HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190863 Ver 1_OakHillDairy_100120_MY1_2023_20240109
MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
Submittal: January 8, 2024
OAK HILL DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Gaston County, NC
Catawba River basin
HUC 03050102
DMS Project No. 100120
DMS Contract No. 7867
DMS RFP No. 16‐007704 (Issued: September 6, 2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW‐2019‐00833
DWR Project No. 2019‐0863
Data Collection Dates: June 2023 – December 2023
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: 704.332.7754
Fax: 704.332.3306
January 5, 2024
ATTN: Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Service
RE: Oak Hill Dairy Draft MY1 Report Review
Catawba River Basin – CU# 03050102 – Gaston County
DMS Project ID No. 100120
Contract # 7867
Dear Matthew Reid,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report for the Oak Hill Dairy
Mitigation Site. The DMS’s comments and Wildlands’ responses are noted below.
Report indicates that Hydrilla was discovered in approximately 450 linear feet of Oak Hill
Creek Reach 4 and was mechanically treated. Was heavy equipment used to remove the
invasive species or was this completed using handwork? Please provide an update of
treatment success in the MY2 report.
Wildlands Response: Hand tools were used to remove Hydrilla. Wildlands will continue
to monitor and treat the Hydrilla. Updates will be included in the MY2 (2024) report.
Did the large tree that was removed from Oak Hill Creek Reach 1 result in any bank damage
and does WEI think this blockage may be responsible for the aggradation upstream?
Wildlands Response: No bank damage has been observed due to fallen tree. The
blockage is unlikely to have caused or contributed to the aggradation upstream. Off‐site
erosion is likely causing the increased sediment load within the project area. Wildlands
expects aggradation to be flushed through the system during larger rainfall events.
Only 5 of 11 gauges met success criteria. Recognizing that this is only MY1 and below
average rainfall was received, does WEI have concerns with the wetland hydrology success
on the site? Are there plans to install additional gauges at this time?
Wildlands Response: Due to the below average rainfall during the MY1 growing season,
Wildlands is not currently concerned about the wetland hydrology success on site and
does not have plans to install additional groundwater gages at this time. Wildlands will
continue to closely monitor groundwater levels and if any gage’s performance trajectory
indicates continued failure, Wildlands will consider installing additional gages.
Has WEI considered installing a rain gauge onsite since the closest gauge is 15 miles away?
Wildlands Response: The daily and monthly rainfall data is collected from the
CHERRYVILLE 2.2 SSE station which is located 3.5 miles from the Site and is an accurate
representation of the rainfall for the Site. This station does not include 20 years of data;
therefore, the WETS data is collected from the GASTONIA, NC station which is located
15 miles from the Site.
Thank you for providing the 2022 gauge data that was requested by the IRT during the MY0
review as well as addressing the Boundary Inspection action items.
Wildlands Response: Noted.
Digital Deliverable Comments:
No comments.
Wildlands Response: Noted.
As requested, two copies of the report along with Wildland’s response letter will be included
inside the front cover of the FINAL MY1 (2023) revised report as well as in the digital support
files. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mimi Caddell
Environmental Scientist
mcaddell@wildlandseng.com
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL i
OAK HILL DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1‐1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits ................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐4
1.3 Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1‐6
Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment ................................................................................ 2‐1
2.1 Vegetative Assessment .............................................................................................................. 2‐1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity .......................................................... 2‐1
2.3 Stream Assessment .................................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity ................................................................. 2‐1
2.5 Hydrology Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.6 Wetland Assessment .................................................................................................................. 2‐2
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan....................................................................................................... 2‐2
2.8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2‐2
Section 3: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 3‐4
Section 4: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 4‐1
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits ..................................................................................................... 1‐1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements ...................................................... 1‐4
Table 3: Project Attributes ......................................................................................................................... 1‐6
FIGURES
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Figures 1a – 1c Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4a‐d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Areas of Concern Photographs
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6a‐c Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross‐Section Plots
Table 8a‐d Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL ii
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Table 12 Wetland Gage Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots ‐ 2023
Groundwater Gage Plots – 2022
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plots
Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Correspondence
June 8, 2023 – Boundary Inspection Report – MY0 Site ‐ Oak Hill Dairy Project
November 17, 2023 – Wildlands Response to Boundary Inspection Report – MY0
Site – Oak Hill Dairy Project
August 17, 2023 – Wildlands Response to NCIRT Notice of Initial Credit Release
for Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Proposed vs. Actual Regrading Areas Figure
Areas left Higher and Lower than Design Grades Figure
Oak Hill Dairy MY1 DRAFT DMS Comments and Response Letter
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐1
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) is in Gaston County, approximately 2 miles northeast of
Cherryville and 7 miles southwest of Lincolnton. Watersheds UT1, UT1A, UT1B, and Oak Hill Creek drain
into Indian Creek, which drains to the Catawba River. Both Indian Creek and Catawba River are listed as
high restoration priorities in the 2013 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) and the 2008‐
2010 Indian Creek and Howards Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). Table 3 presents information related
to the project attributes.
