20190157 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220201

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20190157 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/01/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/1/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20190157 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Perry Hill Mitigation Site
County: Orange
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: PerryHill_100093_MY1_2021.pdf 9.5MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

,fir^
}
MONITORING YEAR 1 PERRY HILL MITIGATION SITE
Orange County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT Neuse River Basin
Final HUC 03020201
DMS Project No. 100093
January 2022 DMS Contract No. 7744
DMS RFP No. 16-007576
USAGE Action ID No. 2019-00125
DWR Project No. 2019-0157
Data Collection Dates: March-November 2021
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

W ILDLAN'DS
January 25, 2022
Jeremiah Dow
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Subject: DMS Comments on Perry Hill Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 1 Report
DMS Project Number 100093
Dear Mr. Dow,
We have reviewed the comments on the MY1 Report for the above referenced project dated January
13, 2022. Below are responses to each of the comments. For your convenience,the comments are
reprinted with responses in italics.
1. The comment response to the IRT MYO comments mention installing an additional flow gauge
on UT1,which based on the MY1 report data certainly appears to be warranted. Has Wildlands
installed the new gauge? If so, can you please show it on the CCPV? Also, can flow data be
measured on the UT1 crest gauge, and would there be any value in doing so.
Wildlands installed another flow gauge near the upstream end of UT1 in December
2021. The CCPV map has been updated to show the additional flow gauge.
The crest gauge at the lower end of UT1 was installed such that it is able to measure
both surface flow and bankfull events. The graph showing flow is now included in
Appendix D—Hydrology Data.
2. The Perry Hill buffer report states an interim success criteria of 320 stems/acre. This interim
criteria only applies to the stream and wetland portion of the project and should be removed
from the buffer report.
The interim success criteria has been removed from the buffer report.
3. Figure 1 includes 14 fixed veg plots, but data for only 12 fixed plots were submitted.The
submitted MYO spatial data also included 14 fixed plots. Please clarify.
The two fixed buffer plots were mistakenly left on Figure 1 - Overview Map in the Stream
Report. Figures la and lb show the vegetation plots correctly. Figure 1 has been
corrected.
There are 12 fixed plots and 2 random plots for the Stream Report. There are 14 fixed
plots for the Buffer Report. Plots 1-12 are the same fixed plots in both the Stream and
Buffer Reports. Because of the overlap,fixed plots for both projects were put in the same
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

WILDLANDS
C N G 4 N E E R I N G
layer to avoid submitting redundant information. This means there are 14 fixed
vegetation plots in the spatial data but only 12 of those belong to the Stream Report.
The attribute table differentiates which plots belong to each project in the column
labeled "Project". For those fixed plots that overlap, this column reads "DMS Stream and
Buffer". For those that belong to the Buffer Report, it reads "DMS Buffer".
This also applies to the MY0 spatial data.All vegetation plots are included in the same
layer. There are 14 total fixed and 2 random plots when both buffer and stream plots are
included.As noted above, the attribute table differentiates which plots belong to which
project in the "Project"column.
4. If possible, please include features characterizing the invasive treatment areas.
Most invasive vegetation was treated before construction in November 2020. Follow up
treatments for scattered resprouts are scheduled for this winter. However, Tree-of-
Heaven was treated in October 2021. There were only a few stems treated and the area
was below the mapping threshold so they were not added to the CCPV maps.
5. Please include figures that display the data for the gauges used to create Table 10.
Appendix D—Hydrology Data has been updated to include crest gauge figures.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
312 West Mil!brook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

PERRY HILL MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1-2
1.3 Project Attributes 1-4
Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 2-1
2.1 Vegetative Assessment 2-1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 2-1
2.3 Stream Assessment 2-1
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 2-2
2.5 Hydrology Assessment 2-2
2.6 Adaptive Management Plan 2-2
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary 2-2
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 1-2
Table 3: Project Attributes 1-5
Figures
Figure 1-lb Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Culvert Crossing Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Vegetation Areas of Concern Photographs—Conservation Easement Encroachment
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 7a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 7b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Section Plots
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final i

Recorded Bankfull Events
Table 12 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
IRT Comments on As-Built Report and Record Drawings
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Perry Hill Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Orange County, approximately three miles northwest of
Hillsborough, NC.The Site drains to Corporation Lake on the Eno River, which then flows to Falls Lake.
Corporation Lake is a water supply reservoir on the Eno River,which is classified as Water Supply Waters
(WS-II) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). Falls Lake is classified as Water Supply Waters (WS-IV), as
well as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW).Table 3 presents information related to the project attributes.
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
The Site is located on one parcel and a conservation easement was recorded on 26.88 acres. Mitigation
work within the Site included restoration and enhancement I and II of perennial and intermittent stream
channels (Figures 1-1b).Table 1 below shows stream credits by reach and the total amount of stream
credits expected at closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
. .OJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Mitigation
Project Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation Credits Comments
Segment Footage Category Level Ratio(X:1)
Footage
Stream
Perry Branch Full Channel Restoration,
Reach 1 321 323 Warm R 1.0 321.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
■ Grade Control Structures,
Perry Branch 364 362 Warm Ell 3.5 104.000 Invasive Control, Planted
Buffer, Livestock
Reach 2
Exclusion
60 60 N/A N/A 0.0 N/A Culvert Crossing
Perry Branch Full Channel Restoration,
Reach 3 691 694 Warm R 1.0 691.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration,
654 662 Warm R 1.0 654.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
Perry Branch 60 60 N/A N/A 0.0 N/A Culvert Crossing
Reach 4 Full Channel Restoration,
1,284 1,297 Warm R 1.0 1,284.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration,
UT1 Reach 1 285 285 Warm R 1.5 190.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
Full Channel Restoration,
UT1 Reach 2 291 293 Warm R 1.5 194.000 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
Bank Stabilization,
UT2 Reach 1 221 223 Warm Ell 2.5 88.400 Planted Buffer, Livestock
Exclusion
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-1

Mitigation
Project Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation Credits Comments
Segment Footage Footage Category Level Ratio(X:1)
Stream
Grade Control Structures,
UT2 Reach 947 941 Warm El 2.5 378.800 Bank Stabilization, Planted
2
Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
Grade Control Structures,
UT3 343 319 Warm Ell 2.5 137.200 Bank Stabilization, Planted
Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
Total: 4,042.400
Stream
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 3,334.000
Enhancement I 378.800
Enhancement II 329.600
Preservation --
Totals 4,042.400
Total Stream Credit 4,042.400
L.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits.Table 2 below describes the project
goals and objectives along with the expected outcomes to water quality and ecological processes.
Additionally, performance criteria for project objectives and a summary of the related monitoring data
results for Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) are included.
Table 2:Goals, Performance Criteria,and Functional Improvements
Objective/ Likely Functional Performance Cumulative Monitoring
Goal Measurement
Treatment Uplift Criteria Results
Exclude livestock Reduce and control
Exclude sediment inputs; Visually inspect
from streams and Exclusion fencing
livestock(i.e. reduce and manage the perimeter, as
riparian areas by is installed and
cattle)from nutrient inputs; well as interior, of
installing fencing maintained. Cattle are excluded
project contribute to the Site to ensure
streams and around project area protection of or Livestock remain there are no signs from project streams.
adjacent and/or removing improvement to a excluded from of livestock
riparian areas. livestock from the Water Supply the project area. entering the Site.
Site.
Waterbody.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-2

Objective/ Likely Functional Performance Cumulative Monitoring
Goal Measurement
Treatment Uplift Criteria Results
Construct and
enhance stream
channels that will Entrenchment Cross-section
maintain a stable Reduce sediment ratio over 2.2 monitoring will be
Improve the pattern and profile inputs;contribute and bank height assessed during
stability of considering the to protection of or ratios below 1.2 MY1, MY2, MY3, Minor deviations from
stream hydrologic and improvement to a with visual MY5, and MY7 design.
and visual
channels. sediment inputs to Water Supply assessments inspections will
the system,the Waterbody. showing
landscape setting, stability. be assessed
and the watershed annually.
conditions.
Install habitat
features such as
constructed riffles,
cover logs, and brush There is no
ImproveImprove aquatic
toes on performance
instream communities in N/A N/A
restored/enhanced standard for this
habitat. streams.Add woody project streams. metric.
materials to channel
beds. Construct pools
of varying depth.
Four bankfull
events in
separate years
Reduce and control within
sediment inputs; monitoring
Reconstruct stream Bankfull events were
reduce and manage period. 30-days
channels with Pressure documented on UT1
Reconnect nutrient inputs; of continuous
appropriate bankfull transducers and UT2. Greater than
channels with contribute to surface water
dimensions and recording flow 30 days of consecutive
floodplains. depth relative to the protection of or flow will be elevations. flow was recorded on
existing floodplain. improvement to a documented UT2 but not UT1.
Water Supply annually along
Waterbody. intermittent
restoration or
enhancement I
reaches.
Convert active
livestock pasture to Survival rate of
forested riparian Reduce sediment 320 stems per
buffers along all Site inputs; provide a acre at MY3, 260 One hundred
Restore and streams. Protect and canopy to shade planted stems square meter
enhance enhance existing streams and reduce per acre at MY5, vegetation plots All 14 vegetation plots
thermal loadings; and 210 stems are placed on 2% have a planted stem
native forested riparian contribute to per acre at MY7. of the planted density greater than
floodplain buffers.Treat protection of or Vegetation plots area of the Site 320 stems per acre.
vegetation. invasive species improvement to a will average 7-ft and monitored
during monitoring
period to permit Water Supply in height in MY5 annually.
establishment of Waterbody. and 10-ft in
native plantings. height in MY7.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-3

