20171157 Ver 1_ShakeRag_100018_MY4_2023_20240108

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT

Final

SHAKE RAG MITIGATION SITE
Madison County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7190
DMS Project No. 100018
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01570
DWR Certification No. 17-1157
RFP# 16-006991 (September 16, 2016)

French Broad River Basin
HUC 06010105

Data Collection Period: January – October 2023
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2023
Final Submission Date: January 4, 2024

PREPARED FOR:

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

PREPARED BY:

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

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

January 4, 2024

Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

RE: Draft MY4 Report Review
Shake Rag Mitigation Site, Madison County
French Broad River Basin: 06010105
DMS Project ID No. 100018
DEQ Contract #7190

Dear Mr. Reid:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year (MY) 4 report for the Shake Rag Mitigation Site. DMS’ comments are
noted below in bold. Wildlands’ responses to those comments are noted in italics.

Please ensure the Monitoring Phase Performance Bond has been updated and approved by Kristie
Corson before invoicing for Task 10.
Wildlands’ response: WEI will ensure that the performance bond has been updated and approved before
invoicing.
Recommend adding a short discussion regarding the MY4 IRT site visit that occurred on June 22, 2023.
Please note that the meeting minutes are included in Appendix 6.
Wildlands’ response: Additional text regarding the MY4 IRT site visit that occurred on June 22, 2023, was
added to relevant topics discussed in Section 1.2.4.
DMS appreciates WEI’s effort to address the stunted tree growth. Please include updates in MY5
regarding success and lessons learned with the tree booster and “repellex” treatments.
Wildlands’ response: WEI will continue to document efforts to address stunted tree growth and provide
an update in MY5 regarding the tree booster and “repellex” treatments.
Does WEI have any before/after pics of the UT3 side slope areas of poor growth that received
reseeding and compost tea in MY4? Please add this area to the MY4 CCPV.
Wildlands’ response: Before/after photos of the UT3 side slope areas have been added to a photolog in
Appendix 2. This area of improved herbaceous cover has been added to the MY4 CCPV (Figure 3.2).
Recommend updating replant discussion to state that it was three areas totaling 0.2 acres to coincide
with CCPV polygons.
Wildlands’ response: Text has been updated in Section 1.2.4.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
DMS appreciates the Conservation Easement Boundary Issue Table that was included in the MY4
report. Please include the resolved conservation easement boundary issues on the MY4 CCPV.
Wildlands’ response: The resolved conservation easement boundary issues have been added to the MY4
CCPV figures.
Instream vegetation on UT8 was an IRT concern at the 2023 Credit Release Meeting. Can WEI please
provide an update on the documented instream vegetation?
Wildlands’ response: The observed instream vegetation in UT8 has continued to improve as the woody
stems along the banks have become established and begun to shade out the stream. The instream
vegetation consisted of native hydrophytic species. WEI will continue to monitor UT8 in MY5.

Electronic Support Files:

The submission is missing all photo points, visual stream assessment tables, and vegetation condition
assessment table, please submit with final.
Wildlands’ response: The photo points, visual stream assessment tables, and vegetation condition
assessment table are included in the final support files.
The visual vegetation table included in the report indicates minor areas of invasives and low stem
density requiring spatial submission. Please check the database submitted for corrupted or missing
files and re-submit.
Wildlands’ response: The areas of invasives and low stem density are included in the GIS support files
geodatabase “MY4.gdb” and saved in a feature layer named “VAOC_Polygon”.

Note: WEI downloaded gage data at the Site in mid-December 2023, and updated the hydrology plots in
the report. The additional data did not change the originally reported hydrology results.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on USB of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 828-774-6221 x 107 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Mimi Caddell
Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full-delivery stream mitigation project at the
Shake Rag Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The project restored, enhanced, and preserved a total of 9,273
linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Madison County, NC. The Site is located within
the DMS targeted watershed for the French Broad River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
06010105110020 and the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 04-03-04. The project is
providing 6,655.600 stream mitigation units (SMUs) for the French Broad River Basin HUC 06010105
(French Broad 05).
The watershed has a long history of agricultural activity and most of the stressors to stream functions
are related to historic and current land use practices. Prior to construction, the major stream stressors
for the Site were livestock trampling and fecal coliform inputs, stream bed incision and bank scour, a
lack of stabilizing stream bank and riparian vegetation, and ditching and/or piping from agricultural
activities. The effects of these stressors resulted in degraded water quality and habitat throughout the
Site’s watershed when compared to reference conditions. The project approach for the Site focused on
evaluating the Site’s existing functional condition, its potential for recovery, and need for intervention.
The project goals defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2019) were established with careful
consideration of 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and objectives to
address stressors identified in the watershed. The established project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability,
• Exclude livestock from stream channels,
• Reconstruct channels and flood-prone areas with appropriate geomorphology,
• Improve in-stream habitat,
• Reduce sediment and nutrient input from adjacent cattle pastures and unpaved roads,
• Restore and enhance native riparian and upland vegetation, and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses.
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between December 2019 and February 2020.
Monitoring Year (MY) 4 data collection and site visits were completed between January and October
2023 to evaluate the current conditions of the project.
The Site is meeting most of the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY4.
While vegetation plots were not assessed this year, the Site is expected to meet the interim MY5
requirement of 260 stems per acre. At least one bankfull event was documented along UT2 Reach 2,
UT4, and Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 in MY4. The MY4 visual assessments revealed that treatments have
been successful in reducing populations of invasive species on the Site. Stream repairs completed in
April 2022 (MY3) continue to function as designed. All documented conservation easement boundary
issues or encroachments were resolved in MY4. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas and
adaptive management actions will be implemented as necessary throughout the seven-year monitoring
period to sustain the ecological health of the Site.

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL ii
SHAKE RAG MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-1
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 Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5a-b Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 – 3.4 Current Condition Plan View Maps
Table 6a-h Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Culvert Photographs
Stream and Crest Gage Photographs
Conservation Easement Boundary Photographs
Improved Areas of Concern Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs*
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-c Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 10d Planted Stem Average Heights
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11c Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 12a-b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Table 13a-h Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots

*Content not required for Monitoring Year 4 Report

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL iii

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15 Verification of Consecutive Flow Days
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix 6 Additional Data
Table 16 Stream Repairs Status
MY4 IRT Meeting Minutes – June 22, 2023

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Shake Rag Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Madison County approximately 19 miles north of
Asheville and 4 miles northeast of the town of Mars Hill in the French Broad River Basin HUC
06010105110020 and NCDWR Subbasin 04-03-04 (Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge belt within the
Blue Ridge physiographic province (NCGS, 1985), the project watershed is dominated by agricultural and
steep forested land.
The Site encompasses three primary drainage areas including Shake Rag Branch (SRB), UT1, and UT6, all
of which are comprised of smaller valleys. All project stream reaches within these drainages originate
from steep, forested headwater valleys before transitioning to open pastureland situated in wider valley
bottoms further downstream. The valley of Shake Rag Branch begins as a steep, colluvial, V-shaped
valley, which gradually widens into a moderately confined alluvial bottom as it moves downstream.
UT1A, UT3, UT4, and UT8 have steep valleys with much broader valley bottoms, while UT1, UT2, UT5,
UT6, and UT7 flow through steep, colluvial, V-shaped valleys for their entire length in the project area.
Shake Rag Branch drains 163 acres, UT1 drains 70 acres, and UT6 drains 43 acres of rural land.
Prior to construction activities, the Site was in hay production in the valley bottom, with cattle grazing
along valley side slopes and access to the steeper forested areas. Riparian buffers were absent except in
the steepest upper portions of the Site. The streams throughout the Site were in various stages of
impairment related to the current and historical agricultural uses. Many of the streams were buried in
rock-lined channels or pipes approximately 50 years ago. Pre-construction conditions are outlined in
Table 4 of Appendix 1 and Table 11 of Appendix 4.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in January of 2019 and the IRT in March of
2019. Construction activities were completed in January 2020 by Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc. Kee
Mapping & Surveying, PLLC. completed the as-built survey in February 2020. Planting was completed
following construction in the January 2020 by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. A conservation easement has
been recorded and is in place on 18 acres. The project is providing 6,655.600 SMUs for the French Broad
River Basin HUC 06010105 (French Broad 05). Post-construction annual monitoring will be conducted for
seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2027 given the success criteria are met.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the French Broad River Basin. The project goals
were established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the RBRP (EEP,
2009).
The following project specific goals and objectives outlined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2019)
include:

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2
Goals Objectives
Improve the stability of stream channels.

Reconstruct stream channels slated for restoration with stable
dimensions and appropriate depth relative to the existing flood-
prone area. Add bank revetments and in-stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams.

Exclude livestock from stream channels. Install livestock fencing and watering systems as needed to
exclude livestock from stream channels and riparian areas.
Reconstruct channels and flood prone areas
with appropriate geomorphology.

Daylight buried or piped streams, remove man-made
impoundments, and restore historic valley profiles. Reconstruct
stream channels with bankfull dimensions and construct flood-
prone areas consistent with reference reach findings.