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
Mitigation work within the Site included restoration, enhancement I, and enhancement II of perennial
and intermittent stream channels, and the creation, re‐establishment, and rehabilitation of wetland
areas. Table 1 below shows stream credits by reach and the total amount of stream credits expected at
closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
Acreage1,2
As‐Built
Footage
/Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Credits Comments
Stream
Oak Hill Creek
R1 488.527 489.000 Warm EI 1.5 325.685
Restored dimension and
profile, created a floodplain
bench, planted buffers,
treated invasive species,
fenced out livestock, and
protected with a conservation
easement.
Oak Hill Creek
R2 470.085 470.000 Warm R 1.0 470.085
Restored dimension, profile
pattern, and floodplain access,
planted buffers, treated
invasive species, fenced out
livestock, and protected with a
conservation easement.
Oak Hill Creek
R3 877.051 877.000 Warm R 1.0 877.051
Restored dimension, profile
pattern, and floodplain access,
planted buffers, treated
invasive species, fenced out
livestock, provided
stormwater treatment, and
protected with a conservation
easement.
Oak Hill Creek
R4 388.273 388.900 Warm R 1.0 388.273
Restored dimension, profile
pattern, and floodplain access,
planted buffers, treated
invasive species, fenced out
livestock, and protected with a
conservation easement.
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐2
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
Acreage1,2
As‐Built
Footage
/Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Credits Comments
UT1 R1 217.749 218.000 Warm R 1.0 217.749
Restored dimension, profile
pattern, and floodplain access,
planted buffers, fenced out
livestock, and protected with a
conservation easement.
UT1 R2 1,834.520 1,834.100 Warm R 1.0 1,834.520
Restored dimension, profile
pattern, and floodplain access,
planted buffers, fenced out
livestock, provided
stormwater treatment, and
protected with a conservation
easement.
UT1A 469.110 469.600 Warm R 1.0 469.110
Restored dimension, profile,
and pattern, planted buffers,
fenced out livestock, and
protected with a conservation
easement.
UT1B 291.680 292.100 Warm EII 8.0 36.460
Planted buffers, treated
invasive species, fenced out
livestock, and protected with a
conservation easement.
Wetland
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage /
Acreage
As‐Built
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Credits Comments
Wetland Re‐
establishment 4.859 4.863 RR RE 1.0 4.859
Raised stream bed elevation,
plugged / filled drainage
features, removed berm
material, planted native
wetland vegetation
community, treated invasive
species, fenced out livestock
and protected with a
conservation easement.
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐3
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES
Project
Segment
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
Acreage1,2
As‐Built
Footage
/Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X:1)
Credits Comments
Wetland
Rehabilitation 1.805 1.805 RR RH 1.0 1.805
Raised stream bed elevation,
plugged/filled drainage
features, removed cultivation
and vegetation management
impacts, removed berm
material, planted native
wetland vegetation
community, treated invasive
species, fenced out livestock,
provided stormwater
treatment, and protected with
a conservation easement.
Wetland
Rehabilitation 0.284 0.285 RR RH 1.5 0.189
Raised stream bed elevation,
plugged/filled drainage
features, removed berm
material, planted and
supplementally planted native
wetland vegetation
community, treated invasive
species, fenced out livestock
and protected with a
conservation easement.
Wetland
Creation 2.481 2.480 RR C 3.0 0.827
Raised stream bed elevation,
plugged/filled drainage
features, removed berm
material, planted native
wetland vegetation
community, treated invasive
species, fenced out livestock
and protected with a
conservation easement.
Total Stream Credits: 4,618.933
Total Wetland Credits: 7.680
1. Crossing lengths have been removed from restoration footage.
2. No direct credit for BMPs on site.
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Rip
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riverine Wetland
Restoration 4,256.788
Re‐establishment 4.859
Rehabilitation (1:1 & 1.5:1) 1.994
Enhancement
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐4
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Goal Objective/
Treatment
Likely Functional
Uplift
Performance
Criteria Measurement Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Treat
concentrated
agricultural
runoff.
Install stormwater
BMPs to treat runoff
areas of
concentrated
agricultural runoff
before it enters the
stream channel.
Reduce agricultural
and
sediment inputs to
the project,
which will reduce
likelihood of
accumulated fines
and excessive
algal blooms from
nutrients.
There is no
required
performance
standard for
this metric.
Visually inspect
BMPs and
document with
photos.
No evidence of
agricultural runoff
in streams.
Exclude
livestock from
stream
channels and
riparian
wetlands.
Install livestock
fencing as needed to
exclude livestock
from stream
channels, wetlands,
and riparian areas, or
remove livestock
from adjacent fields.
Reduce agricultural
and sediment inputs
to the project.
Reduce sediment
inputs from bank
erosion and
degradation.
Provide riparian and
wetland habitat.
Support all stream
and wetland
functions.
Prevent
easement
encroachments.
Visually inspect the
perimeter of the
Site to ensure no
easement
encroachment is
occurring.
