20140333 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20201109

ID#* 20140333 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/09/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/9/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140333
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Holman Mill Mitigation Site
County: Alamance
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: HolmanMill_96316_MY5_2020.pdf 13.6MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL REPORT
Final

HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 005795
DMS ID No. 96316
USACE Action ID Number 2015-00019
NCDWR Project Number 2014-0333

Data Collection Period: January 2020 - October 2020
Draft Submission Date: October 14, 2020
Final Submission Date: November 2, 2020

PREPARED FOR:

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

PREPARED BY:

312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a full delivery project at the Holman Mill Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 8,717 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream in
Alamance County, NC. It is anticipated that the Site will generate 3,884 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs)
through the restoration and enhancement of six unnamed tributaries (UT to Pine Hill Branch, UT1, UT1A,
UT2, UT2A, and UT2B). The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002 (Cape Fear 02) near Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1) and is within the Cane Creek Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) (HUC 03030002050050). On-site streams flow into Cane Creek and eventually into the
Haw River.
The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed, which has been designated as a
Nutrient Sensitive Water. The TLW was identified in DMS’s Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009 (RBRP) (NC EEP, 2009) report. The RBRP plan identifies agricultural operations and degraded water
quality based on “fair” and “good-fair” benthic ratings as the impairments in the Cane Creek watershed.
The RBRP report also identifies the successful completion of a number of stream and wetland projects
within the Cane Creek watershed. The Site fully supports the Cataloging Unit wide functional objectives
stated in the 2011 request for proposals to reduce and control nutrient inputs, reduce and control
sediment inputs, and protect and augment Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Cape Fear River
Basin.
The mitigation project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River
Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Site; others, such as pollutant removal and
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project
goals were established with careful consideration of the goals and objectives described in the RBRP and
to meet the DMS’s mitigation needs, while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the
watershed. The following project specific goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) are
to:
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs by removing cattle from streams and
establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor to intercept and process sediment and
nutrients before they reach the channel during storm events;
• Reduce sediment loads by stabilizing eroding stream banks;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Install instream structures to improve bed and bank stability, create fish and macroinvertebrate
habitat, and help oxygenate streamflows; and
• Protect existing high-quality streams and forested buffers.

The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing numerous ecological benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. In addition, protected parcels downstream of the Site promote
cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between January and April 2016. A
conservation easement is in place on 32.4 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) assessments and site visits were completed between January and October
2020 to assess the condition of the Site. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream
success criteria for MY5. The overall average stem density for the Site is 442 stems per acre and exceeds
the MY5 requirement of 260 stems per acre. A narrow but long 0.3 acre area of easement

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL ii
encroachment occurred in December 2019 but was replanted in February 2020. One low stem density
area was identified which will be replanted in winter 2021. All restored and enhanced streams are stable
and functioning as designed. Multiple bankfull events were recorded on all restoration reaches during
MY5 and at least two bankfull events were recorded on each reach during the previous monitoring year,
resulting in attainment of the MY7 stream hydrology success criteria. The localized erosion on UT2 was
repaired in May 2020.

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL iii
HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern ............................................................................................. 1-2
1.2.3 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan .............................................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-3
Section 2: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component / Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-f Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Stream Areas of Concern Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-c Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross-Section)
Table 12a-d Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Holman Mill Mitigation Site (Site) is located in southern Alamance County, southeast of Snow Camp
off of Holman Mill Road (Figure 1). The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed
(HUC 03030002050050) which has been designated as a Nutrient Sensitive Water. The Site is in in the
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists
primarily of agricultural and wooded land. The drainage area for the Site is 1,077 acres (1.68 square
miles).
The project streams consist of six unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. Stream restoration reaches
included UT1 (Reach 1 and 3), UT2 (Reach 3 and 4), and UT2A. Stream enhancement I (EI) and
enhancement II (EII) reaches included UT1 (Reach 2 and 4), EII; UT1A, EII; UT2 (Reach 1), EII; UT2 (Reach
2), EI; UT2B, EII; and UT to Pine Hill Branch, EII. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration and
enhancement of 8,717 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream channels. The riparian areas
were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. The final mitigation
plan was submitted and accepted by the DMS in May 2015. Construction activities were completed by
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2016. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2016. Baseline monitoring (MY0) was conducted between January 2016
and March 2016. Annual monitoring will occur for seven years with the close-out anticipated to occur in
2023 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history,
contact information, and watershed/site background information for the Site.
A 32.4 acre conservation easement (Deed Book 3472, Page 968; Deed Book 3472, Page 951) has been
recorded and is in place along the stream riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity within two
tracts; a tract owned by the Russell B. Hadley Revocable Trust and a tract owned by the M. Darryl
Lindley Revocable Trust, respectively. The project is expected to provide 3,884 SMU’s by closeout.
A project vicinity map and directions are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated in
Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to restoration and enhancement activities, the streams and vegetative communities on the Site
had been severely impacted due to direct livestock access to the streams and riparian zones. Table 4 in
Appendix 1 and Tables 10a through 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre-restoration conditions in detail.
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the Site, others such as pollutant removal and reduced sediment
loading have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project goals were established with
careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS
mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015)
included:
The primary project goals are:
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs by removing cattle from streams and
establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor to intercept and process sediment and
nutrients before they reach the channel during storm events;
• Reduce sediment loads by stabilizing eroding stream banks;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2
• Install instream structures to improve bed and bank stability, create fish and macroinvertebrate
habitat, and help oxygenate streamflows; and
• Protect existing high-quality streams and forested buffers.

Secondary project objectives are expected to include:
• Improving instream nutrient cycling by incorporating woody debris into constructed riffles and
bank stabilization measures;
• Reducing thermal loadings through establishment of riparian shading;
• Reconnecting channels with floodplains to raise the local water table; and
• Create and implement a stream and riparian area restoration design that is both natural and
aesthetically pleasing.
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY5 to assess the condition of the
project. The vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria
presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 12 standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots were established during the baseline
monitoring within the project easement area. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of
210 planted stems per acre averaging 10 feet in height within the conservation easement at the end of
MY7. The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of 260 planted stems per
acre at the end of MY5.
The MY5 vegetative survey was completed in August 2020. The 2020 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average planted stem density of 442 planted stems per acre; exceeding the interim requirement of
260 stems per acre required at MY5 and approximately 30% less than the baseline density recorded (634
stems per acre). When including volunteer stems, the average stems per acre is 931 for MY5. This
greatly exceeds the MY5 interim requirement of 260 stems per acre as well as the MY7 final success
criteria of 210 stems per acre. There is an average of 11 stems per plot as compared to 15 stems per plot
in MY0. Eleven of the twelve individual vegetation plots met the interim success criteria required for
MY5 and are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7 (Table 7, Appendix 3). Vegetation
plot 12 had 243 stems per acre and did not meet the MY5 interim requirement. However, vegetation
plot 12 is on track to meet the 210 stems per acre success criteria required for MY7. When counting
volunteer trees, vegetation plot 12 had an average stem density of 647 stems per acre, which exceeds
the MY5 interim requirement of 260 stems per acre. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot
photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Encroachment occurred along the right floodplain of UT1 (Figure 3.0) for 1,100 linear feet and a total of
0.3 acres in December 2019. Horse tape and additional easement signs were installed to clearly mark
the conservation easement boundary and prevent future encroachment. In February 2020 thirty
supplemental trees were planted in this area which included a mixture of one-gallon and three-gallon
willow oak (Quercus phellos), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and river birch (Betula nigra).
Herbaceous vegetation has grown back and planted trees are healthy. This area will continue to be
assessed, but no further action will be taken at this time.