Improve instream habitat.
Install habitat features such as cascading riffle-pool sequences,
lunker logs, and brush toes on restored reaches. Add woody
materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth.
Remove online farm pond.
Reduce sediment and nutrient input from
adjacent cattle grazing areas and unpaved
roads.
Construct one step-pool conveyance BMP to treat contributing
17-acre drainage area that is subject to nutrient and fecal
coliform loading from cattle. Relocate unpaved roads outside of
riparian corridor. Grade and plant forested buffer with native
vegetation.
Restore and enhance native riparian and
upland vegetation.
Convert active hay fields and cattle pasture to forested riparian
buffers along all Site streams, which will slow and treat runoff
from adjacent agriculture before entering streams. Protect and
enhance existing forested riparian buffers. Treat invasive species.
Permanently protect the Site from harmful
uses.
Establish a conservation easement on the Site. Exclude livestock
from Site streams.
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring for MY4 was conducted between January and October 2023 to assess the condition
of the project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved
success criteria presented in the Shake Rag Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require detailed vegetation inventory and analysis.
Visual assessments reveal that herbaceous cover is becoming well established and planted bare roots
and live stakes appear healthy. Prior years’ vegetation plot data has been included in Appendix 3. Please
refer to Appendix 2 for visual assessment tables and Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figures 3.0-3.4.
1.2.2 Stream Assessment
MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require morphological surveys; therefore, the stream
cross-section surveys were not performed this year. Visual assessments reveal that project streams are

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3
functioning as designed. Prior years’ morphological summary data and plots has been included in
Appendix 4. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment tables, CCPV figures, and reference
photographs.
1.2.3 Stream Hydrology Assessment
Automated pressure transducers were installed to document stream hydrology within restoration
and/or enhancement level I mitigation reaches throughout the seven-year monitoring period.
Henceforth, these devices are referred to as “crest gages (CG)” for those recording bankfull events and
“stream gages (SG)” for those recording baseflow. The daily precipitation data was collected from the
nearest NC Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NC CRONOS)
Station, Mars Hill 6.8 E, NC which is located approximately 5 miles from the Site as the crow flies.
Bankfull Events
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four or more bankfull flow events must have occurred
in separate years within the restoration reaches. A total of 5 CGs were installed along restoration and
enhancement I reaches. The transducers are programmed to record data every 30 minutes due to the
steep, flashy nature of the Site. In MY4, all restoration reaches, except for UT1 Reach 2 and UT3 Reach 2,
recorded at least one bankfull event that were documented by crest gage data. So far through MY4, UT2
Reach 2 has recorded 4 bankfull events in separate years and has met the bankfull performance
standard. The remaining reaches have partially met the performance standard. UT1 Reach 2, UT4, and
Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 have recorded 3 bankfull events in separate years, and UT3 Reach 2 has had 1
bankfull event.
Baseflow Monitoring
Consistent flow must be documented in the restored intermittent channel (UT8) at the Site. Under
periods of normal rainfall, stream flow must be documented to occur every year for at least 30
consecutive days during the seven-year monitoring period. An automated SG was installed at as-built
within the upper third of UT8 to monitor baseflow. On UT8, 353 consecutive days were documented in
MY4 indicating that this channel exceeded the success criteria for intermittent channels.
Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Adaptive Management Activities
Stream
Stream repairs were completed in April 2022 (MY3) to address localized instances of bed and bank
instability and structure piping that were first identified in 2021 (MY2). This year’s visual assessment in
MY4 revealed that repairs appear to be stable and functioning as designed. Please refer to Appendix 6
for Table 16 summarizing the MY3 repair work locations and their updated status for MY4.
During the MY4 IRT site walk on June 22, 2023, seasonal piping of some in-stream drop structures was
discussed during low flow time of the year (typically during the summer and early fall) but is not an issue
for overall stream stability. IRT site walk meeting minutes are included in Appendix 6. Other stream
areas of minor concern will continue to be monitored in future years for signs of instability. Please refer
to Appendix 2 for stream stability tables and CCPV Figures 3.0 – 3.4.
Vegetation
MY4 visual assessments reveal that over 99% of the conservation easement is unaffected by invasive
plant populations. Invasive species previously found on the Site included multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altisima), Chinese silver
grass (Miscanthus sinensis), wineberry (Rubus phoenicolasius), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus). Invasive species treatments were completed in

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4
the spring and August 2023 with efforts focusing on wineberry, tree of heaven, Asian bitterweet, and
scattered clusters of multiflora rose and blackberry (Rubus sp.) throughout the Site. These treatments
were highly effective in reducing the size and density of invasive species populations within the
conservation easement. A few scattered resprouts of tree of heaven exist on site but are well below the
mapping threshold; therefore, they are not depicted on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figures.
Additional treatments will continue through closeout as needed to help manage and eliminate
remaining invasive species populations on the Site.
During the MY4 IRT site walk on June 22, 2023, the IRT requested that Wildlands continue to document
efforts made during the monitoring period to improve stem height and growth. Several efforts have
been made in MY4 to address stunted tree growth throughout the Site. In Spring 2023, tree boosters
and “repellex” tablets were added to stems to help promote tree growth and as an attempt to deter
deer browsing. Additionally, ring sprays were conducted in areas where herbaceous competition was
noted to be interfering with stem growth. Previously reported areas of poor herbaceous cover, located
on the steep side slopes of UT3 and Shake Rag Branch, have improved after reseeding with a cover crop
mix and applying compost tea in MY4. In January and April 2023, approximately 65 trees were
supplementally planted in scattered areas totaling approximately 0.2 acres (less than 2% of the planted
acreage) across the Site and are depicted on the CCPV figures.
See the table below for the approved planted species and quantities. Vegetation areas of concern are
documented on Table 7 and shown on the CCPV Figures 3.0 – 3.4 in Appendix 2.
Supplemental Planting List – January and April 2023
Scientific Name Common
Name Size Wetland Indicator
Status Quantity
Betula nigra River birch 1 and 7-gallon container FACW 10
Calycanthus floridus Sweet shrub 1-gallon container FACU 5
Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 1-gallon container FAC 3
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 1-gallon container FAC 15
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip poplar 7-gallon container FACU 5
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 7-gallon container FAC 5
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 1-gallon container FACW 10
Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark 1-gallon container FACW 2
Quercus alba White oak Bare root FACU 10
Conservation Easement
In MY4, Wildlands inspected the conservation easement in its entirety with the unfenced boundary
walked numerous times to ensure compliance. All boundary issues discovered during site walks have
been resolved and consisted of fallen trees on the fence line and a few small encroachments such as
scalloped mowing and adjacent farm road/waterline maintenance. Supplemental planting was only
needed in one encroachment area along UT4; all other mowing encroachments were very narrow (less
than 3 feet into the easement). As a preemptive action, signposts were also added to the left boundary
along Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 to clarify the easement line. Additionally, there was one isolated
occurrence of cows found in the easement, but it was quickly rectified. Though some herbivory was
noted, no permanent damage to the vegetation was observed. During the MY4 IRT site walk, DMS
requested that Wildlands continue to document issues and landowner discussions regarding easement

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5
compliance. Refer to the table below for the encroachment type, description, management action, and
status. Representative photos of the resolved easement boundary issues are included in Appendix 2.
MY4 (2023) Conservation Easement Boundary Issues
Issue Location Issue Description MY4 Management Action Current
Status
UT6 right boundary
near STA 604+00
Fallen trees on fence
discovered in winter 2023.
Trees removed from fence (winter
2023). Fence wire repaired (June 2023) Resolved
UT3 upper boundary
above STA 300+00
Fallen trees on fence
discovered in spring 2023.
Trees removed from fence (June 2023).
Fence wire repaired (October 2023). Resolved
UT4 right boundary
near STA 404+75
Encroachment discovered
related to adjacent farm road
and water line maintenance in
winter 2023.
Conversations with landowner clarifying
easement boundary restrictions.
Subsequently, the pipe was removed
(winter – spring 2023). Reseeding and a
few container trees added to the
disturbed area (April 2023).
Resolved
UT4 left boundary
above crossing
Previously reported in MY3
(October 2022). Slight
scalloped mowing in easement.
Additional posts added along boundary
(fall 2022, March 2023). Landowner
communication (winter – spring 2023).
Resolved
Corners at crossings
along UT4, Shake Rag
Branch Reach 5
Previously reported in MY3
(October 2022). Landowner cut
across corners near some
crossings while mowing.
Landowner communication (winter –
spring 2023). Resolved
UT1 Reach 2 & UT2
Reach 2 below
crossings
Cows briefly in the easement
due to a gate that was left
open (October 2023).
Cows removed from easement and gate
securely fastened (October 2023). No
permanent damage to vegetation.
Resolved

1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
The Site is meeting most of the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY4.
While vegetation plots were not assessed this year, the Site is expected to meet the interim MY5
requirement of 260 stems per acre. At least one bankfull event was documented along UT2 Reach 2,
UT4, and Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 in MY4. The MY4 visual assessments revealed that treatments have
been successful in reducing populations of invasive species on the Site. Stream repairs completed in
April 2022 (MY3) continue to function as designed. All documented conservation easement boundary
issues or encroachments were resolved in MY4. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas and
adaptive management actions will be implemented as necessary throughout the seven-year monitoring
period to sustain the ecological health of the Site.