No easement
encroachments in
MY1.
Improve the
stability of
stream
channels.
Construct stream
channels that will
maintain stable
cross‐sections,
patterns, and profiles
over time. Add bank
revetments and
instream structures
to protect restored/
enhanced
streams.
Reduce sediment
inputs from bank
erosion. Reduce
shear stress on
channel boundary.
ER ≥ 2.2 and
BHR ≤ 1.2 with
visual
assessments
showing
progression
towards
stability.
14 Cross‐sections
will be assessed
during MY1, MY2,
MY3, MY5, and
MY7 and visual
inspections will be
conducted
annually.
In MY1, riffle cross‐
sections show
streams are stable
and functioning as
designed. ERs are
over 2.2 and BHRs
are below 1.2.
Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non‐Rip
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non‐Riverine Wetland
Enhancement I 325.685
Enhancement II 36.460
Creation 0.827
Preservation
Totals 4,618.933 7.680
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐5
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Goal Objective/
Treatment
Likely Functional
Uplift
Performance
Criteria Measurement Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Improve
instream
habitat.
Install habitat
features such as
constructed steps,
cover logs, and
brush toes on
restored/enhanced
streams. Add woody
materials to channel
beds. Construct pools
of varying depth.
Increase and
diversify available
habitats for
macroinvertebrates,
fish, and
amphibians leading
to colonization and
increase in
biodiversity over
time.
There is no
required
performance
standard for
this metric.
Semi‐annual visual
inspections
All structures are
performing as
designed in MY1.
Reconnect
channels with
floodplains and
riparian
wetlands.
Reconstruct stream
channels with
designed bankfull
dimensions and
depth based on
reference reach data.
Reduce shear stress
on channel; Hydrate
adjacent wetland
areas; Filter
pollutants out of
overbank flows.
Four bankfull
events in
separate years
within the 7‐
year monitoring
period.
Three automated
pressure
transducers were
installed on
restoration
reaches and will
record flow
elevations and
durations.
For MY1, one
bankfull event was
recorded on UT1A
(CG1) and Oak Hill
Creek R4 (CG3) on
4/28/23. No
bankfull events
were recorded on
UT1 R2 (CG2).
Restore
wetland
hydrology, soils,
and plant
communities.
Restore and enhance
riparian wetlands by
raising stream bends,
filling existing ditch
network, removing
berm material over
relic hydric soils, and
planting native
wetland species.
Increase water
storage, increase
groundwater
recharge, water
quality treatment
through retention,
and increase habitat
for aquatic and
terrestrial species.
Free
groundwater
within 12
inches of soil
surface for a
minimum of
12% (28
consecutive
days) of the
growing
season.
Eleven (11)
groundwater gages
were installed in
wetland re‐
establishment,
rehabilitation, and
creation areas and
monitored
annually.
In MY1, five of
eleven (5/11)
groundwater gages
met the
performance
criteria.
Restore and
enhance native
floodplain and
streambank
vegetation.
Plant native tree and
understory species in
riparian zones and
plant native shrub
and herbaceous
species on
streambanks.
Reduce sediment
inputs from bank
erosion and runoff.
Increase nutrient
cycling and storage
in floodplain.
Provide riparian
habitat. Add a
source of large
woody debris (LWD)
and organic
material to stream.
Survival rate of
320 stems per
acre at MY3,
260 planted
stems per acre
at MY5 and a
height of 8 ft.,
and 210 stems
per acre at MY7
with a height of
10 ft.
Thirteen (13)
permanent and 6
mobile one
hundred square
meter vegetation
plots are placed on
2% of the planted
area of the Site
and monitored
during MY1, MY2,
MY3, MY5, and
MY7.
In MY1, eighteen
(18) of the
nineteen (19)
vegetation plots
have a planted
stem density
greater than 320
stems per acre.
Permanently
protect the
project Site
from harmful
uses.
Establish
conservation
easements on the
Site. Crop field
removal and
exclusion of
livestock.
Protect Site from
encroachment on
the riparian corridor
and direct impact to
streams and
wetlands.
Prevent
easement
encroachment.
Visually inspect the
perimeter of the
Site to ensure no
easement
encroachment is
occurring.
No easement
encroachments in
MY1.
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐6
1.3 Project Attributes
The project is bordered by residential properties and an active dairy farm comprised of cattle pastures,
an outdoor feeding area, and row crops. Based on historic aerials from 1950 to 2016, the streams
existed in their same location for over 60 years. Agricultural use of the land was consistent during this
period as well. Several alterations to the Site visible from historical aerial photography were the addition
of the large pond in northeast corner of the Site between 1964 and 1973, and the addition of the no‐
discharge waste lagoon south of the large pond between 2006 and 2009. Additionally, most structures
were built between 1964 and 1976 with the two large feed barns being built within the last 15 years.
The Site, based on aerial photography, has a history of ditching, field grading, and stream channelization
which increased drainage effects and impaired wetland hydrology. Table 3 below and Tables 8a – 8d in
Appendix C present additional information on pre‐restoration conditions.