An area of low stem density (Figure 3.0) was noted during MY5 for a total of 0.14 acres. Dense
herbaceous vegetation has outcompeted the planted trees in the area adjacent to UT to Pine Hill

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3
Branch. Refer to Section 1.2.6 for further information on the maintenance plan for the low stem density
areas.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted in March 2020 and all streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. Cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, or width-to-depth ratio. Bank height ratios fall within the appropriate Rosgen
stream type parameters. Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement I reaches indicated
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools. Longitudinal
profile surveys are not required on the project unless visual inspection indicates reach wide vertical
instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current Condition Plan View
(CCPV) map, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Localized erosion below a log sill on UT2 between stations 214+35 and 214+50 identified during MY4
was repaired in May 2020. The stream bank repair included installing sod mats and live stakes. See
before and after photos of the area in Appendix 2. This area will continue to be monitored to determine
the success of the repair work.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches during
the monitoring period. Multiple bankfull events were recorded on all restoration reaches during MY5
and as well as during MY1 through MY4, resulting in attainment of the stream hydrology assessment
criteria. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
The low stem density area identified in Section 1.2.2 will be replanted in early winter 2021. Prior to
planting, the area along UT to Pine Hill Branch will be treated for herbaceous vegetation to provide the
planted trees a competitive advantage.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Eleven of the 12 vegetation plots met the MY5 interim requirement of 260 planted stems per acre as
noted in the CCPV. When including volunteer species all 12 vegetation plots met the MY5 interim
requirement. The encroachment area noted along UT1 was replanted in winter 2020 and will continue
to be monitored. The low stem density area identified at the Site will be replanted in early winter 2021.
All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. The localized erosion identified in
MY4 on UT2 was repaired and will continue to be monitored. Multiple bankfull events in separate years
have been documented on all restored stream reaches at the Site, resulting in fulfillment of the
hydrologic success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation plan documents available on
DMS’s website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored
throughout the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in
accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation
monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 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.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities, at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/cape-fear
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center for Computational
Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Holman Mill Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

03030002050050
03030002050070
03030003070010
03030003070020
03030002050020
03030002050090
Project Area
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
Figure 1 Project Vicinity MapHolman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Alamance County, NC¹0 10.5 Miles
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of theNCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site mayrequire traversing areas near or along the easement boundary andtherefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access byauthorized personnel of state and federal agencies or theirdesignees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the termsand timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation oractivity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned rolesand activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions:From Raleigh, NC, take I-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 273A for NC-54 West toward Chapel Hill. Travel approximately three miles and turn right to follow NC-54 West. Travel approximately 3.9 miles, take theJones Ferry Road exit towards Carrboro. At the end of the ramp, turn left onto Jones Ferry Road and continue 0.9 miles. Turn right onto Old Greensboro Road. Travel 17.9 miles and turn left onto Holman Mill Road.Travel approximately 3.3 miles; the entrance to the Siteis located on the left before reaching Clark Road.
UT1A UT to Pine Hill BranchUT1 R
e
a
c
h

4
UT2A
UT2BUT2 Rea
c
h

1
UT2 Reach 3
UT1 Rea
c
h

2
UT1 Reach 3
UT2 Re
a
c
h

2
UT
1

R
e
a
c
h

1
UT2 Reach 4
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Reach Breaks
Figure 2 Project Component / Asset MapHolman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Alamance County, NC¹0 400200 Feet
DMS Project No. 96316
Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 3,884 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
As-Built Stationing /
Location
Existing Footage /
Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio Credits
(SMU / WMU)
600+00 - 635+26 3,526 EII 5 705
100+00 - 102+08 215 P1 1 208
102+08 - 106+31 433 EII 2.5 169
106+31 - 109+40 331 P1 1 309
109+40 - 125+98 1,687 EII 2.5 663
400+00 - 400+94 84 EII 2.5 38
300+00 - 305+40 468 P1 1 540
200+00 - 205+88 588 EII 2.5 235
205+88 - 208+81 298 E1 1.5 195
208+81 - 213+63 396 P1 1 482
213+63 - 215+30 242 P1 1 167
500+00 - 504+29 429 EII 2.5 172
Buffer (acres) Upland (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
- -- -
- -- -
- -
- --
- --
Restoration
Restoration
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
N/A
UT1 Reach 2 423
MITIGATION CREDITS
Restoration Footage / AcreageReach ID Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Restoration 3,526
STREAMS
UT to Pine Hill Branch
UT1 Reach 3 Restoration
Restoration
Restoration
94
UT2A
482
UT2B
COMPONENT SUMMATION
Restoration
588UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach2
UT2 Reach 4 Restoration 167
-
RestorationUT1 Reach 4
Restoration 429
UT2 Reach 3
UT1A Restoration
540
Creation -
Preservation --
Enhancement II 6,718
Restoration 1,706
Enhancement
Enhancement I 293
-
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1 208
High Quality Preservation -
293
1,658
Restoration
-
309
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non-Riparian Wetland (acres)Restoration Level Stream (LF)
DMS Project No. 96316
Sweetgum Removal
Tree Release
Fence Repaired
DMS Project No. 96316
December 2020
December 2021
December 2022
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation SurveyYear 7 Monitoring
Replanting
Live Stakes
Stream Repair May 2020
April 2019
Stream SurveyYear 2 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Seed Mix Sources
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
March 2017
2022
August 2020Vegetation Survey
March 2020
December 2018
December 2019
March 2018
April 2019
Stream Survey
September 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)May 2016
Stream SurveyYear 1 Monitoring September 2016 December 2016Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
March 2016 March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 March 2016 March 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2016 March 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1
Green Resource, LLC
Fremont, NC 27830
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Willow Spring, NC 27592
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
P.O. Box 1197
Seeding Contractor
919.851.9986, ext. 107
Monitoring, POC
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Jason Lorch
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Dykes and Son NurseryBare Roots
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Activity or Report Date Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
March 2016
Vegetation Survey
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
2022
Stream Survey
Easement Encroachment December 2019
February 2020
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Willow Spring, NC 27592
126 Circle G Lane
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
919.851.9986, ext. 106
Designer
Angela Allen, PE
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
August 2018
August 2017Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Replanting December 2018
August 2019
Year 3 Monitoring
December 2017
Construction
April 2014 - April 2015 May 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans May 2015 - October 2015
Mitigation Plan
October 2015
January 2016 - March 2016 March 2016
DMS Project No. 96316
UT to Pine
Hill Branch UT1 UT1A UT2 UT2A UT2B
3,526 2,598 94 1,530 540 429
1,077 102 20 130 47 18
44.5 33.5/30.5 25.5 35 36.75 26.5
P P I P P I
I II NA III/IV III/IV NA
------------------
------------------
------------------
AE AE ---AE AE ---
Applicable? Resolved?
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No N/A
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No N/A
Yes Yes
No N/A
Drainage area (acres)
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Cape Fear River
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
0%
03030002
1,077
03-06-04
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
Alamance County
32.4 Acres
Physiographic Province
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
River Basin
County
Project Area (acres)
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
35°51'310.12"N, 79°23'16.00"W
N/A
Georgeville silty clay loam, Local alluvial land, Herndon silt loam,
Goldston Channery silt loam
3%
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030002050050
DWR Sub-basin
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
49% Forested/Scrubland, 42% Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous, 4%
Pasture, 3% Watershed Impervious Cover, 2% Residential, <1% Open
Water
CGIA Land Use Classification
NCDWR stream identification score
Morphological Desription (stream type)
Piedmont bottomland forest, Bottomland hardwood forest
Underlying mapped soils
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
N/A
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ
401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 404
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Slope
Soil Hydric status
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A
UT to Pine Hill Branch and portions of UT2 and
UT2A are located within the floodway and
flood fringe (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel
8786).
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Project Drainage Area (acres)
PROJECT INFORMATION
Historic Preservation Act
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation - Post-Restoration
No historic resources were found to be
impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/14).
Supporting Documentation
Drainage class
Regulation
FEMA classification
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
Planted Area (acres)14.0 Acres
Holman Mill Mitigation Plan (2015); Wildlands
determined "no effect" on Alamance County
listed endangered species.
Native vegetation community
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Project Name
Parameters
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View(Key)Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Alamance County, NC
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!A
!A
!A
!A
Sheet 2
Sheet 1
Clar
k