Objective/ Likely Functional Performance Cumulative Monitoring
Goal Measurement
Treatment Uplift Criteria Results
Ensure that Two easement
development and Visually inspect encroachments were
Permanently Establish a agricultural uses the perimeter of observed in October
Prevent 2021.Wildlands is
protect the conservation that would damage the Site to ensure
Site from easement on the the Site or reduce easement no easement currently investigating
harmful uses. Site. the benefits of the encroachment. encroachment is and will work with the
project are occurring. landowner and tenant
prevented. farmer to rectify the
situation.
1.3 Project Attributes
The project includes one parcel that has been managed as pasture and/or crop production, as indicated
by aerial photographs from 1938 to 2017. Portions of the upper watershed historically have been
forested.The stream crossings which existed prior to construction on Perry Branch were installed before
1938. Forested areas within the headwaters of UT2 and UT3 were cleared between 1938 and 1950.The
high-voltage utility transmission line that crosses the downstream extent of Perry Branch was
constructed between 1938 and 1950. Between 1950 and 1955, two ponds were constructed on the
project parcel, including one within the headwaters of Perry Branch Reach 1 and the other an offline
pond adjacent to Perry Branch Reach 4 within the lower portion of the watershed.Table 3 below and
Table 8 in Appendix C present additional information on pre-restoration conditions. Project Activity and
Reporting History, as well as the Project Contact Table are included in Appendix E.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-4

Table 3: Project Attributes
Perry Hill
Project Name Mitigation County Orange County
Site
Project Area (acres) 26.88 Project Coordinates 36°06'25.81" N,79°07'46.66"W
Physiographic Carolina Slate
Belt of the River Basin Neuse River
Province Piedmont
USGS HUC 8-digit 03020201 USGS HUC 14-digit 03020201030020
DWR Sub basin 03 04 01 Land Use Classification 68%managed herbaceous cover/pasture;22%forested; 5%shrub;3%
grassland/herbaceous; 2%residential area;<1%impervious
Project Drainage 174 Percentage of Impervious <1%
Area (acres) Area
Perry Branch UT1 UT2
Parameters UT3
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2
Pre-project length (feet) 326 417 732 2,061 388 213 266 974 357
Post-project length (feet)* 323 422 694 2,166 285 293 223 941 319
Confined
Valley confinement(Confined, Unconfined Moderately Confined to Moderately Confined Moderately Unconfined
moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined Confined
Confined
Drainage area (acres) 58 66 117 175 9 10 15 23 20
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent
DWR Water Quality Classification WS-II/HQW/NSW
Dominant Stream Classification G4c C4 G4c F4 E6b F4b C6 E4 C4
(existing)
*Includes No Credit Project Stream lengths in crossings and the downstream end of Perry Branch Reach 4.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 1-5

Perry Branch UT1 UT2
Parameters UT3
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 1 Reach 2
Dominant Stream Classification C4 C4 C4 C4 B4 C4b C6 C4 C4
(proposed)
Dominant Evolutionary class(Simon) if III V IV III/IV III/IV III/IV V III/IV III/IV
applicable
Iti
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes
USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No.
4134.
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,2020)
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA N/A N/A N/A
or CAMA)
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- Final 1-6

Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project.The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved performance standards
presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands Engineering, 2020). Performance criteria for vegetation,
stream, and hydrologic assessment are located above in Section 1.2 Table 3: Goals, Performance
Criteria, and Functional Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is described in the MVO As-
Built Baseline Report(Wildlands, 2021).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in October 2021. Vegetation monitoring resulted in an
average stem density of 531 planted stems per acre across all vegetation plots,which is well above the
interim success criteria of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. All fourteen vegetation plots individually
met the interim success criteria and stem densities for each plot range from 364 to 728 planted stems
per acre. Herbaceous vegetation is growing well and volunteer tree species are already starting to
establish themselves. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation
Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data.
0..2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Invasive species at Perry Hill have been greatly reduced by pre-construction treatments throughout the
existing forested areas.This included treatment of Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) in November 2020. Additionally, scattered stems of tree-of-heaven
(Ailanthus altissima)were treated in October 2021. However,Wildlands recognizes that multiple
treatments are typically needed for effective invasive plant control. Sporadic areas of re-sprouting
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet, and Japanese honeysuckle will be addressed in winter
2021/2022 using a combination of methods including mechanical removal as well as foliar and cut
stump applications.These areas will be monitored and retreated as necessary.
During construction, Wildlands ran conduit through the project crossings to allow the landowner to
route waterlines at a later date without disturbing the stream. In October 2021, the landowner installed
the water lines without contacting Wildlands staff which resulted in ground disturbance and tree
mortality impacts to the easement outside of the internal crossings (see Figures 1-lb and Vegetation
Areas of Concern Photographs—Conservation Easement Encroachment in Appendix A).The
encroachment area covers approximately 0.13 acres.Wildlands has discussed the impact with DMS staff
including the need to allow for future maintenance of the water lines. Wildlands is currently
investigating the proper methods to address the encroachment but most likely there will be some form
of documentation widening the internal crossing to encompass the impacted areas and allow for future
maintenance of the water lines while avoiding future easement encroachments.
'.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in October 2021. All streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. Cross-sections show minimal change in the bankfull cross-sectional area
and width-to-depth ratio. Bank height ratios are less than 1.2 and entrenchment ratios are over 2.2.
Cross-sections show slight deviations from as-built due to sediment deposition and establishment of
vegetation. Some sediment deposition in pools is natural and expected. Refer to Appendix A for the
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table, Current Condition Plan View map, Stream
Photographs, and Culvert Crossing Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for the morphological data and
plots.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-1

Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
.5 Hydrology Assessment
By the end of MY7, four bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration and
enhancement I reaches. Bankfull events were recorded on UT1 and UT2 on July 19, 2021. Perry Branch
had a significant spike in flow but did not reach bankfull at the crest gauge locations. Bankfull events are
anticipated to occur in future years.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on restored or enhanced intermittent
reaches (UT1 Reach 1 and UT2 Reach 2)for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal
precipitation year. UT2 Reach 2 exceeded baseflow criterion with 98 days of consecutive baseflow. UT1
Reach 1 did not meet baseflow criteria this year. However, construction was not complete and gauges
were not installed until March. March, April, May, and June received below average rainfall (see Rainfall
Data in Appendix D).Wildlands believes under normal rainfall conditions the groundwater table along
UT1 Reach 1 will likely recharge and the stream will achieve baseflow.This area will continue to be
monitored for the presence of baseflow. Refer to Appendix D for Hydrology Summary Data.
..6 Adaptive Management Plan
Follow up treatments for the scattered Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and Japanese honeysuckle are
scheduled for MY2.Wildlands will continue to monitor and control invasive species at the Site during
subsequent monitoring years.
Trees planted in areas of competition with pasture grasses are being monitored closely.Trees planted in
these areas received herbicide ring sprays around the base of their stems after planting and appear to
be thriving and competing well with the pasture grasses. For the trees to continue to outcompete the
remaining pasture grasses in some areas, additional 18"-30" herbicide ring sprays will be applied around
the base of planted stems where necessary at the beginning of the MY2 growing season.
Wildlands is currently investigating the proper methods to address the easement encroachment but
most likely there will be some form of documentation widening the internal crossing to encompass the
impacted areas and allow for future maintenance of the water lines while avoiding future easement
encroachments.
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Vegetation across the Site is exceeding performance standards and is on track to achieve the MY3
interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Monitoring Year 1 data shows an average density of
531 planted stems per acre across vegetation plots. Sporadic invasive vegetation was treated in MY1
and follow up treatments are scheduled for winter 2021/2022.To build on the success of previous
herbicide ring sprays, additional ring sprays will be applied around the base of trees in areas of high
competition with herbaceous vegetation in spring 2022. Wildlands is investigating the proper methods
to address the easement encroachment. Project streams are stable and functioning. Cross-sections
show limited deviations from as-built due to sediment deposition and vegetation establishment. A
bankfull event was documented on both UT1 and UT2. No bankfull events were recorded on Perry
Branch. UT2 achieved more than 30 consecutive days of baseflow, while UT1 did not.
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. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-2

Section 3: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. Accessed at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Neuse_River_Basin/FINAL%
20RBRP%20Neuse%202010_%2020111207%2000 RRECTED.pdf
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,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. Accessed at:
https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/fishxing/fplibrary/Harrelson_1994_Stream_Channel_Reference
_Sites_An_II lustrated.pdf
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., Roberts, S.D., &Wentworth,T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2. Accessed at: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology. Accessed at:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2020. Perry Hill Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Perry Hill Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report.
DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 3-1