Table 3: Project Attributes
Project Name Oak Hill Dairy
Mitigation Site County Gaston County
Project Area (acres) 20.4 Project Coordinates 35.403339, ‐81.351724
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Catawba River
USGS HUC 8‐digit 03050102 USGS HUC 14‐digit 03050102050010
DWR Sub‐basin 03‐08‐35 Land Use Classification 24% agriculture, 40%
forested, 36% developed
Project Drainage Area
(acres)
1,070 (Oak Hill
Creek) Percentage of Impervious Area 11.6%
RESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters Oak Hill Creek UT1 UT1A UT1B
Pre‐project length (feet) 2,417 1,958 482 292
Post‐project (feet) 2,225 2,052 470 292
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined)
Moderately
Confined to
Unconfined
Unconfined Confined Moderately Confined
Drainage area (acres) 1070 333 12 4
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent/Perennial
DWR Water Quality Classification C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) B4c/G4c/C4/E5 F4/G4 F6b Cb
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) C4 C4 E4b Cb
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if
applicable Stage IV/V Stage IV/V Stage IV Stage I
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes Yes SAW‐2019‐00833
Water of the United States ‐ Section 401 Yes Yes DWR# 2019‐0863
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation
Plan (Wildlands, 2021) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Letter of Map Revision
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 1‐7
Table 3: Project Attributes
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C Wetland D
Pre‐project area
(acres) 2.203 0.138 0.021 0.028
Wetland Type Bottom Hardwood
Forest Headwater Forest Headwater Forest Headwater Forest
Mapped Soil
Series
Chewacla loam,
Wedowee sandy loam,
Worsham loam
Chewacla loam,
Pacolet sandy clay
loam, Pacolet
sandy loam
Chewacla loam,
Pacolet sandy loam Pacolet sandy loam
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly
drained, Well‐drained,
Poorly drained
Somewhat poorly
drained, Well‐
drained, Well‐
drained
Somewhat poorly
drained, Well‐
drained
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status No, No, Yes No, No, No No, No No
Source of
Hydrology Groundwater/Overbank Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater
Restoration or
Enhancement
Method
Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement Enhancement
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland F Wetland J Wetland K1
Pre‐project area
(acres) 0.131 0.047 <0.000
Wetland Type
(non‐riparian,
riparian)
Headwater Forest Headwater Forest Bottomland Hardwood
Forest
Mapped Soil
Series Chewacla loam Helena sandy loam Chewacala loam
Drainage Class Somewhat poorly
drained Moderately well drained Somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status No No No
Source of
Hydrology Groundwater Groundwater/Overbank Groundwater
Restoration or
Enhancement
Method
Enhancement Enhancement None
1No wetland credit is being sought for Wetland K.
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 2‐1
Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during monitoring year (MY) 1 to assess the condition
of the project. The vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success
criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2021). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream,
and hydrologic assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 3: Goals, Performance Criteria, and
Functional Improvements. The MY1 assessment was completed in the fall of 2023, at least 6 months
after the MY0 assessment. The Site will be monitored for a total of seven years, with the final
monitoring activities scheduled for 2029.
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in August 2023. Permanent vegetation plots monitoring
resulted in a stem density range from 283 to 850 planted stems per acre with an average of 470 planted
stems per acre. Mobile vegetation plots ranged from 324 to 486 planted stems per acre with an average
of 371 planted stems per acre. Of the 13 permanent vegetation plots, 12 met the interim MY3 success
criteria of 320 stems per acre. The one permanent vegetation plot (VP8) not meeting MY3 success
criteria is still on track to meet the MY5 success criteria of 260 stems per acre. All 6 mobile vegetation
plots met the interim MY3 success criteria. Vegetation plots on site are on track to meet the MY7
success criteria. Herbaceous and riparian buffer vegetation are thriving across the site as well. Refer to
Appendix A for the vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment and Appendix
B for the vegetation plot data.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Vegetation management and herbicide applications were implemented prior and during construction to
prevent the spread of invasive species that could compete with planted native species. A dense stand of
bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea) was mechanically removed along UT1A during construction. Bamboo has
effectively been removed within the easement as of MY1. Kudzu (Pueraria montana) was removed along
UT1B during construction and has not reestablished on Site as of MY1. During MY1, hydrilla (Hydrilla
verticillate) was discovered in pools over an approximate 450 linear feet of Oak Hill Creek Reach 4. The
hydrilla was mechanically treated in September 2023. Wildlands is monitoring the success of the
treatment and will examine alternative treatment solutions if needed. Hydrilla is currently limited to the
furthest downstream portion of the project and thus not a propagation source. Invasive species will
continue to be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary throughout the monitoring period. A
boundary inspection was conducted by DMS on June 1, 2023. The boundary inspection report identified
a few small areas of concern, all of which were resolved during MY1. The inspection report and
Wildland’s responses are included in Appendix F.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in June 2023. All streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. All 14 cross‐sections show little to no change from design in the bankfull area
and width‐to‐depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. All stream structures are stable and
functioning as designed. No areas of bank erosion were observed during MY1. Refer to Appendix A for
the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix C
for stream geomorphology data.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
A few isolated areas of concern were identified during MY1. A large tree was removed from Oak Hill
Creek Reach 1 near Sta. 104+00 that reduced stream flow. Approximately 175 linear feet of aggradation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 2‐2
is present on Oak Hill Creek Reach 1 between Sta. 100+00 and 101+75. The sediment deposition is not
affecting stream function (see photo point 15 in Appendix A) and is expected to flush through the
system during periods of high flow. The Site will continue to be monitored and any issues will be
mapped and reported throughout the monitoring period.