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Stream gages were installed in riffles and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 4 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, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2022. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Mars Hill 2.2 SSE, NC. Accessed
October 2022.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), June 2017. DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout
Reporting Template.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), June 2017. DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Plan Template and Guidance.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2011. French Broad Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Survey,
General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc4
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE,
NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2023. Shake Rag Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual
Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2022. Shake Rag Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 2 Annual
Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2020. Shake Rag Mitigation Site As-Built Baseline Monitoring
Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2019. Shake Rag Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh,
NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
06010105110010
06010105110020
06010105130010
06010108080020
06010105110030
06010105110040
06010105080030
06010108080010
06010108080030
06010105110050
06010105080020
06010105130020
06010108070010
06010108080040
06010105100010
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 1 2 Miles ¹
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14-digit)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted with in the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions to Site:
From Asheville: Head north on I-26 W towards Mars
Hill. Take exit 9 and turn right on US-19 N/US-23A N
towards Burnsville/Spruce Pine and continue for 3 miles.
Turn left onto Shake Rag Road and continue for about
1 mile onto the Site.
!P!P!P!P
!P!P
!P
!P!P
!P!P
!P!P
UT3
UT6
U
T
1
U
T
4
U
T
7
U
T
2
U
T
8
S
h
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
U
T
1
UT1
A
S
h
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
U
T
5
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 250 500 Feet
2022 Aerial Photography
¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
Internal Waterline Crossing
Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Not for Credit Stream
Non-Project Stream
Stormwater BMP
!P Reach Break
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 2 Reach 4
Reach 5
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
312 312 Cold Preservation N/A 10.000 312 N/A
175 175 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 175 N/A
1,451 1,393 Cold Restoration P1 1.000 1,391 N/A
385 385 Cold Enhancement I N/A 1.500 385 N/A
1,216 1,134 Cold Restoration P1, P2 1.000 1,134 N/A
934 907 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 907 N/A
255 278 Cold Enhancement I N/A 1.500 278 N/A
100 100 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 100 N/A
164 164 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 164 N/A
296 304 Cold Restoration P1 1.000 304 N/A
426 426 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 426 N/A
1,387 1,019 Cold Restoration P1 1.000 1,019 N/A
910 930 Cold Restoration P1 1.000 930 N/A
483 439 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 444 N/A
707 673 Cold Enhancement II N/A 2.500 670 N/A
428 428 Cold Preservation N/A 10.000 428 N/A
210 206 Cold Restoration P1 1.000 206 N/A
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv
N/A N/A 4,986.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A 442.000
N/A N/A 1,153.600
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A 74.000 N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A 6,655.600 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes:
2. The Site contains 12 internal easement crossings. This value excludes the affected length of proposed stream centerline within each crossing.
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
Restoration
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Mitigation
Category
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
As-Built Footage/
Acreage2 Comments
Project Components
Project Area/Reach Existing Footage
(LF) or Acreage1
Mitigation Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration Level Priority Level
1. Some or all of SRB Reach 3, UT3 Reach 2, UT4, and UT8 were previously buried in rock-lined channels or pipes. Reported exiting lengths are estimates based upon land owner communication,
remote sensing, and field verification to approximate the subsurface location and alignment.
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland
Shake Rag Branch R3
Shake Rag Branch R4
Shake Rag Branch R5
UT1 R1
UT1 R2
UT7
UT2 R1
UT8
Non-Riparian
Wetland
Project Credits
Coastal Marsh
Totals
Shake Rag Branch R1
Shake Rag Branch R2
UT1A
UT4
UT6
UT5
UT2 R2
UT3 R1
UT3 R2
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Monitoring, POC
Supplemental soil amendments, seeding, and container tree planting January, April, May, August 2023 August 2023
December 2019 - March 2020 April 2020
Stream Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Invasive Species Treatment
Stream Repair/Maintenance April 2022 April 2022
Invasive Species Treatment March, September 2022
Conservation Easement Boundary Maintenance October 2022 October 2022
Spring 2020 & November 2020 November 2020
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Repair/Maintenance
November 2020
November 2023N/A
August 2022
November 2021August 2021
October 2020
N/A
June 2021
May 2022
October 2020
June 2021 June 2021
September 2022
November 2022
Spring 2023 & August 2023 August 2023Invasive Species Treatment
Conservation Easement Boundary Maintenance April, June, October 2023 October 2023
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
June 2019 June 2019
December 2020 December 2020
June 2019 June 2019
July 2019 - January 2020 January 2020
February - October 2018
404 Permit
March 2019
Construction
Mitigation Plan
Final Design - Construction Plans
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
Institution Date N/A May 2017
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Seed Mix Sources Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
1000 Bat Cave Road
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Freemont, NC 27830
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Old Fort, NC 28762
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Construction Contractors
Planting Contractor
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Mimi Caddell
704.332.7754
Jake McLean, PE, CFM
Vegetation Survey
Stream Survey
Vegetation SurveyYear 4 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Designers
Stream SurveyYear 7 Monitoring
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vegetation Survey
Stream SurveyYear 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation SurveyYear 6 Monitoring
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Planted Acreage (Acre of Woody Stems Planted)
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWR Sub-basin
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2
312 175 1,391 385 1,134 426 1,019 930 428 206
Confined Confined Confined N/A Confined N/A
10 26 76 77 163 12 38 32 13 19
P P P P P P P P P P
-A4a+A4a+A4/B4a A4 A4a+/B4a A4a+---
-A4a+A4a+/B4a A4/B4a A4/B4a A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a -A4/B4a
I VI II/III V/VI III/IV/V VI II/III/IV II I II
R1 R2 R1 R2
907 278 100 164 304 444 670
Confined Moderately
confined Confined Moderately
Confined Confined Moderately
confined
Moderately
confined
38 70 6 29 31 18 25
P P P P P P P
A4a+A4a+A4a+A4a+/B4a A4a+B4a B4a
A4a+A4a+/B4a A4a+A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a B4a B4a
VI V/VI I VI II/III VI VI
Resolved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Supporting Documentation
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
USACE Action ID# SAW-2017-00100
DWR# 17-1157
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre-Restoration
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post-Restoration
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
FEMA classification
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Project Drainage Area (acres)70 (UT1), 163 (Shake Rag Branch), 43 (UT6)
FEMA classification
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post-Restoration
Moderately confined
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Drainage area (acres)
UT3 UT8UT7UT4
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre-Restoration
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
UT1: Forest (95%),Pasture/Hay (5%), Shrubland (0%), Urban (0%)
Shake Rag Branch: Forest (49%), Pasture/Hay (49%), Shrubland (1%), Urban (1%)
UT6: Forest (99%), Pasture/Hay (1%), Shrubland (0%), Urban (0%)
Shake Rag Branch
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
<1% (UT1), <1% (Shake Rag Branch), <1% (UT6)
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Watershed Summary Information
Blue Ridge
Project Information
French Broad
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Madison County
18.000
35° 52' 41"N 82° 29' 47"W
9.5
Project Name
06010105
06010105110020
04-03-04
None
None
UT1 UT1A UT2 UT5 UT6
WS-II; HQW
WS-II; HQW
Regulatory Considerations
Endangered Species Act
Waters of the United States - Section 401
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Historic Preservation Act
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Regulation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Applicable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 5a. Monitoring Component Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Branch, UT3, UT4, UT8, and UT7
Shake
Rag
Reach 1
Shake
Rag
Reach 2
Shake
Rag
Reach 3
Shake
Rag
Reach 4
Shake
Rag
Reach 5
UT3
Reach 1
UT3
Reach 2 UT4 UT8 UT7
Riffle Cross-Section N/A N/A 2 1 1 N/A 1 1 1 N/A
Pool Cross-Section N/A N/A 1 0 1 N/A 1 1 0 N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach Wide (RW)
Pebble Count N/A N/A 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW N/A N/A 3
Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and
or/Stream Gage (SG)N/A N/A N/A 1 CG 1 CG 1 SG N/A Semi-Annual 4
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile
plots N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual Assessment Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs Annual
Notes:
21
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Yes
1 CG
7 (4 permanent, 3 mobile)
2
Frequency Notes
1DimensionYear 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Quantity / Length by Reach
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability
(greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
1. Cross-sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only. A reachwide pebble count will be performed on each restoration or enhancement I reach during during the baseline monitoring only.
4. Crest gages and/or stream gages will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage
once every 2 hours. The proposed gage on UT8 will be used for the sole purpose of documenting consecutive flow - an alternative proven method (e.g. game camera) may be used if agreed by IRT to be sufficient to
demonstrate this requirement.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for 2% of the open areas planted acreage. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2
protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
Table 5b. Monitoring Component Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT1, UT1A, UT2, UT5, and UT6
UT1
Reach 1
UT1 Reach
2 UT1A UT2 Reach
1
UT2 Reach
2 UT5 UT6
Riffle Cross-Section N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A
Pool Cross-Section N/A 0 N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach Wide (RW) Pebble
Count N/A 1 RW N/A N/A 1 RW N/A N/A N/A 3
Stream Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and/or
Stream Gage (SG)N/A 1 CG N/A N/A 1 CG N/A N/A Semi-Annual 4
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual Assessment Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Vegetation Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs Annual
Notes:
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
Dimension Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1
Parameter Monitoring Feature Frequency Notes
Quantity / Length by Reach
2
1. Cross-sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and
thalweg.
Yes
9
2 (1 permanent, 1 mobile)
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for 2% of the open areas planted acreage. Permanent vegetation monitoring
plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2
square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed with permanent vegetation photo points along UT5 and UT6.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations
indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
4. Crest gages and/or stream gages will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible.
Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage once every 2 hours. The proposed gage on UT8 will be used for the sole purpose of documenting consecutive flow - an alternative
proven method (e.g. game camera) may be used if agreed by IRT to be sufficient to demonstrate this requirement.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only. A reachwide pebble count will be performed on each restoration or enhancement I reach
during the baseline monitoring only.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!P!P
!P!P
!P!P
!P
!P!P
!P!P
!P!P
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Reach 5
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 4
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT3
UT6
U
T
1
UT
4
U
T
7
U
T
2
U
T
8
S
h
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
Shake
R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
U
T
1
UT1
A
Sh
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
U
T
5
Figur
e