R
dHolman Mill RdUT2 Reach 4
UT
1

R
e
a
c
h

1
UT2 Re
a
c
h

2
UT1 Reach 3
UT1 Rea
c
h

2
UT2 Reach 3
UT2 Rea
c
h

1
UT2BUT
2
A
UT1 R
e
a
c
h

4 UT to Pine Hill BranchUT1A XS8XS6XS4XS1X
S
7
X
S
5
XS3XS24
1
9
2
3
5
7
8
6
11
12
10
0 350 700 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY5
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY5
Encroachment
Low Stem Density
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Cross-Section (XS)
As-Built Bankfull
Reach Breaks
Stream Problem Area - MY5
Stream Repair
!A Crest Gauge
!A Barotroll
^_Photo Point (PP)
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan ViewHolman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Alamance County, NC
^_^_
^_
^_^_^_^_
^_^_^_^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
!A
100+00
102+00 104+0
0 106+00108+00110+00
112+00 114+00
116+00 118+
0
0
120+00 122+00124+00 125+98400+94601+00603+00605+00607+00609+00611+00613+00615+00617+00619+00621+00623+00625+00627+00XS1XS2XS3X
S
4
UT1 Re
a
c
h

1
UT1 Reach 3UT1 Reach 2
UT1AUT to Pine Hill BranchUT1 Reach 4
UT to Pine Hill BranchPP 9PP 8
PP 7PP 6PP 5PP 4
PP 3
PP 2PP 1
PP 25 PP 24 PP 23
PP 22
PP 21
PP 20
PP 19
PP 18
PP 17
PP 16PP 15
PP 14
PP 13PP 12
PP 11PP 10
4
1
2
3
0 180 360 Feet ¹2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Structures
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY5
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY5
Encroachment
Low Stem Density
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Cross-Section (XS)
As-Built Bankfull
Reach Breaks
Stationing
!A Crest Gauge
^_Photo Point (PP)
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan ViewHolman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Alamance County, NC
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
^_^_^_
^_^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!A
!A
!A
!A
100+00
102+0
0
10
4
+
0
0
106+00108+00110+00
112+00
114+00
116+00
400+94
201+00
2
0
3
+
0
0
205+00
207
+
0
0 209+00211+0
0 213+00215+00
300
+
0
0
302+00
304+00
305+40
501+00503+00504+30619+00621+0062
3
+
0
0625+00627+006
2
9
+
0
0631+00633+00635+00XS1XS2XS3XS4X
S
5XS6XS8X
S
7
UT2 Reach 4
UT
1

R
e
a
c
h

1
UT2 Re
a
c
h

2
UT1 Reach 3
UT1 Reac
h

2
UT2 Reach 3
UT2 Rea
c
h

1
UT2BUT
2
A
UT1A
UT to Pine Hill BranchUT1 Re
a
c
h

4
PP 9
PP 8PP 7PP 6
PP 5
PP 4
PP 3
PP 2PP 1
PP 45
PP 44
PP 43
PP 42
PP 41PP 40
PP 39PP 38PP 37
PP 36PP 35
PP 34
PP 33
PP 32
PP 31
PP 30
PP 29
PP 28
PP 27
PP 26
PP 25
PP 24
PP 23
PP 22
PP 12
PP 11
PP 10
4
1
9
2
3
5
7
8
6
11
12
10
0 180 360 Feet ¹
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetlands
Structures
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY5
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY5
Encroachment
Low Stem Density
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Cross-Section (XS)
As-Built Bankfull
Reach Breaks
Stationing
Stream Problem Area - MY5
Stream Repair
!A Crest Gauge
!A Barotroll
^_Photo Point (PP)
DMS Project No. 96316
UT1
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 13 13 100%
Length Appropriate 13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)12 12 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)13 13 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.10 10 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.10 10 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
10 10 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
10 10 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
DMS Project No. 96316
UT1A
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 3 3 100%
Depth Sufficient n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
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
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
DMS Project No. 96316
UT2
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 10 10 100%
Length Appropriate 10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)13 13 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.3 3 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.3 3 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
3 3 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
3 3 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
DMS Project No. 96316
UT2A
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 11 11 100%
Depth Sufficient 10 10 100%
Length Appropriate 10 10 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)11 11 100%
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% n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.2 2 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.2 2 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
2 2 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
2 2 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
DMS Project No. 96316
UT2B
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 n/a n/a n/a
Depth Sufficient n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
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
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
DMS Project No. 96316
UT to Pine Hill Branch
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 n/a n/a n/a
Depth Sufficient n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
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% n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, caving, or collapse 0 0 100% n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.n/a n/a n/a
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.n/a n/a n/a
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.
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
DMS Project No. 96316
Planted Acreage 14
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
(Ac)
Number of 
Polygons
Combined 
Acreage
% of Planted 
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous 
material 0.1 0 0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels 
based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 1 0.1 1%
1 0.1 1%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or 
Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are 
obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 Ac 0 0 0%
1 0.1 1%
Easement Acreage 32.4
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping 
Threshold 
(SF)
Number of 
Polygons
Combined 
Acreage
% of 
Easement 
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons 
at map scale).1,000 0 0 0%
Easement Encroachment 
Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons 
at map scale).none 1 0.3 1%
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
Table 6.  Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020
Total
Cumulative Total

Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 1 UT1A – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 1 UT1A – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 2 UT1A – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 2 UT1A – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 3 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 4 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 5 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 6 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 7 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 8 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 9 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 10 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 11 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 14 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 15 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 16 UT1 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 16 UT1 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 17 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 18 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 19 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 19 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 20 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 20 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 21 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 21 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 22 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 22 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 23 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 23 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 24 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 24 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 25 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 25 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 26 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 26 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 27 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 27 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 28 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 28 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 29 UT - PHB – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 29 UT - PHB – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 30 UT2B – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 30 UT2B – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 31 UT2B – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 31 UT2B – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 32 UT2B – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 32 UT2B – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 37 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 37 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 38 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 38 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 39 UT2 – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 39 UT2 – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 40 UT2 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 40 UT2 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 41 UT2 – looking upstream (3/3/2020) PHOTO POINT 41 UT2 – looking downstream (3/3/2020)

PHOTO POINT 42 UT2A – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 42 UT2A – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 43 UT2A – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 43 UT2A – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 44 UT2A – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 44 UT2A – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

PHOTO POINT 45 UT2A – looking upstream (3/9/2020) PHOTO POINT 45 UT2A – looking downstream (3/9/2020)

Stream Areas of Concern Photographs 

Before ‐ Localized Erosion (4/7/2020) Before ‐ Localized Erosion (4/7/2020) 

After – Repaired Localized Erosion (5/5/2020) After ‐ Repaired Localized Erosion (5/5/2020) 

After ‐ Repaired Localized Erosion (9/28/2020) After ‐ Repaired Localized Erosion (9/28/2020) 

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 (08/05/2020) Vegetation Plot 2 (08/05/2020)

Vegetation Plot 3 (08/05/2020) Vegetation Plot 4 (08/05/2020)

Vegetation Plot 5 (08/05/2020) Vegetation Plot 6 (08/05/2020)

Vegetation Plot 7 (08/05/2020) Vegetation Plot 8 (08/05/2020)

Vegetation Plot 9 (08/05/2020) Vegetation Plot 10 (08/05/2020)

Vegetation Plot 11 (08/05/2020) Vegetation Plot 12 (08/05/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Plot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*Vegetation Plot 12 does not meet the interim success criteria for MY5 of 260 planted stems per acre. However, when including volunteers
Vegetation Plot 12 does meet interim success criteria for MY5 and is on track to meet the final success criteria for MY7 of 210 planted stems per
acre.
No*
92%
Success Criteria
Met Tract Mean
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 8.  CVS Vegetation Tables ‐ MetadataHolman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Report Prepared ByKaitlyn HogarthDate Prepared8/12/2020 12:04Database NameHolman Mill MY5‐ cvs‐eep‐entrytool‐v2.5.0.mdbDatabase LocationF:\Projects\005‐02146 Holman Mill\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020\Vegetation AssessmentComputer NameKAITLYN2020File Size49188864MetadataDescription of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.Project PlantedEach project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.  This excludes live stakes.Project Total StemsEach project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.  This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.PlotsList of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).VigorFrequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.Vigor by SppFrequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.DamageList of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.Damage by SppDamage values tallied by type for each species.Damage by PlotDamage values tallied by type for each plot.Planted Stems by Plot and SppA matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.ALL Stems by Plot and SppA matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.Project Code96316Project NameHolman MillDescriptionStream Restoration ProjectSampled Plots12DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Holman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TAlnus serrulataTag AlderShrub Tree1Betula nigraRiver BirchTree66644433322 2Calycanthus floridusSweet‐shrub ShrubCephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush Shrub Tree1Fraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen AshTree66644433366655 5 6613Juglans nigraBlack Walnut Tree11Juniperus virginianaEastern Red Cedar TreeLigustrum sinenseChinese Privet Exotic1Liquidambar styracifluaSweet Gum Tree13 15Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip Poplar Tree44433333 3 111Nyssa bifloraSwamp Tupelo Tree1Platanus occidentalisSycamore Tree11 1Quercus palustrisPin OakTree22222211111 1 333Quercus phellosWillow Oak Tree111111Rhus copallinumWinged Sumac Shrub TreeSalix nigraBlack Willow Tree13Symphoricarpos orbiculatusCoralberryShrubUlmus alataWinged Elm Tree324Ulmus americanaAmerican Elm Tree1713 13 14 11 11 14 12 12 17 10 10 12 12 12 31 10 10 413344454463355510337526 526 567 445 445 567 486 486 688 405 405 486 486 486 1,255 405 405 1,659Color for DensityExceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteers PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakesP‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total StemsCurrent Plot Data (MY5 2020)Table 9.  Planted and Total Stem Counts10.0210.0210.0210.0210.02Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.02VP 3VP 4VP 5VP 6Scientific NameCommon Name Species TypeVP 1VP 2
Holman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Alnus serrulataTag AlderShrub TreeBetula nigraRiver BirchTreeCalycanthus floridusSweet‐shrub ShrubCephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush Shrub TreeFraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen AshTreeJuglans nigraBlack Walnut TreeJuniperus virginianaEastern Red Cedar TreeLigustrum sinenseChinese Privet ExoticLiquidambar styracifluaSweet Gum TreeLiriodendron tulipiferaTulip Poplar TreeNyssa bifloraSwamp Tupelo TreePlatanus occidentalisSycamoreTreeQuercus palustrisPin OakTreeQuercus phellosWillow Oak TreeRhus copallinumWinged Sumac Shrub TreeSalix nigraBlack Willow TreeSymphoricarpos orbiculatusCoralberryShrubUlmus alataWinged Elm TreeUlmus americanaAmerican Elm TreeColor for DensityExceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteers PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakesP‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total StemsTable 9.  Planted and Total Stem CountsStem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREScientific NameCommon Name Species TypePnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T11155544411133655531511725631112223338882222223332221111111111115554442222273331127114312 12 29 12 12 48 12 12 18 10 10 19 11 11 17 6 6 16446336446445557447486 486 1,174 486 486 1,942 486 486 728 405 405 769 445 445 688 243 243 647Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)10.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.02VP 7VP 8VP 9VP 10VP 11VP 12
Holman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Alnus serrulataTag AlderShrub TreeBetula nigraRiver BirchTreeCalycanthus floridusSweet‐shrub ShrubCephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush Shrub TreeFraxinus pennsylvanicaGreen AshTreeJuglans nigraBlack Walnut TreeJuniperus virginianaEastern Red Cedar TreeLigustrum sinenseChinese Privet ExoticLiquidambar styracifluaSweet Gum TreeLiriodendron tulipiferaTulip Poplar TreeNyssa bifloraSwamp Tupelo TreePlatanus occidentalisSycamoreTreeQuercus palustrisPin OakTreeQuercus phellosWillow Oak TreeRhus copallinumWinged Sumac Shrub TreeSalix nigraBlack Willow TreeSymphoricarpos orbiculatusCoralberryShrubUlmus alataWinged Elm TreeUlmus americanaAmerican Elm TreeColor for DensityExceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteers PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakesP‐all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total StemsTable 9.  Planted and Total Stem CountsStem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREScientific NameCommon Name Species TypePnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T126 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 31 31 311138 38 52 40 40 52 42 42 44 39 39 39 39 39 39711366852612 12 15 13 13 13 14 14 16 33 33 33 35 35 35121 21 21 23 23 23 22 22 22 41 41 41 45 45 4515 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 18 1819 19 25 20 20 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 204473134271089131 131 276 138 138 286 140 140 184 179 179 179 188 188 188661566146610666666442 442 931 465 465 965 472 472 621 604 604 604 634 634 634120.30120.30120.30120.30120.30Annual MeansMY5 (2020) MY3 (2018) MY2 (2017) MY1 (2016) MY0 (2016)