2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Crest Gages (CG) located on Oak Hill Creek Reach 4 and UT1A each recorded one bankfull event on April
28, 2023. No bankfull events were recorded on UT1 Reach 2. Therefore, the hydrologic success criteria
of four bankfull events in separate years has been partially met. Refer to Appendix D for hydrologic
stream data.
2.6 Wetland Assessment
Eleven groundwater gages (GWG) were installed in early 2022, before the start of the growing season, in
wetland creation, rehabilitation, and re‐establishment areas to determine wetland hydrology success
across different restoration levels. During the 2023 growing season, five groundwater gages met or
exceeded the performance criteria of free groundwater surface within 12 inches of ground surface for a
minimum of 12% (29 consecutive days) of the growing season. Groundwater gages 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10
did not meet performance criteria for MY1. This may be due to periods of low rainfall in March and
below normal amounts in September through November 2023.
The percent increase in maximum consecutive days of groundwater within 12‐inches of the soil surface
was compared between pre‐ and post‐construction monitoring data. Of the six groundwater gages that
did not meet the MY1 performance criteria, four (GWG3, GWG5, GWG6, GWG9) were in similar
locations to pre‐construction monitoring. Maximum consecutive days increases from pre‐construction
to MY1 for GWG3 increased 400%, 200% for GWG5, 100% for GWG6, and 200% for GWG9. When
comparing all the seven pre‐construction monitoring wells to post‐construction monitoring wells that
are located in similar locations, there was a 582% increase in maximum consecutive days of
groundwater in MY1.
The increases in consecutive days of groundwater meeting criteria are despite a decrease in
precipitation during the growing season (March – November) from 2020 to 2023. The growing season
rainfall total recorded at the GASTONIA, NC station during the 2020 pre‐construction monitoring was
40.71 inches and 31.61 inches during MY1. Rainfall total during the 2023 ‐ MY1 growing season is 25.65
inches for the Cherryville, 2.2 SSE, NC station which is 3.5 miles away from the Site. The GASTONIA, NC
station is located 15 miles from the Site. Unfortunately, rainfall data is not available for the closer and
potentially more accurate Cherryville 2.2 station for 2020. Refer to Appendix D for Wetland Gage
Summary and Groundwater Gage Plots.
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan
Site maintenance and adaptive measurement implementation will follow those outlined in the project’s
Final Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2021). No adaptive management plan is needed at this time.
2.8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Overall, the Site is performing as intended, and is on track to meet success criteria. All but one of the
vegetation plots exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, with an overall
average planted stem density of 439 stems per acre. All the cross‐sections show that streams on Site are
stable and functioning as designed. One bankfull event was recorded for both UT1A and Oak Hill Creek
Reach 4. Herbaceous and riparian vegetation has established itself across the site. Invasive species have
been effectively managed on the Site to date and follow‐up activities are planned to ensure this
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 2‐3
continues. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas and adaptive management maintenance
measures will be implemented as necessary to benefit the ecological health of the Site.
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 3‐4
Section 3: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was collected by
either a professional licensed surveyor or an Arrow 100® Submeter GNSS Receiver and processed using
ArcPro. Crest gages, using automated pressure transducers, were installed in riffle cross‐sections to
monitor stream hydrology throughout the year. Groundwater gages were installed using guidance from
the USACE’s Technical Standard for Water‐Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites (2005). Stream
hydrology and vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, 2016). Vegetation installation data collection follow the
Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008); however, vegetation data processing
follows the NC DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool and Vegetation Plot Data Table (NCDMS, 2020).
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report – FINAL 4‐1
Section 4: 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.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐
5.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS). 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP). Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2020. Vegetation Data Entry Tool and
Vegetation Plot Data Table. Raleigh, NC. https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/Veg_Table_Tool/
NC DMS and Interagency Review Team (IRT) Technical Workgroup. 2018. Standard Measurement of the
BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
NC DMS and IRT Technical Workgroup. 2021. Pebble Count Data Requirements. Raleigh, NC. October 19,
2021.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water‐resources/planning/classification‐standards/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2017. NCGS Publications.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy‐mineral‐land‐resources/north‐carolina‐geological‐
survey/interactive‐geologic‐maps
NCGS. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale 1:500,00, in color.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw‐
reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington‐District‐Mitigation‐Update.pdf
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Gaston County.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
Reid, M. 2021. Email Correspondence, Pebble Count Data Requirements. October 27, 2021.