3
.
2
Figure 3.1
Figur
e

3
.
3
Figur
e

3
.
4
2
9
0
0
280
0
300
0
270
0
3
1
0
0
260
0
32
0
0
2
5
0
0
33
0
0
3
4
0
0
2900
2
6
0
0
280
0
3000
2700
2
6
0
0
33
0
0
30
0
0
3
2
0
0
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View Map (Key)
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 300 600 Feet
2022 Aerial Photography
¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
Internal Waterline Crossing
Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Not For Credit Stream
Non-Project Streams
Stormwater BMP
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Barotroll (BT)
!A Crest Gage (CG)
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Cross Section (XS)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (VP) - MY4
Not Monitored in MY4
110+9
0
205
+
5
0
205+
0
0
204
+
5
0
20
4
+
0
0
20
3
+
5
0
203+
0
0
202
+
5
0
202
+
0
0
201
+
5
0
201+0
0
1
5
1
+
0
0
15
0
+
5
0
15
0
+
0
0
113+50
113+00
112+50
112+00
111
+
5
0
111+00
110+5
0
110+00
109+50
1
0
9
+
0
0
108+5
0
108+
0
0
107+50
107+00
106+5
0
106+
0
0
105+
5
0
105+00
104+50
104+00
103+5
0
103+00
102+
5
0
102+00
101+50
101
+
0
0
100
+
5
0
!P!P
!P!P
XY
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
U
T
1
U
T
1
UT1
A
U
T
2
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2Reach 2
Cattle briefly access the easement
due to a gate left open. Resolved in
October 2023.
XS
2
XS1
BT2
CG1
CG2
PP5
PP6
PP4
PP2
PP1
PP3
VP1
29
0
0
2
8
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
3
0
0
0
27
0
0
Figure 3.1 Monitoring Plan View Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 100 200 Feet
2022 Aerial Photography
¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Not For Credit Stream
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
Structures
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Barotroll (BT)
!A Crest Gage (CG)
Cross Section (XS)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (VP) - MY4
Not Monitored in MY4
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Princess Tree
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
XY Headcut/downcutting
Bank instability
309+40
77+00
76+50
76+00
75+50
75+00
74+50
74+00
73+50
73+00
72+50
314
+
5
0
31
4
+
0
0
313
+
5
0
31
3
+
0
0
312
+
5
0
312
+
0
0
311+5
0
311+00
310+50
310+00
309+5
0
309+00
308+50
308
+
0
0
307
+
5
0
30
7
+
0
0
306+50
306+0
0
305
+
5
0
305
+
0
0
304
+
5
0
304
+
0
0
30
3
+
5
0
303
+
0
0
302
+
5
0
30
2
+
0
0
30
1
+
5
0
301+
0
0
300
+
5
0
300+
0
0
923
+
5
0
923+00
922+50
922+0
0
921+
5
0
921
+
0
0
920
+
5
0
920+
0
0
919+50
919+00
918+5
0
91
8
+
0
0
917+50
917+
0
0
916+50
916+
0
0
915+50
915+00
914+50
914+00
913+50
913+
0
0
912
+
5
0
912+00
911+50
911+00
910+5
0
91
0
+
0
0
909
+
5
0
909+0
0
908+50
908+00
907+50
907+00
90
6
+
5
0
90
6
+
0
0
905
+
5
0
90
5
+
0
0
904
+
5
0
904
+
0
0
!P!P
!P
!P!P
!P!P
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
U
T
3
S
h
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
Sh
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
U
T
7
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 1
Reach 2
VP2
Trees fallen on fenceline. Fence wire
repaired in October 2023.
XS3
XS4
XS8
XS9
XS1
0
PP9
PP8
PP7
PP22
PP21
PP20
PP19
PP18
PP17
PP16
PP15
PP10
V
P
4
BT
CG3
28
0
0
270
0
2
9
0
0
3
0
0
0
260
0
310
0
320
0
27
0
0
29
0
0
2600
Figure 3.2 Monitoring Plan View Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 150 300 Feet
2022 Aerial Photography
¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Not For Credit Stream
As-built Alignment Deviation
Top of Bank
Structures
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Barotroll (BT)
!A Crest Gage (CG)
Cross Section (XS)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (VP) - MY4
Not Monitored in MY4
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Low Stem Density
Supplemental Planting (April 2023)
Improved Herbaceous Cover
802+00
801+50
801+00
80
0
+
5
0
8
0
0
+
0
0
409+50
409+00
408+50
408
+
0
0
407
+
5
0
407+00
406+50
406+00
405+50
405+00
404+50
404+00
403+50
403+00
402+
5
0
402+
0
0
401+
5
0
401+00
400+50
400
+
0
0
938+50
938+0
0
937+50
937+00
936+50
936+00
935+50
935+00
93
4
+
5
0
934+00
933+50
933+00
93
2
+
5
0
932+0
0
931+50
931
+
0
0
930+50
930+00
929+50
929+00
928+50
928+00
927+50
927+00
926+50
926+00
925+50
925+00
924+50
924+00
923
+
5
0
!P!P
!P!P
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
U
T
4
Sh
a
k
e

R
a
g

B
r
a
n
c
h
UT
8
Reach 4
Reach 5
XS7
XS12
XS5
XS6
XS13
XS11
PP27
PP26
PP25
PP23
PP24
PP14
PP13
PP12
PP11
CG4
SG5
CG6
VP
5
V
P
3
2
6
0
0
25
0
0
Figure 3.3 Monitoring Plan View Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 100 200 Feet
2022 Aerial Photography
¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Not For Credit Stream
Non-Project Streams
Top of Bank
Stormwater BMP
Structures
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point (PP)
!A Crest Gage (CG)
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Cross Section (XS)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (VP) - MY4
Not Monitored in MY4
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Supplemental Planting (April 2023)
Resolved Encroachment
GF
GF
GF
608+50
608+
0
0
607+
5
0
607+00
606
+
5
0
606+00
605+50
605+00
604+
5
0
604+
0
0
60
3
+
5
0
603
+
0
0
602
+
5
0
602
+
0
0
601+
5
0
60
1
+
0
0
60
0
+
5
0
60
0
+
0
0
504+50
50
4
+
0
0
503
+
5
0
503+00
502
+
5
0
502+00
501+5
0
501+00
500+50
500
+
0
0
U
T
6
U
T
5
Fallen trees on fenceline, repaired
in June 2023.
PP28
PP29
PP30
2600
2700
2
5
0
0
27
0
0
2700
Figure 3.4 Monitoring Plan View Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Madison County, NC
0 75 150 Feet
2022 Aerial Photography
¹
Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
Internal Waterline Crossing
Existing Wetland
Stream Enhancement II
Not For Credit Stream
Non-Project Stream
Top of Bank
GF Photo Point (PP)
Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: UT1 Reach 2
Assessed Length:278
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 1 1 100%
Depth Sufficient 0 0 N/A
Length Appropriate 0 0 N/A
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)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
1 10 98%0 0 98%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 1 10 98%0 0 98%
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 1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.1 1 100%
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.
1 1 100%
1Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as one grade control under the engineered structures category.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: UT2 Reach 2
Assessed Length:304
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 2 2 100%
Depth Sufficient 2 2 100%
Length Appropriate 2 2 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.4 4 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
6 6 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
4 4 100%
1Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as one grade control under the engineered structures category.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: UT3 Reach 2
Assessed Length:1,019
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 2 2 100%
Depth Sufficient 5 5 100%
Length Appropriate 5 5 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.9 9 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.7 7 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
9 9 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
7 7 100%
1Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as one grade control under the engineered structures category.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: UT4
Assessed Length:930
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 13 13 100%
Length Appropriate 13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.18 18 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 16 16 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.16 16 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
18 18 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
15 15 100%
1Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as one grade control under the engineered structures category.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: UT8
Assessed Length:206
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 16 16 100%
Depth Sufficient 16 16 100%
Length Appropriate 16 16 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 16 16 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.16 16 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
16 16 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
16 16 100%
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Assessed Length:1,391
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 7 7 100%
Length Appropriate 7 7 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.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.
7 7 100%
1Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as one grade control under the engineered structures category.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: Shake Rag Branch Reach 4
Assessed Length:385
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 1 1 100%
Depth Sufficient 7 7 100%
Length Appropriate 7 7 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
8 8 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
7 7 100%
1Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as one grade control under the engineered structures category.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Reach: Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
Assessed Length:1,134
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 57 57 100%
Depth Sufficient 59 59 100%
Length Appropriate 59 59 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)N/A N/A N/A
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100%0 0 100%
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.59 59 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill 59 59 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.59 59 100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
59 59 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
59 59 100%
1Excludes riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
3. Engineered
Structures1
1. Bed1
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Step Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Date of Last Visual Assessment: October 2023
Planted Acreage 9.5
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas1 Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas1 Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem count
criteria.0.1 1 0.07 0.7%
1 0.07 0.7%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.1 0 0.00 0.0%
1 0.07 0.7%
Easement Acreage 18.0
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 1 0.02 0.1%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0.00 0.00%
Total
Cumulative Total
1Areas mapped with bare area and low stem density are less than 0.1 acres.

Stream Photographs
MY4

Photo Point 1 – UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 1 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 2 – UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 2 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 3 – UT1A, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 3 – UT1A, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 4 – UT1 Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 4 – UT1 Reach 2, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 5 – UT2 Reach 1, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 5 – UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 6 – UT2 Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 6 – UT2 Reach 2, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 7 – UT3 Reach 1, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 7 – UT3 Reach 1, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 8 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 8 – UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 9 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 9 – UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 10 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 10 – UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 11 – UT4, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 11 – UT4, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 12 – UT4, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 12 – UT4, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 13 – UT4, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 13 – UT4, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 14 – UT8, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 14 – UT8, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 15 – UT7, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 15 – UT7, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 16 – SRB Reach 1, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 16 – SRB Reach 1, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 17 – SRB Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 17 – SRB Reach 2, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 18 – SRB Reach 3, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 18 – SRB Reach 3, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 19 – SRB Reach 3, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 19 – SRB Reach 3, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 20 – SRB Reach 3, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 20 – SRB Reach 3, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 21 – SRB Reach 3, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 21 – SRB Reach 3, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 22 – SRB Reach 3, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 22 – UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 22 – SRB Reach 3, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 23 – SRB Reach 4, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 23 – SRB Reach 4, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 24 – SRB Reach 4, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 24 – SRB Reach 5, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 25 – SRB Reach 5, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 25 – SRB Reach 5, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 26 – SRB Reach 5, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 26 – SRB Reach 5, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 27 – SRB Reach 5, view upstream (04/28/2023) Photo Point 27 – SRB Reach 5, view downstream (04/28/2023)

Photo Point 28 – UT6, view upstream (06/14/2023) Photo Point 28 – UT6, view downstream (06/14/2023)