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)9.1 10.4 5.3 10.9 9.3 10.5 7.5 7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)25 65 20 64 15 65 23 24
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)10.7 11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3 4.3 4.6
Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3 13.1 13.6
Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 1.9 8.3 3.0 3.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1
D50 (mm)28.8 32.0
Riffle Length (ft)12.5 31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0470 0.0240 0.0570 0.0158 0.0661 0.0200 0.0690
Pool Length (ft)6.0 23.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.6 0.9 1.7 1.5 3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)34 52 8 82 2 44 20 53
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)62 82 21 93 28 50 15 45 12 69 11 45
Radius of Curvature (ft)56 90 14 60 19 50 8 47 10 45 9 37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)6.2 9.9 1.5 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.6 3.2 1.3 5.8 1.2 4.7
Meander Length (ft)209 300 -- -- -- -- 25 128 31 75
Meander Width Ratio 6.8 9.0 2.3 8.9 3.0 5.3 1.0 3.0 1.6 8.9 1.5 5.7
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) 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2 3.5 3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)15.0 16.7
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.15 1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.004 0.028 0.015 0.03
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
2.5
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
0.16
Additional Reach Parameters
---
---
---
---
---
---
14.0
2%
B4
---
---
2,648
0.7
2.0
2.2
Profile
8.1
---
1.8
1.0
---
---
---
4.3
------
---
---
---
---
------
3.2
2%---------
0.41
E4 E4 C4
N/A
0.30 0.41
2%
0.16
E4
0.16
---
---
3.0
C4
1.10
------------0.0246
1.40 1.20
468
---------519 517
---
------468
---
------
20.3
---------
---
---
------
14.054.0
---
---
0.012
N/A
---
---
1.12
---
25.3
1.6
---
---
5.7
---
---
AS-BUILT/BASELINEDESIGN
---
0.6
---
---
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
>36
0.6
------
4.3
>3.9
---
7.8
UT1 - Reach 1/3
REFERENCE REACH DATAPRE-
RESTORATION
UT1 - Reach 1/3
14.1
12
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
UT1 - Reach 1/3Agony Acres
UT1A- Reach 1
1.0
--- ---
---
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Pattern
N/A
0.9
33.1
1.0
0.025
---
---
0.017
---
---
N/A
--- ---
1.8
0.7
N/A
---
N/A
N/A
---
N/A
---------
---
------
---
---0.9
---
------
0.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
69.7/128
---
0.0203
---
1.35
---
---
---
DMS Project No. 96316
UT2
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)9.1 10.4 5.3 10.9 9.3 10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)25 65 20 64 17 79 25 90
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)10.7 11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3
Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 2.2 10.0 2.2 8.0
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)14.7 45.8 23.7 31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0470 0.024 0.057 0.0138 0.0598 0.0062 0.0264 0.0135 0.0288 0.0395* 0.0592*
Pool Length (ft)20.4 59.8 10.5 12.1
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.6 0.9 1.7 1.3 2.5 1.5 2.7 1.9 3.1
Pool Spacing (ft)34 52 8 82 4 44 3 63 56 87 33 61
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 62 82 16 50 21 93 28 50 15 45 13 70 18 100 31 52
Radius of Curvature (ft) 56 90 10 47 14 60 19 50 8 47 10 46 15 65 18 42
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 6.2 9.9 1.2 5.6 1.5 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.6 3.2 1.3 5.8 1.3 5.8 1.9 4.3
Meander Length (ft) 209 300 42 192 -- -- -- -- 25 130 36 184 56 92
Meander Width Ratio 6.8 9.0 1.9 6.0 2.3 8.9 3.0 5.3 1.0 3.0 1.6 8.9 1.6 8.9 3.2 5.4
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)2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.15 1.25 1.13 1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.028
*: Alignment change during consturction created steeper riffles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
---
---
---
---
---
2.3
10.4
100
0.8
4.5
20.5
10.4
100
9.7
0.5
0.8
4.5
20.5
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASELINE
UT2 - Reach 3 UT2 - Reach 4 UT2 - Reach 3 UT2 - Reach 4
0.8
4.3 4.4 9.1
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
UT2 - Reach 3 UT2 - Reach 4
Agony Acres UT1A-
Reach 1
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
14.0 14.0
>3.9
1.0
7.9 11.2
>36
9.7
0.50.6
1.0
33.1 0.7 --- ---------11.4 11.4
2.2
---
12
Profile
N/A
------------
------
---
------
---------------
N/A
---
N/A
5.7
---
1.0
8.1
0.7
1.81.0
4.1
6.8
---
45
4.6
Pattern
N/A
---------
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
20
---
---
---------
------
---------
0.38 0.59
------------
---
0.38
---
---
---
SC/2.18/5.6/
34.0/56.9/362.0
SC/2.18/5.6/
34.0/56.9/362.0
2%2%2%------
0.44
------------
0.130.13 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.41
---
E4
---------
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
2%
0.13 0.21 0.21
C4 C4
2%
C4
3.0 2.9 2.5 2.6
B4
N/A
13.0 22.0 25.3 20.3 54.0 13.0 22.0 N/A11.7
---------
---------------
---------
------
---------
---
---
396 242 ---------
------------
167
---------
479 210 482
0.0237
---
0.0170
1.05
---
0.0120 0.0176
0.0119
0.014 0.02
1.20
---
---
---
------
1.10
---
C4
---
---
N/A
1.77
---
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
SC/0.43/0.69/
17.84/32.14/64
---
---
---------
1.8
---------
------
152
1.12 1.17
386
5.4
26
0.8
---
N/A
1.5
---
2.5
---
4.72.0
2.1
2.9
------
E5
------
---
---
0.0130.0300 0.012
1.35 1.40
---
N/A
E4
2.1
130
------------
2%
E4
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
UT2A
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)9.1 10.4 5.3 10.9 9.3 10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)25 65 20 64 14 80
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)10.7 11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3
Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 2.2 12.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)17.9 38.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.0470 0.0240 0.0570 0.018 0.08 0.0007 0.0520
Pool Length (ft)16.3 33.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.5 2.6 0.8 1.6 1.5 3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)34 52 8 82 2 36 29 62
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 15 30 21 93 28 50 15 45 10 57 25 40
Radius of Curvature (ft) 5.8 33 14 60 19 50 8 47 8 37 11 31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 6.5 1.5 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.6 3.2 1.3 5.8 1.7 4.7
Meander Length (ft) 27 69 -- -- -- -- 20 105 41 61
Meander Width Ratio 2.9 9.0 2.3 8.9 3.0 5.3 1.0 3.0 1.6 8.6 3.8 6.1
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) 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.15 1.25
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0040 0.028 0.007 0.018
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
---
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A
0.08
0.45
---
---
---
Profile
---
6.6
0.5
0.7
3.2
13.5
---
3.3
15.1
6.4
100
Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
PRE-
RESTORATION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN
AS-BUILT/
BASELINE
2.1
UT2A UT2A
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
UT2A Agony Acres UT1A-
Reach 1 UT to Polecat Creek UT to Varnals
Creek
N/A
5.1
0.4 0.5
0.9 1.8
11.5 >36
3.4 1.0 1.0
3.2
12 13.0
2.3 >3.9
18.3---
---
---
------
---
------
---
---
------
---
Pattern
---
2.4 2.5 1.8
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
N/A
N/A
N/A
---
------
N/A
---
N/A
------------
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048 ---
---------
---
---------------
---
------3.15/11.86/18.3/
43.5/101.2/362
---------0.52
------
---------
0.08 0.08
------
E4
2%---------
0.30 0.41 0.41
C4 C4
9.0 25.3 20.3
2%2%
C4b E4 E4
2.5 3.1 2.9
9.0 8.6
------------
---------
---
---480 480
------
---
1.15 1.35 1.40 1.20
468 540---
54.0
---
---
---
---
---
0.0143
---
---
---------
540
1.85
0.0129
0.012 0.01700.023
1.13
---
------
---
Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) 570.5 570.5 570.5 570.7 570.7 569.8 569.8 569.8 569.9 569.7 554.1 554.1 554.1 554.2 554.2 554.3 554.3 554.3 554.6 554.5Low Bank Elevation (ft) 570.5 570.5 570.5 570.7 570.7 569.8 569.8 569.8 569.8 569.7 554.1 554.1 554.1 554.1 554.2 554.3 554.3 554.3 554.4 554.5Bankfull Width (ft) 7.9 7.7 7.2 8.3 8.88.4 7.3 7.1 8.2 6.89.6 8.9 8.5 9.2 6.4 10.7 9.9 9.4 9.8 11.3Floodprone Width (ft) 23.6 21.6 21.6 22.0 22.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.60.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.70.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.10.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.31.6 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.11.8 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.91.3 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.3Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.6 3.8 3.6 4.6 5.27.4 6.5 5.8 7.4 4.58.2 8.1 7.9 8.2 7.38.0 6.4 6.1 8.0 7.2Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.6 15.8 14.4 15.1 15.0 9.5 8.3 8.7 9.1 10.2 11.3 9.8 9.2 10.3 5.6 14.3 15.2 14.6 12.0 17.8Entrenchment Ratio13.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A2.2 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.5Bankfull Bank Height Ratio21.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0Dimension and SubstrateBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) 520.1 520.1 520.1 520.1 520.1 519.5 519.5 519.5 519.5 519.5 520.5 520.5 520.5 520.6 520.5 520.2 520.2 520.2 520.3 520.2Low Bank Elevation (ft) 520.1 520.1 520.1 520.1 520.1 519.5 519.5 519.5 519.5 519.5 520.5 520.5 520.5 520.6 520.5 520.2 520.2 520.2 520.1 520.2Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7 9.8 9.2 9.8 7.19.9 10.7 10.6 10.0 9.06.6 7.5 7.4 8.3 6.99.7 8.6 9.8 9.5 9.1Floodprone Width (ft) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.50.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.10.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.01.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.90.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.81.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.9Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.5 4.4 3.9 4.5 3.68.9 9.0 8.4 8.9 9.63.2 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.59.1 8.6 9.1 9.1 5.5Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.5 21.9 21.7 21.2 14.2 11.0 12.7 13.4 11.2 8.5 13.5 20.7 20.6 21.6 18.8 10.4 12.3 10.5 9.9 14.8Entrenchment Ratio110.4 10.2 10.8 10.2 14.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15.1 13.3 13.4 12.0 14.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio21.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A2Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup MemorandumCross-Section 5 (Riffle)Monitoring Year 5 - 2020Cross-Section 6 (Pool)UT2 Reach 3UT2A1Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum3 Cross-Section 4 Bankful Elevation was changed at MY3. Base and MY1-2 was updated based off of new Bankfull ElevationTable 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)Cross-Section 4 (Riffle)3Cross-Section 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2 (Pool)Cross-Section 3 (Pool)UT1 Reach 1UT1 Reach 3Cross-Section 7 (Riffle)Cross-Section 8 (Pool)
UT1 Reach 1ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)12.5 31.4Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0200 0.0690Pool Length (ft)6.0 23.6Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 3.4Pool Spacing (ft)20 53Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)11 45Radius of Curvature (ft)9 37Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.1 4.7Meander Wave Length (ft)31 75Meander Width Ratio1.4 5.7Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided0%0%0%C42081.10.02460.02030.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/69.7/128SC/1.19/9.1/57.4/107.3/2560%0%SC/SC/4.9/61.0/163.2/362SC/0.67/1.6/39.3/113.8 /256SC/SC/2.1/42.9/137.0/ 256MY743.77.128.07.90.64.613.60.924220.50.8Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryHolman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY3MY57.2220.50.83.614.431.07.73.815.82.80.61.38.82215.18.3220.61.14.62.51.15.215.03.01.06.21.01.032.03.0
UT1 Reach 3ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)12.5 31.4Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0200 0.0690Pool Length (ft)6.0 23.6Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 3.4Pool Spacing (ft)20 53Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)11 45Radius of Curvature (ft)9 37Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)0.8 3.5Meander Wave Length (ft)31 75Meander Width Ratio1.0 4.2Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided1 Cross-Section 4 Bankful Elevation was changed at MY3. As-Built/Baseline and MY1-2 was updated based off of new Bankfull Elevation. 0%0%0%C43091.10.02460.02030.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/69.7/128SC/1.19/9.1/57.4/107.3/2560%0%MY71.01.028.822.62.21.71.81.023.69.90.71.26.415.210.70.71.38.0Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryHolman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY3MY514.323176.114.623.59.811.30.80.68.07.21.41.317179.4170.61.1<1.0<1.012.017.81.71.50.75/13.14/23.6/63.4/138.2/256SC/SC/2.1/42.9/137.0/ 256SC/0.67/1.6/39.3/113.8 /25610.0
UT2 Reaches 3, 4ParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)15 46Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0135 0.0592Pool Length (ft)11 60Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 3.1Pool Spacing (ft)33 61Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)20 52Radius of Curvature (ft)18 45Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.9 4.6Meander Wave Length (ft)56 130Meander Width Ratio2.1 3.2Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)0.0119 0.0237Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0120 0.0176Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided0%C46491.15SC/2.18/5.6/34.0/56.9/362.01.0/9.17/24.5/53.7/77.8/1280% 0%0.50.40.80.94.54.420.521.910.410.21.01.011.435.010.810.214.11.0MY79.79.8100100Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryHolman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY3MY50.90.91.00.40.50.51001001009.29.87.121.721.214.23.94.53.61.0<1.019.15/31.72/41.3/84.3/123.1/256SC/2.50/11.0/53.7/98.3/180.3SC/0.66/3.7/50/128 /25641.316.038.50%0%
UT2AParameterMin Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min MaxDimension and Substrate - RiffleBankfull Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull Mean DepthBankfull Max DepthBankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment RatioBank Height Ratio D50 (mm)ProfileRiffle Length (ft)17.9 38.2Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0007 0.0520Pool Length (ft)16.3 33.0Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 3.3Pool Spacing (ft)29 62Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)25 40Radius of Curvature (ft)11 31Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.7 4.7Meander Wave Length (ft)41 61Meander Width Ratio3.8 6.1Additional Reach ParametersRosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100% of Reach with Eroding Banks(---): Data was not provided0%C45401.100.01290.01433.15/11.86/18.3/43.5/101.2/362.21/6.69/20.1/53.1/75.9/1280% 0%0.50.40.70.73.22.713.520.715.113.31.01.018.329.713.412.014.61.0MY76.67.5100100Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data SummaryHolman Mill Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 96316Monitoring Year 5 - 2020As-Built/BaselineMY1MY2MY3MY50.70.90.80.40.40.41001001007.48.36.920.621.618.82.73.22.5<1.0<1.0SC/0.87/1.9/32.0/75.9/128SC/SC/11/45.0/86.6/ 2048.00.21/1.78/6.9/47/119.3 /1807.111.212.30%0%
Cross-Section 1-UT1Bankfull Dimensions5.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)8.8 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.3 max depth (ft) 9.5 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5hydraulic radius (ft)15.0 width-depth ratio22.0 W flood prone area (ft)2.5 entrenchment ratio1.1 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringCross-Section PlotsHolman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Monitoring Year 5 - 2020View Downstream5685705725740 10 203040Elevation (ft)Width (ft)100+65 RiffleMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)BankfullFloodprone AreaBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)
Cross-Section 2-UT1Bankfull Dimensions4.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.8 width (ft)0.7 mean depth (ft)1.1 max depth (ft) 7.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6hydraulic radius (ft)10.2 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 5 - 2020Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section Plots5685705725740 10 203040Elevation (ft)Width (ft)100+80 PoolMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)Bankfull
Cross-Section 3-UT1Bankfull Dimensions7.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.4 width (ft)1.1 mean depth (ft)1.9 max depth (ft) 7.9 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9hydraulic radius (ft)5.6 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 5 - 2020Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section Plots5525545565580 10 20304050Elevation (ft)Width (ft)108+95 PoolMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)Bankfull
Cross-Section 4-UT1Bankfull Dimensions7.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)11.3 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)1.3 max depth (ft) 11.8 wetted perimeter (ft)0.6hydraulic radius (ft)17.8 width-depth ratio17.0 W flood prone area (ft)1.5 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 5 - 2020Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section Plots5525545565580 10 20304050Elevation (ft)Width (ft)109+10 RiffleMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)BankfullFloodprone AreaBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)