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
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11‐26.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Technical Standard for Water‐Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites. ERDC TN‐WRAP‐05‐2.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). 2021. Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS,
Asheville, NC.
Figures 1a‐c
Current Condition Plan View Maps
!5!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
RoyEakerRd
B
u
c
k
F
r
a
l
e
y
R
d
Robert Rd
Robert Rd
D o r e e L n
Robert Rd
B
u
d
B
l
a
c
k
R
d
M el L n
Doree Ln
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
Oa
k
H
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
U
T
1
A
UT1B
UT1
UT3
UT2
BMP 2
BMP 1
Figure 1b.
Figure 1c.
Figure 1a.
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Gaston County, NC
Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Sheet Boundary
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Wetland Re-establishment (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Rehabilitation (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Rehabilitation (@1.5:1)
Wetland Creation (@3:1 ratio)
BMP
[Fencing
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
No credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contour (5ft)
Existing Sewer Line
Existing Utility Line
!5 Existing Manhole
!5 Existing Utility Pole
Reach Breaks
Monitoring Components - MY1
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plots)
Criteria Not Met (Permanent Vegetation Plots)
Criteria Met (Mobile Vegetation Plots)
Cross Section
GF Photo Point
!A Criteria Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Criteria Not Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
0 270135 Feet ¹
2019 Aerial Photography
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 4
Reach 3
Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Gaston County, NC
2020 Aerial Photography
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
!5
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
1
0
0
+
0
0
101+00
10
2
+
0
0
10
3
+
0
0
10
4
+
0
0
105+00
106
+
0
0
107+00
108
+
0
0
109+0
0
1
1
1
+
0
0
1
1
2
+
0
0
1
1
3
+
0
0
114+00
1
1
5
+
0
0
116+00
218
+
0
0
21
9
+
0
0
22
0
+
0
0
22
1
+
0
0
110+0
0
UT2
Oak
H
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
UT1
XS9
XS
8
XS10
XS1
1
XS13
XS1
2
BMP 2
21
23
14
19
22
20
15
16
17
18
2.1
GWG7
GWG6
GWG8
GWG9
GWG4
GWG5
VP10
VP11
VP7
VP8
VP9
MP5
MP4
MP6
MP3
Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Wetland Re-establishment (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Rehabilitation (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Rehabilitation (@1.5:1)
Wetland Creation (@3:1 ratio)
BMP
Structures
[Fencing
Top of Bank
Restoration
Enhancement I
No credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contour (5ft)
Existing Sewer Line
Existing Utility Line
!5 Existing Manhole
!5 Existing Utility Pole
Reach Breaks
Monitoring Components - MY1
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plots)
Criteria Not Met (Permanent Vegetation Plots)
Criteria Met (Mobile Vegetation Plots)
Cross Section
Aggradation
GF Photo Point
!A Criteria Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Criteria Not Met (Groundwater Gage)
Downed Tree - Removed in MY1
0 10050 Feet ¹2019 Aerial Photography
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3Reach 2
Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Gaston County, NC
2020 Aerial Photography
!5
!5
!5
!5
Robert Rd
Robert Rd
RobertRd
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
11
7
+
0
0
1
1
8
+
0
0
119+
0
0
12
1
+
0
0
122+
0
0
1
2
3
+
0
0
1
2
4
+
0
0
12
0
+
0
0
Oa
k
H
i
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
UT3
X
S
1
4
BMP 2
2.2
24
25
27
26
CG3
GWG10
GWG11
VP12
VP13
Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Existing Wetlands
Wetland Re-establishment (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Rehabilitation (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Creation (@3:1 ratio)
BMP
Structures
[Fencing
Top of Bank
Restoration
No credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contour (5ft)
Existing Utility Line
!5 Existing Utility Pole
Reach Breaks
Monitoring Components - MY1
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plots)
Cross Section
Hydrilla (Treated in September 2023)
GF Photo Point
!A Criteria Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Criteria Not Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Crest Gage
0 10050 Feet ¹
2019 Aerial Photography
Reach 4
Reach 3
Figure 1c. Current Condition Plan View
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 - 2023
Gaston County, NC
!5
!5
R
o
y
E
a
k
e
r
R
d
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[[[[
[
[
[
[[[[
[
[[
[
[[[[[[[[
[[[[[[[[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
2
0
0
+
0
0
203
+
0
0
20
4
+
0
0
20
5
+
0
0
20
6
+
0
0
20
7
+
0
0
20
8
+
0
0
20
9
+
0
0
21
0
+
0
0
211
+
0
0
2
1
2
+
0
0
213
+
0
0
21
5
+
0
0
2
1
6
+
0
0
218
+
0
0
304+91
300+
0
0
301+
0
0
302+00
303+0
0
304+00
21
4
+
0
0
2
0
1
+
0
0
2
0
2
+
0
0
U
T
1
A
UT1B
UT1
UT1
XS1
XS2
X
S
3
XS7
XS
6
X
S
4
XS
5
BMP 1
13
1.21.1
2
5
4
3
1
7
10
11
6
8 129
CG2
GWG2
CG1
GWG3
Baro
GWG1
VP2
VP3
VP1
VP4
VP6
VP5
MP2
MP1
Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Internal Crossings
Existing Wetlands
Wetland Re-establishment (@1:1 ratio)
Wetland Rehabilitation (@1.5:1)
Wetland Creation (@3:1 ratio)
BMP
Structures
[Fencing
Top of Bank
Restoration
Enhancement II
No credit
Non-Project Streams
Topographic Contour (5ft)
Existing Utility Line
!5 Existing Utility Pole
Reach Breaks
Monitoring Components - MY1
Criteria Met (Permanent Vegetation Plots)
Criteria Met (Mobile Vegetation Plots)
Cross Section
GF Photo Point
!A Criteria Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Criteria Not Met (Groundwater Gage)
!A Barotroll
!A Crest Gage
0 10050 Feet ¹
2019 Aerial Photography
Reach 1
Reach 2
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Assessment Date: 9/18/2023
Oak Hill Creek Reach 1
489
978
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 3 3 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
Oak Hill Creek Reach 2
470
940
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 3 3 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 5 5 100%
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Assessment Date: 9/18/2023
Oak Hill Creek Reach 3
877
1,754
