Coarse 22.6 32 2 3 5 5 61
Very Coarse 32 45 5 2 7 7 68
Very Coarse 45 64 4 3 7 7 75GRAVEL
Small 64 90 9 1 10 10 85
Small 90 128 4 1 5 5 90
Large 128 180 3 1 4 4 94
Large 180 256 6 6 6 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
0.3
1.8
15.2
87.0
190.9
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1 R2B, Reachwide
UT1 R2B, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 1 1 1
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT1 R3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 3 3 4
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 5
Medium 0.25 0.50 5 5 5 10
Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 3 13
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 1 14SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 15
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 3 3 3 18
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 19
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 2 21
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 4 4 25
Medium 11.0 16.0 1 4 5 5 30
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 6 13 13 43
Coarse 22.6 32 4 7 11 11 54
Very Coarse 32 45 10 4 14 14 68
Very Coarse 45 64 12 5 17 17 85GRAVEL
Small 64 90 7 1 8 8 93
Small 90 128 6 6 6 99
Large 128 180 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
3.2
18.3
28.2
62.7
101.2
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT1 R3, Reachwide
UT1 R3, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 9 11 11 11
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2 R1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 12 12 12 23
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 3 26
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 4 6 6 32
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 8 9 9 41
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 6 3 9 9 50SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 50
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 51
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 3 5 5 56
Medium 8.0 11.0 4 3 7 7 63
Medium 11.0 16.0 4 2 6 6 69
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 1 4 4 73
Coarse 22.6 32 5 1 6 6 79
Very Coarse 32 45 6 1 7 7 86
Very Coarse 45 64 3 3 3 89GRAVEL
Small 64 90 4 4 4 93
Small 90 128 4 4 4 97
Large 128 180 3 3 3 100
Large 180 256 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
51 50 101 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
180.0
Channel materials (mm)
0.1
0.6
3.3
40.5
106.9
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT2 R1, Reachwide
UT2 R1, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 28 28 27 27
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 6 6 6 33
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 5 5 38
Medium 0.25 0.50 7 7 7 45
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 1 46
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 2 2 48SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 48
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 48
Fine 4.0 5.6 48
Fine 5.6 8.0 48
Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 4 52
Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 2 2 54
Coarse 16.0 22.6 6 1 7 7 61
Coarse 22.6 32 10 1 11 11 72
Very Coarse 32 45 10 10 10 81
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 6 87GRAVEL
Small 64 90 9 9 9 96
Small 90 128 1 1 1 97
Large 128 180 2 2 2 99
Large 180 256 99COBBLE
Small 256 362 99
Small 362 512 99
Medium 512 1024 99
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 99
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 1 1 1 100
51 51 102 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
>2048
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
0.2
9.4
52.7
86.3
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT2 R2, Reachwide
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 27 29 29 29
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 10 10 10 39
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 40
Medium 0.25 0.50 5 5 5 45
Coarse 0.5 1.0 45
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 2 47SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 48
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 49
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 50
Fine 5.6 8.0 50
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 3 5 5 55
Medium 11.0 16.0 55
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 3 58
Coarse 22.6 32 7 1 8 8 66
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 7 73
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 6 79GRAVEL
Small 64 90 10 10 10 89
Small 90 128 5 5 5 94
Large 128 180 4 4 4 98
Large 180 256 2 2 2 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
0.1
5.6
75.9
139.4
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT2A, Reachwide
UT2A, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 11 12 12 12
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT2B, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 12
Fine 0.125 0.250 9 9 9 21
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 2 23
Coarse 0.5 1.0 23
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4 4 27SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 27
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 28
Fine 4.0 5.6 28
Fine 5.6 8.0 28
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 30
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2 2 32
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 6 11 11 43
Coarse 22.6 32 13 4 17 17 60
Very Coarse 32 45 10 4 14 14 74
Very Coarse 45 64 11 2 13 13 87GRAVEL
Small 64 90 6 3 9 9 96
Small 90 128 1 1 2 2 98
Large 128 180 2 2 2 100
Large 180 256 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
180.0
Channel materials (mm)
0.2
17.6
26.1
59.0
86.7
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT2B, Reachwide
UT2B, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 22 23 23 23
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT3 R1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 23
Fine 0.125 0.250 10 10 10 33
Medium 0.25 0.50 33
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 1 34
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 34SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 35
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 5 6 6 41
Fine 4.0 5.6 41
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 42
Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 4 46
Medium 11.0 16.0 3 3 3 49
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 2 5 5 54
Coarse 22.6 32 3 1 4 4 58
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 7 65
Very Coarse 45 64 13 2 15 15 80GRAVEL
Small 64 90 7 2 9 9 89
Small 90 128 8 8 8 97
Large 128 180 3 3 3 100
Large 180 256 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
180.0
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
2.8
17.1
74.5
117.2
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT3 R1, Reachwide
UT3 R1, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 5 31 36 36 36
Reach SummaryParticle Count
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT3 R2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Very fine 0.062 0.125 12 12 12 48