Photo Point 29 – UT6, view upstream (06/14/2023) Photo Point 29 – UT6, view downstream (06/14/2023)

Photo Point 30 – UT5, view upstream (06/14/2023) Photo Point 30 – UT5, view downstream (06/14/2023)

Culvert Crossing Photographs
MY4

Culvert Crossing – UT1 Reach 1 at STA 106+75, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – UT1 Reach 1 at STA 106+75, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – UT2 Reach 2 at STA 204+15, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – UT2 Reach 2 at STA 204+15, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – UT3 Reach 2 at STA 309+25, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – UT3 Reach 2 at STA 309+25, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – UT4 at STA 407+75, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – UT4 at STA 407+75, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – UT5 at STA 504+00, inlet view (6/15/2023) Culvert Crossing – UT5 at STA 504+00, outlet view (6/15/2023)

Culvert Crossing – UT6 at STA 605+75, inlet view (6/15/2023) Culvert Crossing – UT6 at STA 605+75, outlet view (6/15/2023)

Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 3 at STA 914+00, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 3 at STA 914+00, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 3 at STA 920+25, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 3 at STA 920+25, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 5 at STA 928+25, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 5 at STA 928+25, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 5 at STA 932+00, inlet view (04/28/2023) Culvert Crossing – SRB Reach 5 at STA 932+00, outlet view (04/28/2023)

Stream and Crest Gage Photographs
MY4

Crest Gage 1, UT1 Reach 2 – (02/20/2023) Crest Gage 2, UT2 Reach 2 – (02/20/2023)

Crest Gage 3, UT3 Reach 2 – (02/20/2023) Crest Gage 4, UT4 – (02/20/2023)

Stream Gage 5, UT8 – (02/20/2023) Crest Gage 6, Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 – (02/20/2023)

Conservation Easement Boundary Photographs
MY4

Posts added along CE Boundary – UT4, view up-valley (10/02/2023) Posts added along CE Boundary – UT4, view up-valley (10/02/2023)

Encroachment resolved – UT4, view up-valley (10/02/2023) Easement along farm road – UT4, view up-valley (08/24/2023)

Pipe removed from easement – UT4, view up-valley (10/02/2023) Easement along farm road – SRB R5, view down-valley (10/02/2023)

Improved Areas of Concern Photographs
MY4

Poor herbaceous cover – UT3 Reach 2 near VP2 (12/03/2021) Herbaceous cover improving – UT3 Reach 2 near VP2 (4/28/2023)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4
Monitoring Year 3 data included for reference

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Overal MeanTract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
MY3 Permanent Vegetation Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
100%Tract Mean
100%3 Y
4 Y
MY3 Mobile Vegetation Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1 Y
2 Y
Table 9. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Shake Rag MY3.mdb
Database Location L:\Active Projects\005-02164 Shake Rag\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name MIMI-PC
File Size 73781248
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Description Stream mitigation site located in Madision County, NC
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code 100018
Project Name Shake Rag Mitigation Site
River Basin French Broad River Basin
Length(ft)9,273 LF
Stream-to-edge Width (ft)3 - 8
Required Plots (calculated)5
Sampled Plots 5
Area (sq m)38445
Required Plots (calculated)5
Sampled Plots 5
Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 6
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 7 3 3 7 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
14 14 24 11 11 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 15 15 21
8 8 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 8
567 567 971 445 445 647 526 526 526 526 526 526 607 607 850
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 6 10
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 12 12 12
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 11 11 21 12 12 17 12 12 24 12 12 12
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 10 10 14 10 10 13 10 10 10 10 10 10
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 15 15 15
66 66 87 67 67 78 70 70 92 75 75 75
10 10 12 10 10 12 10 10 11 10 10 10
534 534 704 542 542 631 567 567 745 607 607 607
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
0.0247
Permanent Plot 3 Permanent Plot 5
1
Stem count
Permanent Plot 2
1
Permanent Plot 1 Permanent Plot 4
5
0.124
Stem count
5
0.02470.0247
size (ares)
MY2 (2021)
0.124
Permanent Vegetation Plots Annual Mean
MY3 (2022)
5
0.124
MY0 (2020)
size (ares)
0.0247 0.0247
MY1 (2020)
1
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)
Species count
1
5
0.124
1
size (ACRES)
Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Mobile Plot 1 Mobile Plot 2 Mobile Plot 3 Mobile Plot 4
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 1 3 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 2 2
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 4 1 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 2 1
Oxydendum arboreum Sourwood Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 6 1
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 1
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 2 3 2
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 2 2
12 8 17 10
1 1 1 1
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
6 5 6 7
486 324 688 405
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY3 (2022)MY2 (2021)MY1 (2020)MY0 (2020)
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 8 5 7 6
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 3 3
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 1 4 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 4 4 3 1
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 9 4 4 7
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 3 1 3 8
Oxydendum arboreum Sourwood Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 9 6 11 9
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 1 7 3
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 7 5 3
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 4 6 8 17
47 41 46 54
4 4 4 4
0.099 0.099 0.099 0.099
10 9 9 8
476 415 465 546
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Mobile Vegetation Plots Annual Mean
Stem count
Stems per ACRE
Species count
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
Current Mobile Vegetation Plot Data (MY3 2022)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
size (ACRES)
Stem count
size (ares)
Table 10c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY3 (2022)MY2 (2021)MY1 (2020)MY0 (2020)
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 17 14 17 18
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 3 6 6 3
Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 2 1 5 6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 11 11 10 8
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 20 16 16 19
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 9 7 10 16
Oxydendum arboreum Sourwood Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 19 16 21 19
Quercus alba White Oak Tree 5 11 4 7
Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 13 11 9 1
Quercus rubra Red Oak Tree 13 15 18 32
113 108 116 129
9 9 9 9
0.222 0.222 0.222 0.222
11 10 10 10
508 486 522 580
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10%P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Overall Annual Mean
Stem count
Stems per ACRE
Species count
size (ACRES)
size (ares)
Table 10d. Planted Stem Average Heights
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3
Permanent Plot 1 2.4 2.7 2.6 3.2
Permanent Plot 2 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.9
Permanent Plot 3 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.5
Permanent Plot 4 2.4 2.8 3.2 4.0
Permanent Plot 5 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.5
Permanent Plot Site Average 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0
Mobile Plot 1 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.8
Mobile Plot 2 2.0 2.6 1.9 2.9
Mobile Plot 3 1.8 2.9 2.3 3.1
Mobile Plot 4 2.3 2.6 1.8 3.1
Mobile Plot Site Average 2.0 2.7 2.1 3.0
Overall Site Average 2.3 2.5 2.3 3.0
Average Stem Height (ft) by Plot

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Morphological assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4.
Monitoring Year 3 data included for reference