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 6 6 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 4 4 100%
Oak Hill Creek Reach 4
389
778
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 3 3 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 2 2 100%
Structure
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Assessment Date: 9/18/2023
UT1 Reach 1
218
436
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 00 N/A
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 00 N/A
UT1 Reach 2
1,834
3,668
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 11 11 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 10 10 100%
Totals:
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Totals:
Bank
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Assessment Date: 9/18/2023
UT1A
470
940
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.0 100%
0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill. 18 18 100%
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%. 5 5 100%
Structure
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in
As‐Built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Bank
Totals:
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Assessment Date: 9/18/2023
Planted Acreage 19.9
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
criteria.0.10 0 0%
00%
Areas of Poor Growth
Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 0 0%
0.0 0%
Easement Acreage 20.4
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the
potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short‐term or
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
0.10 0 0%
Easement Encroachment
Areas
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of
any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common
encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.
none
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Total
Cumulative Total
0 Encroachments Noted
/ 0 ac
Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
PP1 – UT1A looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP1 – UT1A looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP2 – UT1A looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP2 – UT1 R1 looking upstream (04/24/2023)
PP2 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP3 – UT1 R1 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP3 – UT1 R1 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP4 – UT1B looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP4 – UT1B looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP5 – UT1B looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP5 – UT1B looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP6 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP6 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP7 – UT1B looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP7 – UT1B – UT1 R2 Confluence (04/24/2023)
PP8 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP8 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP9 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP9 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP10 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP10 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP11 –UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP11 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP12 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP12 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP13 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP13 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP14 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP14 – UT1 R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP15 – Oak Hill R1 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP15 – Oak Hill R1 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP16 – Oak Hill R1 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP16 – Oak Hill R1 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP17 – Oak Hill R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP17 – Oak Hill R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP18 – Oak Hill R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP18 – Oak Hill R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP19 – Oak Hill R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP19 – Oak Hill R2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP20 – UT1 R2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP20 – Oak Hill R3 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP20 –Oak Hill R2 upstream (04/24/2023)
PP21 – Oak Hill R3 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP21 – Oak Hill R3 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP22 – UT2 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP22 – UT2 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP23 – Oak Hill R3 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP23 – Oak Hill R3 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP24 – UT3 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP24 – UT3 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP25 – Oak Hill R4 looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP25 – Oak Hill R4 looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP25 –UT3 looking upsteam (04/24/2023)
PP26 – Right floodplain ditch looking upstream (04/24/2023) PP26 – Right floodplain ditch looking downstream (04/24/2023)
PP27 – Oak Hill R4 upstream (04/24/2023) PP27 – Oak Hill R4 downstream (04/24/2023)
PP27 – Left floodplain ditch looking upstream (02/24/2022)
PP1.1 – BMP 1 looking north (04/24/2023) PP1.1 – BMP 1 looking northwest (04/24/2023)
PP1.2 – BMP 1 looking west (04/24/2023) PP1.2 – BMP 1 looking east (04/24/2023)
PP2.1 – BMP 2 looking northwest (04/24/2023) PP2.1 – BMP 2 looking northeast after large rain event
(04/24/2023)
PP2.2 – BMP 2 looking northwest after large rain event
(04/24/2023)
PP2.2 – BMP 2 looking west after large rain event (04/24/2023)
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 1 (08/22/2023) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 2 (08/22/2023)
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 3 (08/22/2023) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 4 (08/22/2023)
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 5 (08/22/2023) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 6 (08/22/2023)
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 7 (08/22/2023) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 8 (08/22/2023)