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 3 51
Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 1 52
Coarse 0.5 1.0 52
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 1 53SAND
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 53
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 54
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 1 3 3 57
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 58
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 60
Medium 11.0 16.0 3 1 4 4 64
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 5 69
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7 7 76
Very Coarse 32 45 3 3 3 79
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 6 85GRAVEL
Small 64 90 6 6 6 91
Small 90 128 6 6 6 97
Large 128 180 2 2 2 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100COBBLE
Small 256 362 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
256.0
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.2
60.4
113.8
ReachwideBOULDERTotal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT3 R2, Reachwide
UT3 R2, Reachwide
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
min max Riffle Pool Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 5 45 50 50 50
Very fine 0.062 0.125 50
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 5 5 55
Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 1 56
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 1 57
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 57
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 57
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 57
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 58
Fine 5.6 8.0 58
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 60
Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 5 65
Coarse 16.0 22.6 11 11 11 76
Coarse 22.6 32 8 8 8 84
Very Coarse 32 45 3 3 3 87
Very Coarse 45 64 4 4 4 91
Small 64 90 2 2 2 93
Small 90 128 1 1 1 94
Large 128 180 2 2 2 96
Large 180 256 2 2 2 98
Small 256 362 2 2 2 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100
50 50 100 100 100
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 =
D100 =
,
362.0
Channel materials (mm)
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
32.0
151.8
Reachwide
Reach Summary
SANDGRAVELParticle Count
COBBLEBOULDERTotal
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
UT3 R3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
MY0-04/2019 MY1-10/2019
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
UT3 R3, Reachwide
UT3 R3, Reachwide
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
MY Method
Stream Gage
Stream Gage
Stream Gage6/23/2019
MY1UT3 Reach 3
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Reach Date of Occurrence
6/8/2019 - 6/9/2019
UT2B 6/8/2019
Date of Data Collection
6/8/2019
6/8/2019 - 6/9/2019
6/23/2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Reference Yes/25 days
(12.1%)
1 Yes/25 days
(12.1%)
2 Yes/23 days
(11.1%)
3 Yes/24 days
(11.6%)
4 Yes/109 days
(52.7%)
5 Yes/48 days
(23.2%)
6 Yes/23 days
(11.1%)
7 Yes/24 days
(11.6%)
8 Yes/48 days
(23.2%)
9 Yes/26 days
(12.6%)
10 1 N/A
1 Groundwater gage 10 was installed at the end of the MY1 growing season. Success criteria not applicable in MY1.
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Gage Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201925 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201923 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201924 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/2019109 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201948 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201923 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #6
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201924 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201948 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Wetland Re-establishment
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Start of Growing Season4/4/2019End of Growing Season10/27/201926 days
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurement
Lone Hickory Groundwater Gage #9
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
209 consecutive days
MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
925.0
925.5
926.0
926.5
927.0
927.5
928.0
928.5
929.0
929.5
930.0
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Stream Gage #1 - UT1 Reach 1 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Lone Hickory: In-Stream Flow Gage for Stream Gage #1 -UT1 Reach 1
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
232 consecutive days
MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
789.0
790.0
791.0
792.0
793.0
794.0
795.0
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Stream Gage #2 - UT1 Reach 3 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Lone Hickory: In-Stream Flow Gage for Stream Gage #2 -UT1 Reach 3
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
232 consecutive days
MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
756.0
757.0
758.0
759.0
760.0
761.0
762.0
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Stream Gage #3 - UT2 Reach 2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Lone Hickory: In-Stream Flow Gage for Stream Gage #3 -UT2 Reach 2
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
64 consecutive days On 10/25/2019, SG4 was moved upstream
from STA 404+70 to STA 401+80.MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
758.0
759.0
760.0
761.0
762.0
763.0
764.0
765.0
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Stream Gage #4 - UT2A Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Lone Hickory: In-Stream Flow Gage for Stream Gage #4 -UT2A
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
23 consecutive days On 10/25/2019, SG5 was moved upstream
from STA 504+50 to STA 502+30.MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
758.0
759.0
760.0
761.0
762.0
763.0
764.0
765.0
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Stream Gage #5 - UT2B Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Lone Hickory: In-Stream Flow Gage for Stream Gage #5 -UT2B
Recorded In-stream Flow Events
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
232 consecutive days
MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
753.0
754.0
755.0
756.0
757.0
758.0
759.0
760.0
761.0
Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 1 -2019
Rainfall Stream Gage #6 - UT3 Reach 3 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Lone Hickory: In-Stream Flow Gage for Stream Gage #6 -UT3 Reach 3
Monthly Rainfall Data
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97135
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
2019 rainfall collected by NC CRONOS Station, Yadkinville 0.2 E, NC
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Yadkinville 6E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19Precipitation (in)Date
Lone Hickory 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019
Yadkinville 0.2 E 30th Percentile 70th Percentile