-
�i-
•
;. 4 ''' t
' ` + .ti '`
•E.
r •'.. ' r
Figure la
Ix p
1. _ / l \ • '.
i x II i i
I \ `. •EC3: • i // / • 4
N. _ ! ,
! ♦ O - \+ III U % ri . ''
O +\+ - ix— x. + / /- /i.
�/
.. J
- + ‘ I4 0 0 /
i \+ ``0
I \\ a // / % '
• i +\\ � � � /
! Reach 2 _ / _. . i
\ • A. s + e Reach 3
r- ---•---•---•---•---•--- --- ---•---•---•---•--- -- •---•---•- dr- ', •---•---•---•-�
iFigure lb I ♦ --,---, !
k • i
1 / / o i 77 I I .
i
I \I is + ♦
i k 1� + +
x i +
•
4
•/ ►^
x / \ � 4-
i / •+\ // s ❑ a�CP \ _ Project Location
i / EC1 •
+• - �� / �'1 • L_ _�Conservation Easement
k ��' 4. • ��� Existing Wetland /
1
i // •% Q� ; 0 Internal Crossing
•
\�` `-` �� Q i/ / �� Encroachment Area '
,-- 4 , Fixed Vegetation Plot-MY1 ��
i • `. G4 Criterion Met
t
! Random Vegetation Plot MY1
r �y>> ' �� O Criterion Met
// �• Or. r
a? ; 0 ►/ �� Stream Restoration
1 0 _�, 0
' --_-.� ' O Stream Enhancement I
i • - -....: +
•
-'---'---'---'- '- '--- Stream Enhancement II
• No Credit Project Stream
- - No Credit Ephemeral Channel
,, > > > > > No Credit Headwater Conveyance
R
�+ Non Project Stream
' - -
F Cross-Section
t • -
K =M Fence
- Existing Utility Easement rC
,P' Existing Utility Line
0 Existing Utility Pole
0 Photo Point
Q Reach Break
<#7 , - • - •
- • Gate
2021 Aerial Photography -.0 •' ifirFigure 1. Current Condition Plan View
OZWILDLANDS 0 300 600 Feet Perry Hill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING DMS Project No. 100093
I 1 I 1 I
N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Orange County, NC

.
•
•
•
///` "( x ' 4 • ,, • % ,k,s, > k
Ax i .�
♦ t, \♦ 4 a
/ -- 4 .
k II
i
•
III % ♦ ♦\ + # % , , i 4
II 4 / p .."/„..................'""# (0
Q 39 I. �� �
4 , A I il k i II
# ♦ *s '---
♦ ♦ PP14` '--- ��� II �z ;' �,'� / / Project Location
# ♦\♦ o II% 1.` II '% / �_ _j Conservation Easement
••• ,, 1 1 , i �/ •' r �1 Existing Wetland
4.
, , % ii / ,
c', ♦ �� I. j Internal Crossing
• I �, •1
= , ♦ II I +/ - - - /� ��,/ • % M Encroachment Area
•
\♦♦ .`�., " —i • 400+00�� + X` / `," ' ,., Fixed Vegetation Plot-MY1
V PP18 + . ,
♦ `,� x + .. 4 Criterion Met i•
11 •
` 'v Ii • , ��� � � Random Vegetation Plot MY1 n
•
♦ `\ M �,� k k----
-+ O Criterion Met
•
_ - PP3�I�% y�
i.
I.
} N. I� `," k- x� h•J'' r - Stream Restoration
•
} ♦ `;, QI :::,:.=
1 i Stream Enhancement I 1.
♦ ,, .. /
. • , + i. „ �, / / Stream Enhancement II
.♦ PP16�iN Ip �„ + I
\% „
I ` ' / / N. No Credit Project Stream
,, . , % ♦ No Credit Ephemeral Channel
\ 'I% --''-' ' /
♦ " ` ' % K =tt Fence
\ �ti - ; . / Structure
„,„
♦ ���� \ 1 . .
�,PP4 / % L
\ I ,-' Cross-Section (XS)
Q Q \ _ z / Isig8- / t i + Crest Gauge I,
• ..
;:-; \ /' Flow Gauge k•V A �•
�,', �� inn 0 Photo Point(PP)
•
` `v,+mac' � 0 Reach Break
•,.. ' , J /; % •• Gate
2021 Aerial Photography ? / 3 ,-'--__ %i
Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View
OZIFWILDLANDS Perry Hill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100093
I I I I I N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Orange County, NC

2021 Aerial Photography • / '' TAO
/ " /
' /
4
ill
// xSSir
// ♦ '� /
/♦ • i OPP6 /•
11s+,, O I w
i
0 ,,,,
.4 . A-/ \ y,,, ,- ,o, __, ,
a .
/ • ♦�j�`■ +' ! _ Project Location
-- J ; 1 Conservation Easement
•` �`,7 , ,Ii PP8,' f /zz+oo ,+# �:: Q 4 !'//. Existing Wetland
+ �, + +� �A Internal Crossing
/x + i - • /\+ +\ + ��, Encroachment Area
_ ■
\Ari `+'+ +/ '$ Zia+00 \+ +\+�+ Fixed Vegetation Plot-MY1
�•` Additional Flow Gauge �. �I VP �'�' �..
Criterion Met
.111 ' installed December 2021. )i V �I
A. '•\ + �,- Qe01 j' Random Vegetation Plot- MY1 .
k,- 126+00
\ O + / i O Criterion Met
�.\�, ` -' ; / ,/ �s Stream Restorationif
/// , • v
fi `:• �, , �O� Stream Enhancement I
•
�r \ 10 �� Gl � � / PP9 0 �s Q� No Credit Project Stream
a: ' .- - -
\\ • � � V /♦ 14 / ' ' ' ' ' No Credit Headwater Conveyance
//
i i /% • Non Project Stream
% _ XSg % ; ;s // Structure
202+00
0 , // Cross-Section (XS)
i
9 '�, - % / / // tt =tt Fence
-, 03+00 / Q Existing Utility Easement
0 ..• , • 4'
` L'�' - / Existing Utility Line
o , ,
// \ ' ' ' // O Existing Utility Pole
s4iiii � �
G3uf3 i' •� PP10 /
* Crest Gauge
2 ,' , 132 lil ,
•/
// I + + Flow Gauge
o Cglik;,,'.:';tW_ __,,,,
, ,
/j _ ,•' + Crest and Flow Gauge
/ , Photo Point(PP) 4
''=� „+ -4-' LPNll. / QQ Reach Break
-M _ Ar• +
— ,' , f • Gate
135+81 r -7=s - _ ^ _
Figure lb. Current Condition Plan View
OZWILDLANDS Perry Hill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100093
I I I I I N Monitoring Year 1-2021
Orange County, NC

APPENDIX A. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Branch Reach 1
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended As-Built Footage Intended
L
Assessed Stream Length 323
Assessed Bank Length 646
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour. 0 100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control 2 2 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection 4 4 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Perry Branch Reach 3 and Reach 4
Number
I Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended As-Built Footage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 2,653
Assessed Bank Length 5,306
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour. 0 100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control 18 18 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection 17 17 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT1 Reach 1 and Reach 2
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended As-Built Footage Intended
L
Assessed Stream Length 578
Assessed Bank Length 1,156
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour. 0 100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control 18 18 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection 7 7 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
UT2 Reach 2
Number
I Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended As-Built Footage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 941
Assessed Bank Length 1,882
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour. 0 100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control 8 8 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection 2 2 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acrea:e 20.53
Mapping Combined %of Planted
tation Category Mr Definitions Threshold
Acreage Acreage
(ac)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
Low Stem Density Areas 0.10 0 0%
criteria.
Total 0 0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 0 0%
Rates
Cumulative Total 0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 26.88
Mapping %of
Combined
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Easement
Acreage
(ac) Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage.Include species with the
Invasive Areas of Concern potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term or 0.10 0 0%
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in summation
above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon.Encroachment to be mapped consists of
Easement Encroachment any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common 2 Encroachments Noted
none
Areas encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no /0.13 ac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

4 . 1 'r
i - 'v..,rr _ w . 2-a a a _
•
; F 0 " '' , Fes, - r,.
/_ '.:-. `.firth ' • _ r .. op,
- °,--,- ,,„ • k, '-A'r 44_,,..-, V.-"=4-,,41:4:..-1,_E „,.. i..,...,_z„...,.,„,...1._-:.- -, ,,-..-. ‘ ., 7 ' l'''' . 'At ''--.... ' :.- -.' j' '
it.
? - .,. ',..1 1= - - F. ,_
PHOTO POINT 1 Perry Branch R1—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 1 Perry Branch R1—downstream (10/21/2021)
�1 "� tIL + it
ii,./ . jJ/
s.
.°MOB r �e L ,5�. y� . 11ot;
1
fi
.` .
PHOTO POINT 2 Perry Branch R2—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 2 Perry Branch R2—downstream (10/21/2021)
f
s3 Q , , ..
•
i, a kr 5`'," 9 - h�t'. �°"' .:.i rs •:s 'tr _ �m f .
5 +`L Pam` 1 r
_" • - -
is
Y II
, f..-4''' .'''''', --.'.,. _vi,,,k, ,,
fPHOTO POINT 3 Perry Branch R3—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 3 Perry Branch R3—downstream (10/21/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•
n d
1. 1 ,
,I,, 1 r ii I arr q• , f II
a €
4 sue: --
- -„t41..:.:,:-0.,.,. 71,..,,,, ---,it----,t; ,,,...m---!..f., . - i ', -,--% ,,,.,_,;:,, ,sc,..6-,;=-....,.:--,--, . -, - ,,.,,, , ,
� sS .,.�F 1 � - � ,6�� Si A:.ftS 3" +y`- �
PHOTO POINT 4 Perry Branch R3—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 4 Perry Branch R3—downstream (10/21/2021)
i.
4.
lir
ry-s *,`
•
�� -'
5���alikilit
m, _ ,.` a ,^ q a>;� ?Hy, -c : ', 3 3 C $Y i'�4 S i ftp( 1 u ` p•
31E, L /
..
•
•
PHOTO POINT 5 Perry Branch R3—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 5 Perry Branch R3—downstream (10/21/2021)
- - - ,
^
k': 4 R - f4 ?-
- ¢ ✓.: { .floe ; 'k "x•a Y
ex
;1 3 �g:tom h ..s•, a'4 `
�
J ,�
•
:Y,4f.:.
j
PHOTO POINT 6 Perry Branch R4—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 6 Perry Branch R4—downstream (10/21/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