Cross-Section 5-UT2Bankfull Dimensions3.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)7.1 width (ft)0.5 mean depth (ft)1.0 max depth (ft) 7.6 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5hydraulic radius (ft)14.2 width-depth ratio100.0 W flood prone area (ft)14.1 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 5 - 2020Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section Plots5165185205220 10203040506070Elevation (ft)Width (ft)212+00 RiffleMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)BankfullFloodprone AreaBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)
Cross-Section 6-UT2Bankfull Dimensions9.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)9.0 width (ft)1.1 mean depth (ft)1.9 max depth (ft) 10.1 wetted perimeter (ft)0.9hydraulic radius (ft)8.5 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringHolman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020View Downstream5165185205220 10203040506070Elevation (ft)Width (ft)212+25 PoolMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)Bankfull
Cross-Section 7-UT2ABankfull Dimensions2.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)6.9 width (ft)0.4 mean depth (ft)0.8 max depth (ft) 7.2 wetted perimeter (ft)0.3hydraulic radius (ft)18.8 width-depth ratio100.0 W flood prone area (ft)14.6 entrenchment ratio< 1.0 low bank height ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 5 - 2020Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section Plots5185205225240 10 20304050607080Elevation (ft)Width (ft)304+85 RiffleMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)BankfullFloodprone AreaBankfull (Based on MY0 Area)
Cross-Section 8-UT2ABankfull Dimensions5.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)9.1 width (ft)0.6 mean depth (ft)0.9 max depth (ft) 10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)0.5hydraulic radius (ft)14.8 width-depth ratioSurvey Date: 3/2020Field Crew:Wildlands EngineeringView DownstreamMonitoring Year 5 - 2020Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)Cross-Section Plots5165185205220 10 20304050607080Elevation (ft)Width (ft)305+10 PoolMY0 (3/2016)MY1 (9/2016)MY2 (3/2017)MY3 (3/2018)MY5 (3/2020)Bankfull
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT1, Reachwidemin maxRiffle PoolTotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 4 22 26 2626Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Particle CountReach SummaryVery fine0.062 0.12526Fine0.125 0.25026Medium0.25 0.50 11 127Coarse0.5 1.0 5 14 19 1946Very Coarse 1.0 2.06 6 652SANDVery Fine2.0 2.852Very Fine2.8 4.052Fine4.0 5.6 22 254Fine5.6 8.0 11 155Medium8.0 11.0 3 1 4 459Medium11.0 16.0 55 564Coarse16.0 22.6 4 1 5 569Coarse22.6 32 7 2 9 978Very Coarse 32 45 1010 1088Very Coarse 45 643 3 391GRAVELSmall64 90 1 1 2 293Small90 128 33 396Large128 180 11 197Large180 256 33 3100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >20481005050100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 0.671.639.3113.8256.0BOULDERTotal ReachwideChannel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, ReachwideUT1, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT1, Cross-Section 1min maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 999Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Riffle 100-CountSummaryVery fine0.062 0.1259Fine0.125 0.2509Medium0.25 0.50 1110Coarse0.5 1.05515Very Coarse 1.0 2.01116SANDVery Fine2.0 2.81117Very Fine2.8 4.017Fine4.0 5.63320Fine5.6 8.04424Medium8.0 11.0 4428Medium11.0 16.0 8836Coarse16.0 22.6 6642Coarse22.6 32 131355Very Coarse 32 45 101065Very Coarse 45 6465GRAVELSmall64 905570Small90 128 131383Large128 180 6689Large180 256 1111100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 15.2728.0135.5218.1256.0BOULDERTotal Cross-Section 1Channel materials (mm)2.000102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, Cross-Section 1UT1, Cross-Section 1
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT1, Cross-Section 4min maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.062 444Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Riffle 100-CountSummaryVery fine0.062 0.125 115Fine0.125 0.2505Medium0.25 0.50 227Coarse0.5 1.06613Very Coarse 1.0 2.013SANDVery Fine2.0 2.83316Very Fine2.8 4.016Fine4.0 5.64420Fine5.6 8.04424Medium8.0 11.0 4428Medium11.0 16.0 111139Coarse16.0 22.6 101049Coarse22.6 32 131361Very Coarse 32 45 121273Very Coarse 45 64 101083GRAVELSmall64 902285Small90 128 6691Large128 180 7798Large180 256 22100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100101100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 14.1323.573.9155.2256.0BOULDERTotal Cross-Section 4Channel materials (mm)4.050102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT1, Cross-Section 4UT1, Cross-Section 4
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT2, Reachwidemin maxRiffle PoolTotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.06217 17 1717Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Particle CountReach SummaryVery fine0.062 0.12513 13 1330Fine0.125 0.2503 3 333Medium0.25 0.5033Coarse0.5 1.0 2 3 5 538Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 5 7 745SANDVery Fine2.0 2.8 22 247Very Fine2.8 4.0 2 2 4 451Fine4.0 5.6 1 2 3 354Fine5.6 8.0 3 2 5 559Medium8.0 11.0 3 1 4 463Medium11.0 16.0 2 1 3 366Coarse16.0 22.6 1010 1076Coarse22.6 32 11 177Very Coarse 32 45 44 481Very Coarse 45 64 1010 1091GRAVELSmall64 90 33 394Small90 128 11 195Large128 180 3 1 4 499Large180 256 11 1100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >20481005050100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 0.663.750.0128.0256.0BOULDERTotal ReachwideChannel materials (mm)Silt/Clay0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT2, ReachwideUT2, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT2, Cross-Section 5min maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.0620Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Riffle 100-CountSummaryVery fine0.062 0.1250Fine0.125 0.2500Medium0.25 0.500Coarse0.5 1.0222Very Coarse 1.0 2.0224SANDVery Fine2.0 2.8226Very Fine2.8 4.0339Fine4.0 5.62211Fine5.6 8.0 121223Medium8.0 11.0 3326Medium11.0 16.0 3329Coarse16.0 22.6 111140Coarse22.6 324444Very Coarse 32 45 121255Very Coarse 45 64 171772GRAVELSmall64 908880Small90 128 101090Large128 180 8898Large180 256 22100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100101100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 19.5338.5103.0158.1256.0BOULDERTotal Cross-Section 5Channel materials (mm)6.530102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT2, Cross-Section 5UT2, Cross-Section 5
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT2A, Reachwidemin maxRiffle PoolTotalClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.0624 4 44Very fine0.062 0.125 2 7 9 913Fine0.125 0.2504 4 417Medium0.25 0.507 7 724Coarse0.5 1.0 2 4 6 630Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3 6 636Very Fine2.0 2.8 3 3 6 642Very Fine2.8 4.0 22 244Fine4.0 5.63 3 347Fine5.6 8.0 3 2 5 552Medium8.0 11.0 6 3 9 961Medium11.0 16.0 4 3 7 768Coarse16.0 22.62 2 270Coarse22.6 32 7 3 10 1080Very Coarse 32 45 33 383Very Coarse 45 64 7 1 8 891Small64 9091Small90 128 4 1 5 596Large128 180 44 4100Large180 256100Small256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >20481005050100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 1.786.947.0119.3180.0BOULDERTotal ReachwideChannel materials (mm)0.21SANDGRAVELCOBBLEHolman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Particle CountReach Summary0102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT2A, ReachwideUT2A, Reachwide
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count PlotsMonitoring Year 5 - 2020UT2A, Cross-Section 7min maxClass PercentagePercent CumulativeSILT/CLAYSilt/Clay0.000 0.0620Holman Mill Mitigation SiteDMS Project No. 96316Particle ClassDiameter (mm)Riffle 100-CountSummaryVery fine0.062 0.125 333Fine0.125 0.2503Medium0.25 0.503Coarse0.5 1.0447Very Coarse 1.0 2.06613SANDVery Fine2.0 2.88821Very Fine2.8 4.04425Fine4.0 5.64429Fine5.6 8.04433Medium8.0 11.0 141447Medium11.0 16.0 101057Coarse16.0 22.6 101067Coarse22.6 32 101077Very Coarse 32 456683Very Coarse 45 648891GRAVELSmall64 901192Small90 128 4496Large128 180 44100Large180 256100COBBLESmall256 362100Small362 512100Medium5121024100Large/Very Large10242048100BEDROCKBedrock2048 >2048100100100100D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 8.3712.347.0117.2180.0BOULDERTotal Cross-Section 7Channel materials (mm)2.270102030405060708090100Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm)Individual Class Percent MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/202001020304050607080901000.010.1110100100010000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm)Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-03/2016MY1-09/2016MY2-03/2017MY3-03/2018MY5-03/2020Silt/ClaySandGravelCobbleBoulderBedrockUT2A, Cross-Section 7UT2A, Cross-Section 7