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT1 Reach 2, UT2 Reach 2, UT3 Reach 2, UT4
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)8 15 8 12 8 13 9 13
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.096 0.252 0.063 0.152 0.043 0.176 0.057 0.171 0.080 0.241 0.078 0.266 0.015 0.339 0.037 0.292
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.8 1.8 0.7 1.3 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.7 1.7 0.5 2.1 0.7 2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)9 28 8 16 8 17 6 14 6 15 9 18 7 20 7 22 5 36 14 34
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1. Some or all of UT3 Reach 2 and UT4 had been previous buried in rock-lined channel or pipes so cross-section data could not be collected. Reported lengths are estimates based upon land owner communiction, remote sensing, and field verification.
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
5.5
0.4
2.0
15.0
6.4
13
0.5
---
2.3
112
5.9
143
7.6
21
1.8
90
3.7
181
6.7
11
2.3
19.7
1.6
71.7
0.6
0.3
6.0
13
0.6
1.9
18.4
2.1
10
0.3
0.6
16.9
3.1
0.1757
N/A2
N/A2
0.1700
0.06
A4a+
8.3
19
---
75
1.2
Pre-Restoration Condition Design
5.9 6.1
0.5 0.6 0.6
UT3 Reach 2
7.2
0.5
As-Built/Baseline
4.5
UT2 Reach 2 UT4 UT3 Reach 2 UT4UT2 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 2 UT4UT1 Reach 2
N/A
5.3 3.1 N/A1
0.5 N/A1
3.0
1.0 1.3
6.0
1015.7 21.6 N/A1
UT1 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 2
4.7 3.25.5
UT1 Reach 2
0.4
2.4
0.3 0.30.4 0.4 0.2
1.22.0 2.3
0.8
4.3 1.6 N/A1
0.4
N/A11.0
2.3
18.4
7.0 N/A1
15.0 15.0 15.0
1.6
9.16.4
1.0 1.01.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
N/A1
2.1
---100 6 N/A1
1.01.0 1.0 N/A12.7
67.464.0------61.8
N/A 1.4 ---N/A1
---
N/A2
N/A
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2 N/A2N/A2
N/A1
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A1
N/A
N/A2 N/A2N/A2 N/A2N/A2
0.3/1.34/20.7/
154.8/272.5/512
0.5/15-20/100/
300-400/>1400
0.25/0.7/5.5/
15/250 N/A120-25/45/75/
150/270
2.6 3.3 2.8
0.3/2/12.8/90/
180/512
0.4/4/25.4/99.5/
202.4/>2048
0.3/0.73/7.1/
155.5/315.2/512
4.1 2.03.3 4.1 2.83.8
99428322311366
0.05
A4a+/B4a
0.11
N/A
0.11 0.05 0.05
<1%<1%<1%
0.06
A4a+A4a+N/A1
0.11 0.050.05 0.06 0.05
A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4aA4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a A4a+/B4a
5.37.2 8.1 6.7 4.88.1 7.4 N/A1
61419163512N/A1
---16 9 9
---------
10 ---------
N/A1---12 194412---19
0.1262 0.1520 0.1102 ---------0.1164 0.1659 0.176 0.1102
1,019 930278304
---
278 304 1,019 930
1.071.05 1.01 N/A1
255
1.03
0.1200 0.1500 N/A1
1.021.03 1.07 1.051.05 1.021.03
0.10930.1279 0.1592 0.16430.1130 0.1550 0.1650 0.1080
296 1,3871 9101
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT8, Shake Rag Branch
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)5.2 5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)7 11 8 13 10 16 12 19
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1.6 1.7
Width/Depth Ratio 16.6 17.5
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.8 1.9
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)75.9 84.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.045 0.161 0.064 0.166 0.065 0.120 0.040 0.123 0.012 0.151 0.052 0.421 0.038 0.094 0.040 0.143
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.2 2.0 0.7 1.4 0.4 2.2 0.8 1.9 0.8 2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)7 18 8 18 9 17 11 25 11 31 5 18 8 51 9 86 7 47
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 2.5 2.6
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 122 126
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)6.1 6.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)10 11
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Max Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1. Some or all of SRB Reach 3 and UT8 had been previous buried in rock-lined channel or pipes so cross-section data could not be collected. Reported lengths are estimates based upon land owner communiction, remote sensing, and field verification.
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
0.6
19
0.9
4.0
14.6
2.5
N/A1 0.1275 0.0913 0.0659 0.0850
101.2
6.6
26
5.4
19
1.03
0.0770 0.0660 0.0761 0.1341 0.0775
1.03 1.081.06
210 1 1,451 1 385 1,216
8.1
0.06600.1360
1.07 1.04 1.06
7.6
1.01
72.7
46
3.5
18.4
5.8
0.25
385 1,134
N/A1 1.03
---
1.08
------
1.01
206
0.0832
1,393 385 1,134 206 1,345
0.06850.0901 0.1317 0.0976 0.0685 0.0901 0.1523 ---
---16 24 34 N/A1 16 24 34
---------6 10 17 29 ---
24 34 6
------------
7.1 6.8 6.6 4.2
N/A1 16 23 34 10 17
A4/B4a A4/B4a A4a+/B4a A4/B4a A4/B4a
N/A1 9.6 8.1 6.8 5.5
<1%<1%<1%
N/A1 A4a+A4/B4a A4 A4/B4a A4a+/B4a A4/B4a
0.06 0.12 0.25 0.03 0.06 0.12
N/A
0.03 0.06 0.12 0.24 0.03
288 60
---2.4 1.2
---357 ---
---3.2 ---2.4 ---3.2
0.1/0.3/5.7/
35.5/78.3/180
0.3/2/14.6/
110.1/207.2/512
0.3/1.3/14.6/
105.8/237.7/512
0.4/1.6/21.1/
157.9/243.4/512N/A1 N/A1 ---1-2/8-9/10-20/
90-100/180
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A1 ------1.8
------24.7
N/A
N/A1 N/A1 ---10-20 ------
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0N/A1 1.1 1.0 3.1 1.0 1.0
15.0 15.0 19.9
N/A1 7.5 2.9 1.3 6.8
N/A1 6.2 9.0 9.0 15.0 14.0
0.8
N/A1 1.7 2.9 5.0 1.9 2.4 3.6 5.1 1.4
0.4
N/A1 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.5 0.6 1.4 0.8 0.5
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3
N/A1 25 15 9 36
N/A1 0.5 0.6
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 4
0.7 0.4
5.2 5.8 7.2 8.8
0.3 0.5
10
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 5
N/A
N/A1 3.3 5.1 6.7 5.3
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 5 UT8 Shake Rag Branch
Reach 3
Pre-Restoration Condition Design As-Built/Baseline
UT8 Shake Rag Branch
Reach 3
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 4
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 5 UT8 Shake Rag Branch
Reach 3
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 4
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
------
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
2.4
120
1.8
86
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Parameter Gage
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0240 0.2000 0.0810 0.2900 0.0250 0.0730 0.0110 0.1400 0.0500 0.1000
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)6 32 10 17 14 31 18 27 11 19
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.10 1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
6.8
12
1.0
4.6
10.0
1.7
0.7
6.2
0.6
1.0
3.8
10.1
6.2
27 21
4.4
8.8
2.1
1.3
0.4
1.2
1.8
9.3
1.0
1.7
3.6
12.8
---
---
---
---
B5a
0.02
---
---
4.9
0.9
0.03
A5a+
---
---
0.26/0.5/0.91/19/
97/128
Additional Reach Parameters
59
Profile
------
---
---
------
6.6
19
---
---------
0.1418
---
0.0840
1.00
0.0680 0.0650
---
0.0986 0.0400
------
1.20
---
0.1000
---
0.0480
---
0.1025
1.25
---
31
---
27
---
A4/B4a A4/B4a
8
---
A4/B4a A4/B4a
6.27.3 5.0
N/A
0.1139 0.0815
------
1.2
4.1
---
---
N/A
0.12 0.12
2613
---
------
---
---
1.7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
---
---
---
------
---
---
0.4/8/19/102.3/
257/>2048
0.1/0.3/1.2/11/
24/64
N/A ---
11/42/59/130/
170/256
11/42/59/130/
170/256
---
N/A ---
---
---
Pattern
1.3---1.7
---
---
---
---------
1.6
0.04
1.01.0
UT to Austin Branch
(upstream)
UT to Austin Branch
(downstream)UT to Gap Branch UT to Hampton Creek
0.25
Reference Reach Data
0.7
---
---
Table 11c. Reference Reach Data Summary
Ironwood Tributary UT to South Fork
Fishing Creek
187
N/A 2.7
9.1
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
5.0
10
0.6
0.8
4.1 6.7
0.5
0.8
0.7
Coarse gravel
---------
---------
59
---
---
2.6 3.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
19
4.3
Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 2709.81 2709.77 2709.75 2709.77 2738.54 2738.65 2738.70 2738.63 2617.65 2617.72 2617.44 2617.25
Low Bank Elevation 2709.81 2709.86 2709.84 2709.75 2738.54 2738.74 2738.70 2738.63 2617.65 2617.60 2617.61 2617.36
Bankfull Width (ft)4.7 5.0 5.3 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.6 6.0 3.7 6.3 3.3
Floodprone Width (ft)10 13 14 11 10 12 10 13 13 12 16 13
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)1.2 1.6 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.9 1.4 2.8 2.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 18.4 15.4 16.7 8.1 16.9 10.7 16.3 10.4 18.4 9.7 14.4 4.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.1 2.6 2.7 3.7 3.1 4.1 3.1 5.2 2.1 3.3 2.5 4.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.1
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base2 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 2616.07 2616.04 2616.06 2616.11 2503.27 2503.37 2503.36 2503.40 2499.51 2499.56 2499.61 2499.27
Low Bank Elevation 2616.07 2616.04 2616.06 2616.11 2503.27 2503.23 2503.24 2503.28 2499.51 2499.56 2499.61 2499.27
Bankfull Width (ft)5.4 4.2 3.5 4.5 8.3 7.5 8.3 8.3 5.9 5.2 6.0 4.3
Floodprone Width (ft)------------14 13 13 13 ------------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 4.3 3.1 3.3 3.3 4.4 4.1 4.4 2.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 7.3 8.3 6.7 10.0 16.2 17.8 21.0 21.0 7.9 6.7 8.2 7.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------------1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 ------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------------1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 ------------
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 2520.23 2520.23 2520.32 2520.35
Low Bank Elevation 2520.23 2520.23 2520.24 2520.30
Bankfull Width (ft)5.3 4.2 5.0 5.2
Floodprone Width (ft)36 37 35 37
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)1.4 1.4 0.9 1.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.9 12.8 26.2 24.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 6.8 8.6 7.0 7.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9
2Cross-section dimensions updated in MY1.
N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
UT1 Reach 2 Cross-Section 1, Riffle UT2 Reach 2 Cross-Section 2, Riffle UT3 Reach 2 Cross-Section 3, Riffle
UT4 Cross-Section 6, Pool
UT8 Cross-Section 7, Riffle
UT3 Reach 2 Cross-Section 4, Pool UT4 Cross-Section 5, Riffle
Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 2632.06 2631.95 2632.08 2631.98 2621.09 2620.96 2621.01 2621.00 2620.50 2620.23 2620.64 2620.42
Low Bank Elevation 2632.06 2631.95 2632.01 2631.98 2621.09 2620.96 2621.11 2621.17 2620.50 2620.23 2620.64 2620.42
Bankfull Width (ft)5.2 3.1 3.3 3.8 5.5 4.8 6.0 6.1 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.7
Floodprone Width (ft)10 11 10 10 10 9 11 14 ------------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.0
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.8 3.8 2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.6 5.8 8.2 9.4 17.5 13.6 15.5 13.8 5.3 5.7 4.6 4.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 3.6 3.0 2.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.3 ------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 ------------
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation 2530.35 2530.43 2530.37 2530.46 2500.82 2500.82 2500.78 2500.80 2500.20 2500.12 2499.98 2499.96
Low Bank Elevation 2530.35 2530.36 2530.25 2530.33 2500.82 2500.82 2500.76 2500.77 2500.20 2500.12 2499.98 2499.96
Bankfull Width (ft)7.6 7.8 7.3 7.1 8.1 8.0 7.2 6.8 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)19 16 14 17 46 46 46 52 ------------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)4.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 8.1 8.9 8.0 6.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 18.0 18.1 17.1 18.4 18.2 15.5 14.0 6.4 5.7 6.0 7.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.4 5.8 5.7 6.4 7.6 ------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ------------
N/A N/A
Shake Rag Branch Reach 3 Cross-Section 8, Riffle Shake Rag Branch Reach 3 Cross-Section 9, Riffle Shake Rag Branch Reach 3 Cross-Section 10, Pool
N/A N/A N/A
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
Shake Rag Branch Reach 4 Cross-Section 11, Riffle Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 Cross-Section 12, Riffle Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 Cross-Section 13, Pool
N/A
Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT1 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.080 0.241
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.4 1.8
Pool Spacing (ft)7 20
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
4.7 5.0 5.3 3.0
10 13 14 11
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
N/A0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5
1.2 1.6 1.7 1.1
18.4 15.4 16.7 8.1
2.1 2.6 2.7 3.7
1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0
64.0
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.3/2/12.8/90/
180/512
0.4/18.4/34.8/87.7/
143.4/512
0.3/1.3/8.0/81.3/
128/180 N/A N/A
2.0
99
0.11
<1%
A4a+/B4a
5.3
1.03
0.1279
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
6.4
---
278
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT2 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.078 0.266
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)7 22
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
3.2 3.0 3.0 2.6
10 12 10 13
0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
N/A0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5
0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6
16.9 10.7 16.3 10.4
3.1 4.1 3.1 5.2
1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0
67.4
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.4/4/25.4/99.5/
202.4/>2048
0.7/10.2/33.9/105.6/
158.4/512
0.1/1.7/14.1/107.3/
165.3/362 N/A N/A
1.84
90
0.05
<1%
A4a+/B4a
4.8
1.07
0.1592
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
3.0
---
304
Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT3 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.015 0.339
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.5 2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)5 36
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
6.0 3.7 6.3 3.3
13 12 16 13
0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7
N/A0.6 0.6 1.2 1.1
1.9 1.4 2.8 2.3
18.4 9.7 14.4 4.7
2.1 3.3 2.5 4.1
1.0 0.8 1.2 1.1
61.8
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.3/0.73/7.1/
155.5/315.2/512
1.5/10.4/35.4/121.2/
179.7/512
SC/1.8/11.2/96.7/
151.5/512 N/A N/A
3.68
181
0.06
<1%
A4a+/B4a
7.6
1.05
0.1643
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
21.0
---
1,019
Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT4
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.037 0.292
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.7 2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)14 34
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
8.3 7.5 8.3 8.3
14 13 13 13
N/A
0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7
4.3 3.1 3.3 3.3
16.2 17.8 21.0 21.0
1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6
1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9
71.7
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.3/1.34/20.7/
154.8/272.5/512
0.4/5.0/10.7/120.7/
169.2/256
0.6/13.3/53.7/137/
209.3/362 N/A N/A
2.28
112
0.05
<1%
A4a+/B4a
5.9
1.02
0.1093
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
13.6
---
930
Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
UT8
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.012 0.151
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)5 18
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
5.3 4.2 5.0 5.2
36 37 35 37
N/A
0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6
1.4 1.4 0.9 1.1
19.9 12.8 26.2 24.1
6.8 8.6 7.0 7.0
1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9
24.7
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.1/0.3/5.7/
35.5/78.3/180
SC/0.4/18.3/53.4/
79/362
SC/0.3/12.6/70.5/
113.5/256 N/A N/A
1.23
60
0.03
<1%
A4/B4a
4.2
1.06
0.0761
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
6.0
---
206
Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)5.2 5.5 3.1 4.8 3.3 6.0 3.8 6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)9 11 10 11 10 14
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.4 2.3 1.6 2.7
Width/Depth Ratio 16.6 17.5 5.8 13.6 8.2 15.5 9.4 13.8
Entrenchment Ratio 1.8 1.9 3.6 1.9 1.8 3.0 2.3 2.7
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.2
D50 (mm)75.9 84.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.052 0.421
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.4 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)8 51
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 2.5 2.6
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 122 126
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)6.1 6.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)10 11
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
MY3 MY4 MY5
1.0
N/A
MY6 MY7As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2
10
0.6 0.7
0.4 0.40.3
1.0
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
1.03
0.1341
0.3/2/14.6/
110.1/207.2/512
0.4/18.4/34.8/87.7/
143.4/1024
0.1/1.4/11/121.7/
193.1/362 N/A N/A
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
---
1,345
0.06
<1%
A4a+/B4a
Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Branch Reach 4
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.038 0.094
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.8 1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)9 86
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
7.6 7.3 7.17.8
19 14 1716
N/A
0.5 0.4 0.40.4
0.9 0.6 0.70.6
4.0 3.0 3.03.4
14.6 18.1 17.118.0
2.5 1.9 2.42.1
0.91.0 0.8 0.8
72.7
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.3/1.3/14.6/
105.8/237.7/512
0.7/10.2/33.9/105.6/
158.4/512
0.8/12.5/45/157.1/
241.4/362 N/A N/A
2.4
120
0.12
<1%
A4/B4a
6.6
1.08
0.0775
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
26
---
385
Table 13h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle2
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.040 0.143
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.8 2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)7 47
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
8.1 7.2 6.88.0
46 46 5246
N/A
0.4 0.5 0.50.4
0.8 0.9 1.10.9
3.5 3.4 3.33.5
18.4 15.5 14.018.2
5.8 6.4 7.65.7
1.01.0 1.0 1.0
101.2
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
N/A1
0.4/1.6/21.1/
157.9/243.4/512
0.5/3.7/11/61.2/
113.8/180
0.3/9.9/16.7/85.7/
160.7/512 N/A N/A
1.8
86
0.25
<1%
A4/B4a
5.4
1.01
0.0660
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
19
---
1,134
Cross-Section 1-UT1 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
1.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.0 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft)
3.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.1 width-depth ratio
11.3 W flood prone area (ft)
3.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
View Downstream
2709
2710
2711
2712
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
111+70 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 2-UT2 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
0.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
2.6 width (ft)
0.2 mean depth (ft)
0.5 max depth (ft)
2.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4 width-depth ratio
13.4 W flood prone area (ft)
5.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2738
2739
2740
2741
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
203+69 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 3-UT3 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.3 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
4.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
4.7 width-depth ratio
13.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.1 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Note:
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Survey captures MY3 repairs with
current low top of bank
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
312+06 Riffle
MY0 (2/2015)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 4-UT3 Reach 2
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.5 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
5.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.0 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
View Downstream
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
312+14 Pool
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 5-UT4
Bankfull Dimensions
3.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.3 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
8.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
21.0 width-depth ratio
12.9 W flood prone area (ft)
1.6 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
405+41 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 6-UT4
Bankfull Dimensions
2.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.3 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
5.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
405+74 Pool
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 7-UT8
Bankfull Dimensions
1.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.2 width (ft)
0.2 mean depth (ft)
0.6 max depth (ft)
5.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
24.1 width-depth ratio
36.7 W flood prone area (ft)
7.0 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2519
2520
2521
2522
20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
801+30 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 8-Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Bankfull Dimensions
1.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.8 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
4.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.4 width-depth ratio
10.4 W flood prone area (ft)
2.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
15 20 25 30 35
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
915+97 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 9-Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.1 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
6.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8 width-depth ratio
13.8 W flood prone area (ft)
2.3 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
916+73 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 10-Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.7 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
4.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
4.6 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
10 15 20 25 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
916+79 Pool
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 11-Shake Rag Branch Reach 4
Bankfull Dimensions
3.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.1 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
7.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1 width-depth ratio
17.4 W flood prone area (ft)
2.4 entrenchment ratio
0.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
15 20 25 30 35 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
924+84 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 12-Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
Bankfull Dimensions
3.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.8 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
7.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0 width-depth ratio
51.9 W flood prone area (ft)
7.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
20 25 30 35 40 45
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
929+35 Riffle
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF Area Elevation
Cross-Section 13-Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
Bankfull Dimensions
6.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.0 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
7.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.3 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Cross-Section Plots
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
20 25 30 35 40 45
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
929+40 Pool
MY0 (1/2020)MY1 (10/2020)MY2 (6/2021)MY3 (5/2022)Bankfull