tit¢ y�i ,,q''`» t ,' ..
G
1 p ia 3 " ' "k{ � �� a '"s-„, . � s 1F
.i rk s sn!
- .-
d' it _ .kvm,& '
PHOTO POINT 7 Perry Branch R4—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 7 Perry Branch R4—downstream (10/21/2021)
qbx .
ti
"' �� 1 Tr,, a q- Y� ' s*,
�`.� t"y'ta � spy ��� ' .�.,�"yP6.
,-'- � P- y 4 a r '`, -- fi . :. : j •
t f r" ?F y�� .a yn ,, � -V„+t" o
w' '.� `Nr r "r �, l dpt.s'` c-p. .e '` "�S r,sd`�, ,c�?. tic;:
•
PHOTO POINT 8 Perry Branch R4—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 8 Perry Branch R4—downstream (10/21/2021J
MIIIMMIIIIII
8.'
?
aj 4 Y y
N
4i
� [ l_ 1
' ' . ...,:,,.." 4;tr,:i,=,''I
•,*,,zre...7fi-''ItAjlie -
fPHOTO POINT 9 Perry Branch R4—upstream (11/17/2021) PHOTO POINT 9 Perry Branch R4—downstream (11/17/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

t ., a
- ", � ^A r .�Ip i. J i °'w'4' s .lam � , 4,44
t ; r�' 1 * Tux iIt s ',
h a a A 21y y�a ' :: ;M.',,4 d _ , t - xk S. y1". f "w,,,
�•. _ h ,y 3 �*,'+ � -�
PHOTO POINT 10 Perry Branch R4—upstream (10/21/2021J PHOTO POINT 10 Perry Branch R4—downstream (10/21/2021)
A
p�t
� r
rt 1
—4b- ,ri;, .., '1„'''',tCt,",-..14.,:.„ , ":' '"I'rl — 1'
$ 7
,� ',4
x
-:"'- 1":471t."P't4- --r:'',',/;:,,),' -- 1=—"V.A.r'' ,..k-:,,,,.. `,"s, ''"
PHOTO POINT 11 Perry Branch R4—upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 11 Perry Branch R4—downstream (10/21/2021)
1
I
St�i >r is
4.
_,,,40.. tra0,4,-;47;.-- ',,,,,I,,,'''',`,Lis.2a-
t 'r , '- .ray -* ' ^ ,`
: ,'' i; ---;OA, ,,,,, .-_-•;V ,,,r,.,,,s,',_„,,, - _,
�¢5 M
PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1—upstream (10/21/2021J PHOTO POINT 12 UT1 R1—downstream (10/21/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

33r.111.11
s�sus �_ , _- Z _ ,At� � 4��d ��
,-� A'y-�P'
� I , � .g,��.s �_ �. ... .� � � s � C �'h t t• }" sus- *w F":
tr.s._, ., ,,,.___.,r
.,,LE .
. ....,:.,,_c:-
...
,, , ,,I,. .„:„.._•_,...„,,,
„..,. .,:. ,-r,f— ' -
V. :
PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2-upstream (11/17/2021) PHOTO POINT 13 UT1 R2-downstream (11/17/2021)
_gyp � :' 4 t� `i
0.4144.
r .
�-�.� `
„F
iy
+T T q r
a i i Nt L. 7-` a - I o 7Y . iia" e
•
+�' r F^x. 1,',-, 'v141; x �... -_ fir . ' + ' I L'9.-- ' ? ��, 'c',.-.
•
� .4„ lC _yF. ..41 . ;. -.. ' ,a*.' .i r ✓ "a 1°, ..,a`. - §'..- �' . � '!Q
PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 R1-upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 14 UT2 R1-downstream (10/21/2021)
f Ig + Ci t G aY y y. ,may ��Y y _ .- - F4 gr ;` '4-4 -" ;
.•, ,,,,. -,,.• . , :', • ' . , 1/4-, .,, .'d, 1. 1 q ,...' foi PI?! A:$ "-voidliik./
1.
10' yp 4 , d
Ats
i I .'\a
� L ..
PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 R2-upstream (10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 15 UT2 R2-downstream (10/21/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

• A 4, it - , ...� d
a y ,
7 � +: i a . at'Y
+a d sm,r pi z1 q4 a� ♦ � f 1 i *
•
It
0 1 fti 4 - '',` - -4 ' '-•i• :..1-1* e 1 . -- _ if . .,-;;,' -- - ' ri'-**t_.-,,,,,
V* ,41
j ! + .„ s � i a 1v k��yv j r A. s r rr 4 ' � i v , Z, a rx ` i F
P
'''��
u ,:', r r y, `
�" P� 4._ fig' '�,e-..p
w
PHOTO POINT 16 UT2 R2—upstream (11/17/2021J PHOTO POINT 16 UT2 R2—downstream (11/17/2021J
t- _„Fri �a 'ir� �
dt
iy; fe
a -.a r _ • �A p fi
Hg , Y
'IN i "V
4.:y� � " fi s F fir& t -'F � z ay ,IA, .- ,,
i, i° ,fir gs .:'' „t R wl� 77��Z#; - �,Y q '>*�*«-.4, s,,, yf f +. 4, �'.
, ,' A +t '5` - "�y i ,,�q t,''� y':. ``.. '' S yr° I''.. -,r�a ht�'.x �»M�
emsea
PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 R2—upstream (10/21/2021J PHOTO POINT 17 UT2 R2—downstream (10/21/2021)44*:,i -
�*o� - i ➢- ,° s ue-� + +� �
y s rt i },3- r k F i, � ns
"'ar 1 �F Z j S f ? 6 _ _
f
fPHOTO POINT 18 UT3—upstream(10/21/2021) PHOTO POINT 18 UT3—downstream (10/21/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•r., • n: t, — ,
. v # 4' t 'ik . i,yrl y 1,I' -- !r i . ,. ,
•
•
, 14
• 1st..,. . ,,a>s _ — } v. -_.c.
y jf r'k' < �, �r s�
er a d :4. ri - 4gi E�x`T '7,� '✓'R �: - R -r 5 _
tit, s r
X . .. .f' 1M1 r:8 F ,s-y ^l
•
PHOTO POINT 19 UT3—upstream(10/21/2021J PHOTO POINT 19 UT3—downstream (10/21/2021J
kliii
0,4 Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS

{ ;# ili
fie '
I
Ve. ' . % i'-. *liliA, .., .r - - IN. ' '
r T ' � Y t M •' 7. }r- Rf ._ 3,
fie{ } . >4 `- 'y f• . .. �f h 4 b.d
tr
F:�f, - � �r y.y �i{- 4. ti, '�,[-3n-f 53C _ `v.}'.. y y.,t`. ,y y.' py
l,}le
�+ Tomr. a spy � l r x z¢-*'�.'4^
sd ,'
i Tom, a-r
Perry Branch R2—Looking Upstream(10/21/2021) Perry Branch R2—Looking Downstream (10/21/2021)
•
t ,
1-_. ..-...:7if':"...:.li:„...;.-:_... .1:::_:,..,-....i.'1I ills TI-;?;:--.' ' .--..
.:411-.4 ...e, ...„*„ .„. . '1;4'4'1 ',.; ,, ,* ''' '—. - -"-Z„, *-
Y ' % F
•
3' t � _�
ems= pA
:LK - I I -- .
1, tt,i
r „� ''% h a � 6, .ry ! 4+':.,,,i.:
n [ r �
krki
„03.,,..,,,.. ...7
., 1_, h`k ..ae
Perry Branch R4—Looking Upstream(10/21/2021) Perry Branch R4—Looking Downstream (10/21/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
141 Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Culvert Crossing Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

I
� Xy.
,r►.. r�4Mr�+�w�. ' '�-.. -`- � •:�-- � !�l+! 1 Ira U ,k
-'ice \4�&E y Y - l` ...'�R.;.v+ .
"41
v 414
Mom. : 6. � jk Y� ' EK • .,,, ,p �4F
... x- mar - {� t a! v
*Alai
Ise ?,ia 7 ��-
ems' k. F �1 r l eu.`L R: -^- "G e .6 I:4i r g `�e ( 2/��
��i�� _ a:. ",� � ,g -am , ' 4p _.. ' i�'�
i r
5 7 a- n i 44 Y Y XSIY x•�'; Y'� tj ���
} ` ' " s per+
FIXED VEG PLOT 1(10/20/2021J FIXED VEG PLOT 2(10/20/2021)
\ \,;'
1
• �, sa x•:w� A , r J, y.*� .:` '2
iirtio
k �' y� § ,.a3+ss,.12".`1 n ba rd e: 7 `* �
gam+ _ y ,[ath
_ r � ' � Y Q
ic
lir%
it-
FIXED VEG PLOT 3(10/20/2021J FIXED VEG PLOT 4(10/20/2021)
a r y;.
�. 4.
�.:
•
s'kr 1 }
, •
FIXED VEG PLOT 5(10/20/2021J FIXED VEG PLOT 6(10/20/2021)
AL Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