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Date of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceDate of Data CollectionDate of Occurrence9/6/20167/31/20164/24/20178/8/20183/21/2019 2/11/2020 2/6/202010/11/201610/8/20166/20/20179/17/2018*4/13/2019 8/6/2020 6/11/20209/6/20167/31/20164/24/20178/8/20183/21/2019 2/11/2020 2/6/202010/11/201610/8/20166/20/20179/17/2018*4/13/2019 8/6/2020 6/11/20209/6/20167/31/20164/24/20178/8/20183/21/2019 2/11/2020 2/6/202010/11/201610/8/20166/20/20179/17/2018*4/13/2019 8/6/2020 6/11/2020*Hurricane Florence 1 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 N, NC7924 (USDA, 2020).DMS Project No. 96316UT2AUT1UT2Monitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Holman Mill Mitigation SiteMY4MY2MY1 MY39/26/20199/26/20199/26/201910/17/201710/17/201710/17/2017Table 13.  Verification of Bankfull EventsHolman Mill Mitigation SiteMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020Monthly Rainfall DataCrest Gage/ Pressure TransducerReachMethodDMS Project No. 96316MY510/19/201810/19/201810/19/2018012345678Jan‐20 Feb‐20 Mar‐20 Apr‐20 May‐20 Jun‐20 Jul‐20 Aug‐20 Sep‐20Precipitation (in)DateHolman Mill 30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Siler City, NC2020 Rainfall Data30th Percentile70th Percentile
30‐Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data1 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2020).Holman Mill Mitigation SiteMonitoring Year 5 ‐ 2020DMS Project No. 96316JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct01230246810Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Holman Mill 30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Siler City, NCDaily Rainfall30‐Day Cumulative Total30% Rainfall Total70% Rainfall Total