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
MY Method
MY3
MY1
MY2 Debris Wracklines1
MY2 Debris Wracklines1
MY3
MY4
1Photo documentation of debris wracklines are included in the electronic support files
2Multiple bankfull events recorded within these dates
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
MY Method
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
7/10/2022 7/10/2022
UT1 Reach 2
7/10/2022 7/10/2022
MY3
5/27/2022
6/15/2022
2/6/2020 2/6/2020
6/15/2022
7/10/2022
9/12/2022
MY3 5/27/2022
7/10/2022
5/27/2022
7/10/2022
UT3 Reach 2 7/19/2021 8/9/2021
8/7/2021
8/17/2021MY2
MY2
7/19/2021
8/13/2021
8/17/2021
10/8/2021
8/4/2023 - 8/15/2023 2
7/19/2021
8/13/2021
7/10/2022
9/12/2022
5/27/2022
Crest Gage
8/14/2023
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Reach Date of Occurrence
4/13/2020 4/13/2020MY1
7/19/2021 7/19/2021
8/18/2021
9/9/2023 9/9/2023
MY2
UT2 Reach 2
MY4
1/1/2022 - 10/11/2022 284 days
7/19/2021
2/13/2020
Date of Data Collection
2/13/2020
8/9/2021
8/18/2021
10/8/2021 10/8/2021
8/17/2021
10/8/2021
7/19/2021
8/7/2021
8/17/2021
7/19/2021
292 days
Table 15. Verification of Consecutive Flow Days
Reach Date of Occurrence Maximum Consecutive Days
of Stream Flow
1/1/2020 - 10/16/2020 289 days
Crest Gage
UT8
1/1/2023 - 12/20/2023 353 days
Stream Gage
Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
8/4/2023 8/4/2023 Crest Gage
MY4
UT4
1/4/2023
2/17/2023
1/4/2023
2/17/2023
1/1/2021 - 10/20/2021
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2707.0
2707.5
2708.0
2708.5
2709.0
2709.5
2710.0
2710.5
2711.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 -2023
Rainfall Crest Gage #1 - UT1 Reach 2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Crest Gage #1 -UT1 Reach 2
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2736.0
2736.5
2737.0
2737.5
2738.0
2738.5
2739.0
2739.5
2740.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 -2023
Rainfall Crest Gage #2 - UT2 Reach 2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Crest Gage #2 -UT2 Reach 2
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2614.0
2614.5
2615.0
2615.5
2616.0
2616.5
2617.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 -2023
Rainfall Crest Gage #3 - UT3 Reach 2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Crest Gage #3 -UT3 Reach 2
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2499.0
2500.0
2501.0
2502.0
2503.0
2504.0
2505.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 -2023
Rainfall Crest Gage #4 - UT4 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Crest Gage #4 -UT4
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
353 days of consecutive stream flow
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2524.0
2525.0
2526.0
2527.0
2528.0
2529.0
2530.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 -2023
Rainfall Stream Gage #5 - UT8 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Stream Gage #5 -UT8
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 4 -2023
Rainfall Crest Gage #6 - Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Crest Gage #6 -Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
Monthly Rainfall Data
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
2023 rainfall collected by NC CRONOS Station, Mars Hill 6.8 E (located about 5 miles from the Site)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Marshall, NC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Date
Shake Rag 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2023
Mars Hill 6.8 E 30th Percentile 70th Percentile