Y
` -.ro .,,,.
h 1'
k r � i
t, 1
FIXED VEG PLOT 7(10/20/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 8(10/20/2021)
.�iiYt.
1 Z.Y F� M1 '-
xF ,.
1 .,, i r
FIXED VEG PLOT 9(10/20/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 10(10/20/2021)
7y
1 zt 1
' Y
, h,�P r�` 1 i 5 l
R'ir �_
-1 r, .� t rac x ,^ "' Py , Y - z
� i a 'fib �� � a k, v �� � ..
taro E'�� �: +r5�;�
6 j' ii ' ' ti as k.` , z'
tt.
� •�5; C Y y `k 1 ' " N�K '��x'f
.,., 4,,,, q i S ��,:�, � �� � � ..,: �' d, t
v
,� i e
__ ,,...*„.
, , .2. r...c.„,„„..._... , -',$
,I......,, ,,ek.
�_
FIXED VEG PLOT 11(10/20/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 12(10/20/2021)
Walt Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

.- t,,,.„,14,_ ,,...-_
41 f �'
a.
i.
•-
RANDOM VEG PLOT 13(10/20/2021) RANDOM VEG PLOT 14(10/20/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

VEGETATION AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS
Conservation Easement Encroachment

•
F ,� '' , I cy'.'s+ 4r•• e $ k` T '.;:T
" R ` ,3r� �:. k ,r,°.• •4. 3 1.4 �Y i `'
'3' � .1"
�'� 1 t a �j, ,, AN.,,- E z A .ta+Cn... 4C -' - tw
- .0 { .,•• ti_ ad 40,,c7.,_ l�.ems -' Ssy' �� - � L' _
_f,,.,„*--sy. , . ..., - , -4•,.-0.14100,1:---:-_,2-„t--, --,,. , '-,.--D.;
and, [v: iS
Perry Branch R2—CE Encroachment(10/04/2021) Perry Branch R2—CE Encroachment:10/04/2021J
sp. ot
•
IP
i .ram sir'.-,z .
VW" b
•
• r '� .�L.' �.� ; i ^.� � .AG4 l.�r; ,,tt '�^ bra}b i _ • 'r yr •
•
YS a .„.. ....;,..J. Jt�. ■ .1 __
li-
I.
` , • ;1,.E •>, f.e Sf,�'/'<,r` is ,ti ;•Lib �gj '
ti At, * 7 T t pE ; +. * w Y feoy
�.,-• . s7{`1],• • q, � r ?� RR'''�i{ ,,fir- . }{,``rgl s f ....�:�
rye !'Or A e 'k tri` � i ► 2 •>1�r IS. ^lam
iiiie.
Perry Branch R4—CE Encroachment(10/04/2021) Perry Branch R4—CE Encroachment(10/04/2021)
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Areas of Concern Photographs

APPENDIX B. VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Success Criteria Met*
Fixed Veg Plot 1 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 2 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 3 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 4 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 5 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 6 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 7 Yes o
Fixed Veg Plot 8 Yes 100%
Fixed Veg Plot 9 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 10 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 11 Yes
Fixed Veg Plot 12 Yes
Random Veg Plot 13 Yes
Random Veg Plot 14 Yes
*Based on the interim target stem density for MY3 of 320 planted stems per acre.

Table 7a.Fixed Plots:Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Current Plot Data(MY1 2021)
VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5 VP 6
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 PnoLS P-all T
Acer floridanum Southern Sugar Maple Tree 1 1 1
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Asimina triloba Common Pawpaw Shrub Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus alba White Oak Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 2 2 2
Ulmusalata Winged Elm Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 1 1 1
Stem count 15 15 15 12 12 12 10 10 10 14 14 14 11 11 11 16 16 16
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6
Stems per ACRE 607 607 607 486 486 486 405 405 405 567 567 567 445 445 445 647 647 647
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 7a.Fixed Plots:Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Current Plot Data(MY1 2021)
VP 7 VP 8 VP 9 VP 10 VP 11 VP 12
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 PnoLS P-all T
Acer floridanum Southern Sugar Maple Tree
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Asiminatriloba Common Pawpaw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmusalata Winged Elm Tree 1 1 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stem count 12 12 12 18 18 18 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8
Stems per ACRE 486 486 486 728 728 728 526 526 526 567 567 567 567 567 567 607 607 607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 7a.Fixed Plots:Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Annual Means
MY1(2021) MYO(2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer floridanum Southern Sugar Maple Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 14 14 14 16 16 16
Asiminatriloba Common Pawpaw Shrub Tree 4 4 4 8 8 8
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 29 29 29 30 30 30
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 15 15 15 16 16 16
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 36 36 36 36 36 36
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 10 10 10 10 10 10
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 7 7 7 7 7 7
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 18 18 18 17 17 17
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6
Ulmusalata Winged Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 11 11 11 12 12 12
Viburnum prunifolium Black Haw Shrub Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3
Stem count 164 164 164 172 172 172
size(ares) 12 12
size(ACRES) 0.30 0.30
Species count 17 17 17 17 17 17
Stems per ACRE 553 553 553 580 580 580
Color for Density
Exceeds requir ts by 10%
Exceeds requir ts,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% J
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 7b. Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Current Plot Data(MY1 2021) Annual Means
VP 13 VP 14 MY1(2021) MY0(2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 3 3 2 2 5 5 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4
Corpus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4 4 2 2 6 6 4 4
Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood Tree 3 3 3 3 1 1
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 2
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 3 3
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 1 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 4 4
Stem count 9 9 11 11 20 20 25 25
size(ares) 1 1 2 2
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05
Species count 4 4 6 6 7 7 10 10
Stems per ACRE 364 364 445 445 405 405 506 506
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Te-Number of stems including exotic species
Total-Number of stems excluding exotic species

APPENDIX C. STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 1-Perry Branch Reach 1
102+40 Riffle
653
652
c 651
v
w
650
649
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MVO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MY0 Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions , #'
6.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) + i=,� �•'
9.0 width(ft) = J
0.7 mean depth(ft) 'r" "' •••
1.2 max depth(ft) 3_f
9.4 wetted perimeter(ft) -• -r
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft) -•^-r1::I
12.7 width-depth ratio -• . , '_ y,. =:•_� = r
80.0 W flood prone area(ft) �" s " y�r
.it � :�., " " ir - ..
8.9 entrenchment ratio ? - `:
1.0 low bank height ratio µ.ems. --. 1.:? - _
Survey Date: 10/2021 -• =
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ' "'
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 2-Perry Branch Reach 3
112+30 Riffle
640
639
c 638
0
•
637
636 ,
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
-MVO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MVO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.2 x-section area(ft.sq.)
8.8 width(ft)
0.6 mean depth(ft) •:
•
0.9 max depth(ft) ' ' Y r h
9.1 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft)
14.9 width-depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area(ft)
11.3 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio
•
Survey Date: 10/2021 • �"
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ;.:
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 3-Perry Branch Reach 3
112+58 Pool
639
638 �..
•
z. 637
"7/ - .."111111111...'
c
0
636
I,
635 ij
Nor
634 ,
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
—MVO(3/2021) —*—MY1(10/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
16.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) -
12.9 width(ft) ,-
1.3 mean depth(ft) Y1 S t
2.6 max depth(ft) -
14.5 wetted perimeter(ft) - . 4 •
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft) °
10.2 width-depth ratio ;
fr w
Survey Date: 10/2021 ,;:`'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering -,
Y
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 4-Perry Branch Reach 4
116+61 Riffle
636
635
c 634
0
633
632
15 25 35 45 55 65
Width(ft)
—MVO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MVO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions •
12.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.8 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth(ft)
1.7 max depth(ft)
13.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
ePr
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.7 width-depth ratio
175.0 W flood prone area(ft)
13.7 entrenchment ratio ;E:; •
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2021 sikk- Y I.
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering A ""
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 5-Perry Branch Reach 4
116+97 Pool
635
634
$ 633
0
632
v
w
631
630
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
—MVO(3/2021) —*—MY1(10/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
26.5 x-section area(ft.sq.)
15.6 width(ft)
1.7 mean depth(ft)
3.1 max depth(ft)
17.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius(ft)
9.2 width-depth ratio
4
•Survey Date: 10/2021 - ">`l•K •i
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ;¢.' '
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 6-Perry Branch Reach 4
129+06 Pool
623 1
622 �\
621
0
620
v
619
618
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
—MVO(3/2021) —•—MY1(10/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
22.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
16.0 width(ft) ''
1.4 mean depth(ft) T
2.7 max depth(ft)
17.3 wetted perimeter(ft) .,3 `
1.3 hydraulic radius(ft) " `,, • '
11.2 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering c.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 7-Perry Branch Reach 4
129+45 Riffle
623
622
c
0
620
v
w
619
618
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions i"^• .
L .•
11.3 x-section area(ft.sq.)
12.0 width(ft) ^'
0.9 mean depth(ft)
1.6 max depth(ft) -
12.5 wetted perimeter(ft) -'+ f•°`"�`.
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft) '-.�.
12.8 width-depth ratio
125.0 W flood prone area(ft)10.4 entrenchment ratio � t. . i "
<1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
! :, • fir. n
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 8-UT1 Reach 1
201+86 Riffle
629
628
0 627 ---••••/
o ♦
—
w 626
625 , ,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions 1 .
111
•1.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) fi
5.6 width(ft) .•
0.3 mean depth(ft) - - • p
0.6 max depth(ft)
5.8 wetted perimeter(ft) r 1- =K..
*r',a�._.'.. :,.��.'-,.-•
0.3 hydraulic radius(ft) f, _•s ,
16.6 width-depth ratio - _ - !•�.
50.0 W flood prone area(ft) : -+
9.0 entrenchment ratio �` ` ' "
<1.0 low bank height ratio t.'�"` ,
Survey Date: 10/2021 r?, °�7��,,rr:= -
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering . '=4► :, - 1':F%: fey:._
. - ow.,.Z::. --NJ...-: .--1.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 9-UT1 Reach 2
204+02 Riffle
621
620
c 619
0
618
617
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4 x-section area(ft.sq.)
6.9 width(ft) / A�
0.5 mean depth(ft) 9
0.8 max depth(ft) P ! 1,
7.2 wetted perimeter(ft) ' ''
0.5 hydraulic radius(ft) :g 7
14.2 width-depth ratio
414
F, .
175.0 W flood prone area(ft) -� Vj ••a- .
25.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio • a - ?
Survey Date: 10/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 10-UT2 Reach 2
309+05 Riffle
644
643
c 642
o {`
v
w
641
640
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MYO(3/2021) MY1(10/2021) Bankfull ———Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions F = •
r
3.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
7.1 width(ft) '
0.6 mean depth(ft) - _ '
1.0 max depth(ft) -41V perimeter(ft) • ( _
7.4 wettedt ' I .t -.r-.rt f
0.5 hydraulic radius(ft) Fir
12.8 width-depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area(ft)
14.1 entrenchment ratio
<1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 11-UT2 Reach 2
309+45 Pool
642
641
640
c \.o
639
638
v
637
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
—MVO(3/2021) —*—MY1(10/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0 x-section area(ft.sq.) -M -g;;y •, !
9.7 width(ft) i , . ,. ' /'._�
1.2 mean depth(ft) �•
2.5 max depth(ft) `
11.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft)
7.7 width-depth ratio '
-
Survey Date: 10/2021 9i
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering �.
View Downstream

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION' DESIGN
(MYO)
Parameter Perry Branch Reach 1
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min I Max Max I Min n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.1 2 8.0 9.2 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 4 4 4 4 2 61 80 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 2 0.6 0.7 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 2 1.0 1.4 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.1 1.6 1.6 2.0 2 5.0 6.8 1
Width/Depth Ratio 5.2 6.0 6.0 6.8 2 12.8 12.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 7.6 8.7 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.7 2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 29 36 39
Rosgen Classification G4c C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 2.8 4.4 4.4 5.9 2 14.9 22.0 1
Sinuosity 1.10 1.16 1.13
Watersurface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0129 0.0127 0.0128
Other --- --
Parameter Perry Branch Reach 3
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min I Max Min I Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.3 5.7 5.7 6.1 2 9.6 11.0 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 11.0 12.5 12.5 14.0 2 156 100 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.8 0.6 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 2 1.2 1.2 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 2 7.2 6.3 1
Width/Depth Ratio 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.8 2 12.8 19.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2 16.3 9.1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.3 2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 35 46 32
Rosgen Classification G4c C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 9.1 9.7 9.7 10.2 2 25.1 17.9 1
Sinuosity 1.15 1.12 1.12
Watersurface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0155 0.0135 0.0130
Other --- --
Parameter Perry Branch Reach 4
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min I Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.7 6.7 6.0 9.3 4 11.4 13.0 13.1 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 9 12 12 17 4 123 125 175 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 4 0.9 1.0 1.1 2
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 4 1.4 1.8 1.9 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.0 5.1 5.2 5.9 4 10.1 12.8 14.1 2
Width/Depth Ratio 6.3 9.2 7.9 14.6 4 12.9 12.1 13.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1.9 1.8 2.7 4 10.8 9.6 13.5 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 2.2 2.3 3.0 4 1.0 1.1 1.0 2
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 33 46 48
Rosgen Classification F4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 10.8 15.1 14.4 20.7 4 35.5 48.3 56.4 2
Sinuosity 1.11 1.14 1.15
Watersurface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0109 0.0111 0.0110
Other --- --

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
MONITORING BASELINE
ailli .:IESIGN
. _ (MYO)
Parameter UT1 Reach 1
Riffle Only Min I Mean Med Max n Min I Max Min I Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 6.0 5.8 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 6 6.0 6.0 1 11 50 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 0.8 0.8 1 0.4 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 0.6 0.8 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1 2.5 2.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 2.1 2.1 2.1 1 14.3 13.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.3 3.3 3.3 1 1.8 8.7 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1.9 1.9 1 1.0 I 1.1 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 22 111 94
Rosgen Classification E6b B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 7.5 I 2.5 I 2.5 I 1 9.4 11.7 I 1
Sinuosity 1.04 1.06 1.04
Watersurface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0473 0.0522 0.0508
Other --- --
1 • \ •
MYO
Parameter UT1 Reach 2
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min I Max Max I Min n
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.7 4.6 4.6 5.4 2 6.0 6.4 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 7 8 8 9 2 113 175 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 2 0.5 0.5 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.8 0.8 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 2 2.9 3.2 1
Width/Depth Ratio 9.3 14.0 14.0 18.7 2 12.5 13.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 2 18.8 27.2 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 2 1.0 I 1.1 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 22 51 48
Rosgen Classification F4b C4b C4b
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 3.2 I 3.5 I 3.5 I 3.2 I 2 7.6 11.0
Sinuosity 1.14 1.15 1.14
Watersurface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0204 0.0221 0.0233
Other --- --
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORINGO)BASELINE
(MYParameter UT2 Reach 2
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min I Max Min I Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.2 3.8 4.0 4.0 3 6.0 7.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 20 44 42 69 3 44 100 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 3 0.5 0.7 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 3 0.7 1.2 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.0 2.7 2.7 3.0 3 2.7 5.4 1
Width/Depth Ratio 5.0 5.4 5.2 5.9 3 13.2 10.8 1
Entrenchment Ratio 6.2 11.3 10.3 17.3 3 7.3 13.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.6 3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 52 37 51
Rosgen Classification E4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 6.2 8.7 9.0 10.9 3 8.2 20.7 1
Sinuosity 1.13 1.11 1.11
Watersurface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0187 0.0177 0.0179
Other --- --