APPENDIX 6. Additional Data

Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 4 - 2023
Reach Station Length (LF)Issue mapped on MY2
(2021) CCPV Description MY3 (2022) Management Action MY4 (2023) Status
UT1 Reach 2 112+00 N/A Headcut/downcutting Structure1 dislodged Reset structure boulder Bed stable; some minor scour on bank
306+00 N/A Headcut/downcutting Structure1 piping Reset downstream structure Structure is stable
307+75 10 Bank instability Flow on side of riffle Regrade bank, recompact riffle material
against bank Bank revegetating and stable
309+90 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle/structure1 piping at head Reset head of riffle Riffle functioning as designed
310+85 5 Bank instability Minor scour Stabilize isolated bank scour Bank revegetating and stable
311+25 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle material shift Reset head of riffle, regrade bank Bank revegetating and stable; Riffle
functioning as designed
311+75 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle material shift Build new drop to replace eroded riffle Structure is stable
312+00 20 Bed instability Flow under stone Repair head of riffle and add substrate
material Riffle functioning as designed
312+30 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle material shift Add boulder footer to drop Structure is stable
312+70 N/A Headcut/downcutting Structure1 piping Reconstruct downstream structure, stabilize
bank
Bank revegetating and stable; Riffle
functioning as designed
313+25 5 Bank instability Minor erosion Hand work, monitor Bank revegetating and stable
314+60 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle eroded Drop ok, add splash rock by hand, monitor Structure is stable
921+50 25 Bed instability
921+75 10 Bank instability
922+15 10 Bank instability Minor piping right side of structure Plug pipping structure, stabilize bank Bank revegetating; Structure is stable
922+50 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle material shift Add splash rock/footer stone, regrade bank Bank revegetating; Riffle functioning
922+90 N/A Headcut/downcutting Riffle material shift Add splash rock/footer stone, regrade bank Bank revegetating; Riffle functioning
923+75 20 Deposition Sediment deposition – natural valley
slope break Monitor No longer an issue; Channel mobilized
sediment
924+00 20 Bank instability Minor toe erosion Stabilize bank Bank revegetating and stable
Shake Rag Reach 5 937+75 N/A Structure issue Structure dislodged Hand work, monitor Structure is stable
400+25 N/A Structure issue Structure pipping Plug pipping structure Structure is stable
404+25 N/A Headcut/downcutting Piping under repair Plug with handwork/monitor Structure is stable
1 Encompassed within a cascading riffle feature, as displayed on the Shake Rag Record Drawings from as-built (4/3/2020).
Not applicable (N/A): Lengths not associated with instances (points)
UT4
Table 16. Stream Repairs Status
UT3 Reach 2
Shake Rag Reach 4
Shake Rag Reach 3
Structure1 piping with bank erosion Rebuild structures, stabilize bank Bank revegetating; Structures are stable

MEETING NOTES

MEETING: MY4 IRT Site Walk
SHAKE RAG Mitigation Site
French Broad 06010105; Madison County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7190
DMS Project No. 100018
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01570
DWR Project #: 2017-1157v1
Wildlands Project No. 005-02164

DATE: On-site Meeting: Thursday, June 22, 2023
Meeting Notes Distributed: Wednesday, June 28, 2023

LOCATION: Shake Rag Rd
Mars Hill, NC

Attendees
Steve Kichefski, USACE
Erin Davis, USACE
Andrea Leslie, NCWRC
Mac Haupt, DWR
Maria Polizzi, DWR
Paul Wiesner, DMS
Harry Tsomides, DMS
Matthew Reid, DMS
Jake McLean, Wildlands
Joe Lovenshimer, Wildlands
Mimi Caddell, Wildlands

Meeting Notes
The meeting began around 1pm. Maps and a brief overview of the project were presented by Wildlands and
DMS at the parking area along the farm road near the downstream culvert crossing on Shake Rag Branch. From
there, the group proceeded to walk the site with the goal to see representative portions of the project.
1. Paul asked Wildlands to describe any concerns they have about the project. Wildlands responded that
though the site has demonstrated good stem density, the tree height has lagged for which the main
cause appears to be deer browse and some competition with herbaceous vegetation. Joe described
actions that the Wildlands stewardship team has taken to boost growth and give the stems a
competitive advantage by adding soil amendments and repellex tablets, and conducting ring sprays in
areas of dense tall fescue. Jake also asserted that there were some lessons learned in regard to
managing pasture grasses during construction that has been improved upon for newer projects.
2. Another concern that was discussed was the encroachments that have occurred along the unfenced
portions of the lower conservation easement boundary. Wildlands confirmed that the mowing
encroachments documented in the MY3 (2022) monitoring report have been resolved by adding posts
and communicating with the landowner. Jake and Matthew described additional encroachments that
were first observed in January 2023 due to landowner waterline activities that caused some disturbance
SHAKE RAG Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
SHAKE RAG Mitigation Site
MY4 IRT Site Walk
of the vegetation within the portion of the UT4 easement adjacent to the farm road. Joe described
actions taken to resolve the new encroachments which included reseeding and replanting container
trees in those areas. The waterline, an overflow line from an upslope spring box, was redirected into the
adjacent easement break near the culvert crossing (outside of the CE). Wildlands has had several
successful discussions with the landowner to emphasize the importance of not disturbing any part of the
conservation easement. Mimi confirmed that this will be documented in the MY4 (2023) monitoring
report.
3. The group then walked to the UT4 crossing to observe where the new encroachments occurred and
view the improvement in vegetation.
4. Continuing up the valley along the UT4, IRT members observed several examples of successful ring
sprays with no collateral damage to the planted stems. It was noted that though some of the planted
stems are small, they are healthy and showing signs of vigorous new growth this year.
5. The group walked up to the jurisdictional start of UT4 where baseflow was observed. IRT members
noted some discontinuous flow under larger rock structures, but the stream was not exhibiting stability
issues. Mac asked if the stream was monitored for flow. Mimi responded that since it is classified as
perennial, there was no required monitoring for continuous flow and that there is a gage located
downstream used to document bankfull events.
6. The group then walked back towards the lower Shake Rag Branch crossing and up the main stem’s valley
to the UT3 confluence. On the way, the group noted liking the large culverts and also the wetland area
in the vicinity of UT8. Jake described the repairs that occurred in April 2022 to address several localized
instances of dislodged, piping structures and shifted riffle material. The repairs were observed to be
functioning with some flow going under a few structures. IRT members asked about reasons for the
damage. Wildlands described that large storms and tropical depressions that had come through the
region during MY1 and MY2. Jake added that the substrate material size class used during construction
that was harvested on site was variable and sometimes lacked mid-range size classes that may have
aided in embedding the cascade riffle structures and that it could have been helpful to import material
during construction.
7. Continuing up UT3, improvements in herbaceous coverage were observed near VP2. Joe described
stewardship efforts which consisted of reseeding with a cover crop mixes for the last three seasons and
spraying the area with compost tea beginning this year.
8. IRT members expressed interest in seeing a representative example of a steep headwater stream where
no restoration work was done. The group decided to walk up to the upper reaches of Shake Rag Branch
to view a reference condition for the site where seasonal flow conditions could be observed. Andrea
brought up the topic of aquatic organism passage and whether some discontinuity of flow is a habitat
issue for these headwater systems. Steve added that there is difficulty in determining the best design
approach depending on the slope and drainage area for first order streams. Jake described some lessons
learned working on steep headwater tributaries to utilize in the future such as limiting the number of
pools and importing material with a better size class variety.
9. Walking back down Shake Rag Branch Reach 2, Wildlands noted the successful treatment of previously
dense pockets of invasive species including tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora).
10. The group walked back to the parking area and circled up to summarize the main discussion points
during the site walk.
SHAKE RAG Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
SHAKE RAG Mitigation Site
MY4 IRT Site Walk
a. Steve was overall pleased with the site and though the low seasonal flow resulting in seeping
under steep structure drops may be a habitat issue, it does not seem to be a stability issue. He
indicated that he did not see a need to require any intervention scheme. (As a side note,
Wildlands does do some minor handwork when piping issues are identified and thought to be
due to construction related issues and not just low summertime flows).
b. Erin requested that Wildlands be sure to document all the management actions done to address
low stem heights in monitoring reports and was pleased with the progress of efforts to address
prior conservation easement encroachments.
c. Paul requested that Wildlands continue to document encroachment issues and keep a log of
communications with the landowner regarding easement compliance discussions. This will allow
for an easier transfer to DEQ stewardship when the history of the site is well documented. Paul
also noted that it is preferable for these communications to remain internal between Wildlands
and the landowner before needing to involve DMS.
d. Andrea had left and was not present for summary discussion.
The meeting concluded at 3:30 PM.

All Attendees listed have been copied by email. These meeting minutes were prepared by Mimi Caddell and
reviewed by Jake McLean and Joe Lovenshimer on June 23, 2023, and represent the authors’ interpretation of
events.