Table 9.Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Cross-Section 1(Riffle) Cross-Section 2(Riffle) Cross-Section 3(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 650.73 650.88 637.59 637.66 637.17 N/A
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 649.33 649.60 636.38 636.56 634.49 634.71
LTOB2 Elevation 650.73 650.83 637.59 637.45 637.17 637.32
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.9 2.7 2.6
LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 6.8 6.3 6.3 5.2 16.3 16.3
Cross-Section 4(Riffle) Cross-Section 5(Pool) Cross-Section 6(Pool) Cross-Section 7(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 634.12 634.26 633.73 N/A 621.17 N/A 620.89 621.15
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 <1.0
Thalweg Elevation 632.30 632.49 630.33 630.62 618.34 618.60 618.98 619.35
LTOB2 Elevation 634.12 634.20 633.73 633.76 621.17 621.28 620.89 620.92
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.8 1.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.7 1.9 1.6
LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 12.8 12.0 28.6 26.5 26.1 22.9 14.1 11.3
UT1 Reach 2
Cross-Section 8(Riffle) Cross-Section 9(Riffle) Cross-Section 10(Riffle) Cross-Section 11(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 626.30 626.44 618.63 618.74 641.54 641.79 640.51 N/A
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 625.54 625.77 617.81 617.99 640.35 640.63 637.54 637.81
LTOB2 Elevation 626.30 626.33 618.63 618.76 641.54 641.58 640.51 640.30
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.0 3.0 2.5
LTOB2 Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 2.5 1.9 3.2 3.4 5.4 3.9 15.0 12.0
'Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-Built bankfull area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
'LTOB Cross-Sectional Area and Max depth are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will
be recorded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Branch R1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Perry Branch R1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 18 24 23 23 100 < •--• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 1 1 24 90 Silt/ClaySand Gravel �+ u
Cobble"N
Fine 0.125 0.250 24 80 I PpY''iier Bedrock
Q4C) Medium 0.25 0.50 24
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 24 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 24 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 2 2 26 '—°• 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2 2 28 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 3 3 31
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 3 34 ...
30 - • • • —••••••'r
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 2 5 7 7 40 01 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 3 6 9 9 49 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 3 5 5 54 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6 6 60 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 5 1 6 6 65 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 8 1 9 9 74
MVO 04/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 7 1 8 8 82
o.<$, Small 90 128 7 1 8 8 89
cr Large 128 180 5 5 5 94
Large 180 256 3 3 3 97 Perry Branch R1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 2 2 2 99 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 1 1 1 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c▪ 70
w
Total 52 52 104 100 100 w 60
0
t2 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm) —
D16= Silt/Clay 7 30
D35= 8.53 c 20I
D50= 17.1 — 10
D84= 99.9 0 • • • . . I I . ' I L — I
D95= 197.7 ootioytih oyh og ti 1, �� 50 ro .. '. I); 3ti ah oo co ytiro ,cb ,to ,oti ytiti yo1,,ti���o`��
Dloo= 512.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-04/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Branch R3,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Perry Branch R3,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 16 19 19 19 100 ),,,k II�r' • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 19 90 Silt/Clay Sand l< Gravel 1
Cobble
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 5 5 24 80 �or'�ler Bedrock
Q4C) Medium 0.25 0.50 24
..,.. ..........._....)etoleira/
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 3 27 6,-,-, 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 27 i 60
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 1 1 28 . 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 29 E• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 4 4 4 33
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 5 7 7 40 w 30
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 8 8 48 01 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 2 1 3 3 51 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 1 1 1 52 0
Coarse 22.6 32 4 5 9 9 61 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 4 3 7 7 68 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 6 1 7 7 75
MVO 04/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 4 4 4 79
0<$, Small 90 128 9 9 9 88
c0) Large 128 180 7 7 7 95
Large 180 256 95 Perry Branch R3,Reachwide
Small 256 362 95 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 5 5 5 100
# Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c▪ 70
w
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
t2 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay 7 30
D35= 6.20 c 20 I
D50= 14.1 10
D84= 109.5 0 - . . . . u J . i ' r I • I m
D95= 180.0 . ,t)oo otih o`' '. 1, ,ticb 0 50 c y,. do��o ,1, ah oa �o yti� 1�0 ��o ��ti yyti yotia tio0 Dorn
Dloo= 512.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-04/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Branch R4,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Perry Branch R4,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 21 22 22 22 100 •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 22 90 Silt/Clay Sand l<
Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 22 80 Cobble Bou der n Bedrock
Q$� Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 3 25 4
Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 1 26 6,-,-, 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 26 i 60
y____.____........................."../1
a+
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 26 '—°• 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 26 E• 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 2 2 28
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 2 3 3 31 w 30 • • 0,-..../.....)
J0, Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 6 37 01 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 2 1 3 3 40 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 1 4 4 44 0
Coarse 22.6 32 4 5 9 9 53 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 2 3 5 5 58 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 6 5 11 11 69
MVO 04/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 12 1 13 13 82
o.<$, Small 90 128 10 10 10 92
cr Large 128 180 5 5 5 97
Large 180 256 2 2 2 99 Perry Branch R4,Reachwide
Small 256 362 1 1 1 100 Individual Class Percent
100
QF.$ Small 362 512 100
�0J� Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c▪ 70
w
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
t2 50
Reachwide 16
o 40
Channel materials(mm) —
D16= Silt/Clay 7 30
D3s= 9.89 c 20
D50= 28.5 — 10
D84= 96.6 0 . _ III ' ` N t E
D95= 157.1 c)c,'>h oyh og ti 1, ,v� 5� ,. ,. I); "b ah oo co yti, ,cb i�o „oti yyti yotia, 0 co
i„,c
Dloo= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MVO-04/2021 •MV1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT1 R1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI
Percent UT1 R1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 ® 18 18 18 100 < 1 1 1 I I I II
Very fine 0.062 0.125 —_-- 18 90 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
- --
Fine 0.125 0.250 _ 18 80 Cobble 3•J der Bedrock�
CAI Medium 0.25 0.50 —_-- 18
Coarse 0.5 1.0 —ME 1 1 19 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 —_ 19 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 —_ 19 . 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 —_-- 19 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 ME 2 2 21
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 © 5 5 26 a 30
J<V Medium 8.0 11.0 -ME 1 1 27 a 20 •
�_ - -
Ce Medium 11.0 16.0 1 in 2 2 29 10 • • •
Coarse 16.0 22.6 1 M 1 1 30 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 © 9 9 39 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 © 12 12 50 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 13 © 16 16 66
�MY0-04/2021 MY1-10/2021
Small 64 90 11 © 16 16 82
i)\,, Small 90 128 3 © 6 6 88
(,0� Large 128 180 6 6 6 94
, Large 180 256 3 M 3 3 97 UT1 R1,Reachwide
;;;;;;;;;;;Small 256 362 3 M 3 3 100 Individual Class Percent
100
Small 362 512 —_ 100
i €Medium 512 1024 —_ 100 90
80
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 —_ 100 c 70
Total 60 41 101 100 100 u`w 60
a
m 50
Reachwide 3
40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 27.79 v 20
D5,= 44.4 = 10
Dom= 100.3 0 M 1 M M i I I ' I I I I -
Ell
—
D95= 201.2 0'1, 42 .1h O� N' l' 1, b 5(9 'b ,1 y''�,L� .51' b5 co''' .O yti� ycb0 ,yb „y1,yy1'O,Lb �b0 0�P
o o y 1 b
D1.= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO-04/2021 ■MY1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT1 R2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI Total
Percent UT1 R2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 -® 12 12 12 100 1 I I I 'a • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 in 1 1 13 90 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 -ME Cobble 1 1 14 80 l Bedrock_
Boulder
0 Medium 0.25 0.50 -_ 14
Coarse 0.5 1.0 -_ 14 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 -_ 14 i 60
ill Very Fine 2.0 2.8 -_-- 14 m 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 -_-- 14 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 M 14
Fine 5.6 8.0 -© 2 2 16 u 30
40. Medium 8.0 11.0 -_-- 16 w 20 ��
a ~ • •
GPP Medium 11.0 16.0 1 © 4 4 20 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 1 © 6 6 26 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6 12 12 38 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 6 15 15 53 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 8 © 11 11 64
• MVO-04/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 10 6 16 16 80
��� Small 90 128 7 © 10 10 90
LO' Large 128 180 5 ME 6 6 96
Large 180 256 3 M 4 4 100 UT1 R2,Reachwide
Small 256 362 -_ 100 Individual Class Percent
.l Small 362 512 -_-- 100 100
90
I•"" Medium 512 1024 M 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -_-- 100 c 70
u
Total 50 50 100 100 100 `w 60
0
r4 50
Reachwide 10
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
30
Die= 8.00 -
D35= 29.34 'Es
20 I
D5o= 42.0 - 10
0 • • ' •
D84= 103.6
D9,= 170.1 o�ti y.LS O.
Oh N' ti ,LW A 5(9 'b ,1 ti��,LC' ,5'1, k5 co''' .O yti� yy0 1yb �yti ytiti O,Lb a0 00
O' Q ti ,.„0 b
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-04/2021 MY1-10/2021

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT2 R2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class PI Total
Percent UT2 R2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 8 20 28 28 28 100 P7� _ _ _
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 4 5 5 33 90 Silt/Clay >k Sand l Gravel '
Fine 0.125 0.250 6 6 6 39 Cobble Boulder
80 �I 1 Bedrock
� Medium 0.25 0.50 —© 3 3 42 ,r.
Coarse 0.5 1.0 —ME 1 1 43 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 —© 2 2 45 i 60
i1
illVery Fine 2.0 2.8 —© 2 2 47 m 50
Very —_ = t�
Fine 2.8 4.0 47 u 40
"Fine 4.0 5.6 �© 2 2 49 ��...""
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 4 6 6 55 u 30
,Q,\• Medium 8.0 11.0 4 a 7 7 62 a 20
GIP Medium 11.0 16.0 1 © 3 3 65 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 M 3 3 68 0
Coarse 22.6 32 6 M 6 6 74 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 M 8 8 82 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 5 M 5 5 87
MVO-04/2021 MV1-10/2021
Small 64 90 3 M 3 3 90
ICI Small 90 128 3 M 3 3 93
LO' Large 128 180 3 in 4 4 97
Large 180 256 3 M 3 3 100 UT2 R2,Reachwide
Small 256 362 -_ 100 Individual Class Percent
. Small 362 512 —_ 100 100
90
Ills Medium 512 1024 M 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 M 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 —_-- 100 c 70
u
Total 50 50 100 100 100 `w 60
o.
r4 50
Reachwide 10
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay > 30
D35= 0.16 -cs
20 I
D50= 5.9 — 10
D95= 151.8 p(0ti yti5 p.1h ph y ti ,LW A 5(9 % tit y�o�,L' ,5'1, k5 co''' ip yti0 yc6p ,yb �yti yyti p,Lb pa0 p0
p' O' y ti b
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
MY0-04/2021 MY1-10/2021

APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGY DATA

Table 10. Bankfull Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Reach MY1(2021)* MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Perry Branch N/A
Reach 1
Perry Branch N/A
Reach 4
UT1 Reach 2 7/19/2021
UT2 Reach 2 7/19/2021
*Gauges were installed mid-March 2021 and data was collected mid-March through mid-November.Data from the remainder of MY1 will be updated in MY2.
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Annual Precip *
Total 44.5
WETS 30th
31.57
Percentile
WETS 70th
57.06
Percentile
Normal
*Annual precipitation total includes data from 1/1/2021 to 11/17/2021.Data from the remainder of MY1 will be updated in MY2.

Recorded Bankfull Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:Perry Branch Reach 1-Crest Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
107 days of consecutive stream flow
V Pr
- 7
650 .\--\_ i-r-
I ‘koIN ch
5
/1) I
�1 c
��� t.
03
a
'47,o 4
W
PA I
- 3
649 _..j
I I
\- I- 2
J L�-�- - 1
648 I I IL i I ■ _ I , . , `"'. , .. ,ILI , •J. Lk 1 ■ i , I J L i - 0
c _a (C Q N C m Q +''
1 g a s a' v, o z°
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded Bankfull Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:Perry Branch Reach 4-Crest Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
253 days of consecutive stream flow
635 1 • I. _4, - 8
_ 7
• — — — — — — — — — — — — • — •— • — • — • - 6
,_,_,
634 Aik_ —I
- Il
I ' � / - - 5
.9 J �
O 4 To
a
Wd
633 LIII 11 j - 3 a
vi i%•AVVP �M 2
632 �I. I I 1 J. L � I ■ 1 I ] 1 _ L - - - 0
I I I 1 I I
2Q S ¢ cu
vl 0 z°
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded Bankfull Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:UT1 Reach 2-Crest and Flow Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
42 days of consecutive stream flow
7
618 I+ J
b JI 6
II T I
�I + - 5
.9 pi
o r I � V 1 °
VIWA EMI4
a
Vi
ILm
- 3 a617 , , � A44.17
2
IL AI L I �. J i ] , L, .
1
616 I I 1 I III 0
1Q S ¢ iai
n 0 z°
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded Bankfull Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:UT2 Reach 2-Crest Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
69 days of consecutive stream flow
7
J 641 A I Pr
6
z.
I rt,f\sueL.ynI � liii.L.
- 6 c
C _L J Y c
c _ — — — o
o : 4
d 'au. r� .v - 3 a
640 _\ U V
I-L-
- 1
639 I I IL AlII1 . �'i ILI11 I J. i p ■ I 1 L 1 . A- 0
18.
Q 5 _ Q va'i O Z
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Table 12. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Reach Max Consecutive Days/Total Days of Baseflow*
MY1 (2021)1 MY2 (2022) MY3 (2023) MY4(2024) MY5 (2025) MY6(2026) MY7 (2027)
UT1 1 Day/
Reach 1 1 Day
UT2 98 Days/
Reach 2 154 Days
*Success criterion is presence of baseflow for a minimum of 30 consecutive days.
1Gauges were installed mid-March 2021.Data was collected mid-March through mid-November.Data from the remainder of MY1 will be updated in MY2.

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:UT1 Reach 1-In-Stream Flow Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1 days of consecutive stream flow
627 id 8
626
F I—\-.-_\T _ _ :.7..-E
° k 1 4 .Y
I /A)
L a
o.
ki . —
625
f\-\P
Y W�
2
I
J . I I L624 I I �� �l ■ lI a III1 .1 I 1 ■ iii , L1 .
, 0
i 5 Q -J• .i Vl o Z
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg _ • Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:UT1 Reach 2-In-Stream Crest and Flow Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
620 Ni - 8
42 days of consecutive stream flow
• • - 7
619 6
'-rjtiii , .
I 5 c
E. L. i
W I t 1, I- ITII 4 .ra-
L I 4
617 V
�M��' 2
1,-_- - 1
616 I I i ■I . I_ 1 . Li 1 . Ili'.
1I 11 IIII Li - 0
1Q Q vl 0 Z
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Perry Hill:UT2 Reach 2-In-Stream Flow Gauge
Monitoring Year 1-2021
650 �8 days of consecutive stream flow 8
I.
649 fri\r' . . . . . . . . .
J 6
1
x i I c
° 648 I I 1 4 m
—\--\
aAlf \p\
I V., _ 'I �1
a11JI647r 2
LII . L646 I I ` J . l I , . L ii , ,i '. II 1 I J. L� I ■ i I 1 L I • 0
C _0 Q C OD a "
i 5 Q g —�. Q in O Z
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg _ • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

APPENDIX E. PROJECT TIMELINE AND CONTACT INFO

Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Activity or Report . . - -
Project Instituted NA December 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved July 2020 July 2020
Invasive Vegetation Treatment November 2020
Construction(Grading)Completed NA March 2021
As-Built Survey Completed April 2021 April 2021
Competitive Vegetation Treatment' April 2021
Stream Survey March 2021
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) May 2021
Vegetation Survey April 2021
Invasive Vegetation Treatment October 2021
Easement Encroachment October 2021
Stream Survey October 2021
Year 1 Monitoring December 2021
Vegetation Survey October 2021
Stream Survey 2022
Year 2 Monitoring December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Stream Survey 2023
Year 3 Monitoring December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
Year 4 Monitoring 2024 December 2024
Stream Survey 2025
Year 5 Monitoring December 2025
Vegetation Survey 2025
Year 6 Monitoring 2026 December 2026
Stream Survey 2(
Year 7 Monitoring December 2027
Vegetation Survey
'Herbicide ring sprays around the base of planted stems.
Table 14. Project Contact Table
Perry Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100093
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 497 Bramson Ct,Suite 104
Geoff Smith,PE Mt.Pleasant,SC 29464
843.277.6221
Main Stream Earthwork,Inc.
Construction Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd
Reidsville,NC 27320
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring,POC
919.851.9986

APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION

W 1LDLANDS
Ll
November 30, 2021
Kim Browning
Wilmington District, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: IRT Comments on Perry Hill Mitigation Site As-Built Report and Record Drawings
NCDMS Perry Hill, SAW-2019-00125, DMS Project Number 100093
Dear Ms. Browning,
We have reviewed the comments on the MVO Report for the above referenced project dated July 28,
2021. Below are responses to each of the comments. For your convenience, the comments are reprinted
with responses in italics.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. The redline drawings did not show any changes in the species/quantities installed from the mit
plan approved plant list and seed mixes. Please confirm.
Seed mixes/quantities remained the same as listed in the Mitigation Plan. However,
there were a few minor changes in the tree species because of sourcing issues at the
time of planting. The lack of changes on the As-Built Planting Plan was an oversight.
Cherrybark Oak(Quercus pagoda) was substituted for Swamp Chestnut Oak(Quercus
michauxii)because of lack of availability. Strawberry bush was also not available for the
Forested Buffer Planting Zone so the other species in the planting zone were increased to
replace the 21 stems. The Possumhaw Viburnum (Viburnum nudum) listed in the
Wetland Planting Zone—Forested is a typo, the species is Arrowwood Viburnum
(Viburnum dentatum).
2. In the mitigation plan review comments,the IRT expressed concern about UT1 Reach 1 flow.
Based on channel vegetation and dryness shown in the March/April photos and drone footage,
DWR is still concerned about flow for this reach at this time.
Wildlands understands this concern, appreciates this discussion, and will install an
additional flow gauge on UT1. The reach will continue to be monitored and actions taken
if necessary. Surface flow data will be included in each annual monitoring report.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

W 1LDLANDS
I.1.:u I NI 1.• V
3. Besides lunker log, were any other stabilization treatment options considered before riprapping
the slope above UT1?
During construction the project engineer and construction supervisor decided that lunker
logs would have a high probability of being undermined due to the amount of drop at
the head cut. In order to reduce channel slope to an acceptable range for this structure
type, a sizeable section of the channel would have to be filled with high clay content
soil. Filling the channel would have likely impacted the spring head and create poor flow
conditions in the channel. The decision was then made to shift to washed stone wrapped
in filter fabric to allow for subsurface/spring fed flows to freely enter the channel. The
riprap was added above this to provide vertical stability for overland flows entering from
the field upstream during high flow events.
4. While photo points 7 and 8 are located in the vicinity of the Reach 4 crossing, the distance and
angle makes it difficult to get a clear view of the double culverts. Please add a photo point at the
downstream culvert crossing in future monitoring reports.
Wildlands plans to include a photo log of the upstream and downstream ends of both
culvert crossings on site with each yearly monitoring report to allow for a clear view.
5. DWR appreciated the drone video provided. It was very helpful for this review. All of the wood
added to the channels looked great.
Wildlands appreciates this comment and has noted the information.
6. Drone video 15:52 - How are the logs laying above the brush anchored to the bank?
The ends of the logs, as well as the branches that extend into the stream bank, are
buried.
7. Drone video 25:14 - It appeared multiple log sills were notched, is this a common practice during
initial construction? Do notches typically extend across the majority of the exposed log?
Wildlands'contractors have notched log sills in the past. Often, it is to help concentrate
base flow into the center of the channel which will encourage pool scour and reduce
constant shear stress on the toe of the channel banks. In this case, the wider notches
make for a constant elevation across the stream bed. This also helps reduce water flow
into channel banks which may cause scour and potential structure issues.
USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. I appreciate the consideration that was given to planting zones and having the wetland
indicators listed for planted species.The drone video was also helpful.
Wildlands appreciates this comment and has noted the information.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

W 1LDLANDS
• V IJ
2. There are concerns about flow on UT1 R1. Stream photos and drone video indicated that the
channel was dry and it had grass growing throughout the entire channel.
Wildlands understands this concern, appreciates this discussion, and will install an
additional flow gauge on UT1. The reach will continue to be monitored and actions taken
if necessary. Surface flow data will be included in each annual monitoring report.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609