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 9 (08/22/2023) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 10 (08/22/2023)
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 11 (08/22/2023) PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 12 (08/22/2023)
PERMANENT VEGETATION PLOT 13 (08/22/2023)
MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 1 (08/22/2023) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 2 (08/22/2023)
MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 3 (08/22/2023) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 4 (08/22/2023)
MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 5 (08/22/2023) MOBILE VEGETATION PLOT 6 (08/22/2023)
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Monitoring Year 1
Groundwater Gage 1 ‐ (09/18/2023) Groundwater Gage 2 ‐ (09/18/2023)
Groundwater Gage 3 ‐ (09/18/2023) Groundwater Gage 4 ‐ (09/18/2023)
Groundwater Gage 5 ‐ (09/18/2023) Groundwater Gage 6 ‐ (09/18/2023)
Groundwater Gage 7 ‐ (09/18/2023) Groundwater Gage 8 ‐ (09/18/2023)
Groundwater Gage 9 ‐ (09/18/2023) Groundwater Gage 10 ‐ (09/18/2023)
Groundwater Gage 11 ‐ (09/18/2023)
Areas of Concern Photographs
Oak Hill Creek R4 – Hydrilla STA 119+00 – 123+50 (8/2/2023) Oak Hill Creek R1 – Aggradation STA: 100+00 – 101+75
(9/18/2023)
Oak Hill Creek R1 – Downed Tree STA: 104+50 (9/18/2023)
Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6a. Vegetation Plot Data
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site DMS
Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
19.9
2022‐02‐21
2023‐02‐15
NA
2023‐08‐22
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 1 1
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL 11
Amelanchier arborea common serviceberry Tree FAC 2 2
Betula nigra river birchTreeFACW 2233112222
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU 1 1
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW 1 1 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL 33
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1
Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU
Diospyros virginiana common persimmonTreeFAC1133
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU 1 1
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 3 3 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamoreTreeFACW333333111144
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC 1 1
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 22
Quercus mi chauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW 1 1 2 2
Quercus nigra water oakTreeFAC 11 1155
Quercus phellos willow oakTreeFAC 11 11
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 2
Salix sericea silky willow Shrub OBL
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberryTree 11 1122
Ulmus americana American elmTreeFACW 22223311
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 2 2
Sum Performance Standard 8 8 14 14 17 21 10 10 12 12 17 17
8 1421101217
324 567 850 405 486 688
6712687
38 21 14 20 25 29
553433
000000
8 1421101217
324 567 850 405 486 688
6712687
38 21 14 20 25 29
553433
000000
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Veg Plot 5 FVeg Plot 6 FIndicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 FVeg Plot 2 FVeg Plot 3 FVeg Plot 4 F
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Na me Tree/S
hrub
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) ,
species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 6b. Vegetation Plot Data
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site DMS
Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
19.9
2022‐02‐21
2023‐02‐15
NA
2023‐08‐22
0.0247
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL
Amelanchier arborea common serviceberry Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW
Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Salix sericea silky willow Shrub OBL
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Indicator
Status
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
1122111111
11
112211331133
11 11
11 11 1111
11 11
11
11
1111 11
11
33552211 2211
11 22
11 11
11 11 11
11 22 22
22 1122
11
11
11 22
11
1111881212111188881212
11812118 812
445 283 486 445 324 324 486
831010568
27 62 17 18 38 25 25
3743232
0000000
11812118 812
445 283 486 445 324 324 486
831010568
27 62 17 18 38 25 25
3743232
0000000
Veg Plot 10 FVeg Plot 11 FVeg Plot 12 FVeg Plot 13 FVeg Plot 7 FVeg Plot 8 FVeg Plot 9 F
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in
prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 6c. Vegetation Plot Data
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site DMS
Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
19.9
2022‐02‐21
2023‐02‐15
NA
2023‐08‐22
0.0247
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL
Amelanchier arborea common serviceberry Tree FAC
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW
Calycanthus floridus eastern sweetshrub Shrub FACU
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub OBL
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW
Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree FACU
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree FACU
Lindera benzoin northern spicebush Tree FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree FAC
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree FACW
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Salix sericea silky willow Shrub OBL
Sambucus canadensis American black elderberry Tree
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Indicator
Status
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/S
hrub
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Veg Plot 1 RVeg Plot 2 RVeg Plot 3 RVeg Plot 4 RVeg Plot 5 RVeg Plot 6 R
Total Total Total Total Total Total
21311
1
111
121
1
2
1
1
252413
11
1
1
21
2
21
1
112
10128898
10128898
405 486 324 324 364 324
675485
20 42 38 50 22 38
434322
000000
10128898
405 486 324 324 364 324
675485
20 42 38 50 22 38
434322
000000
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are
being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species
that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan
approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
324 5 6 0 567 5 7 0 850 3 12 0
607 2 10 0 526 2 8 0 688 2 10 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
405 4 6 0 486 3 8 0 688 3 7 0
648 2 8 0 688 2 10 0 607 2 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
445 3 8 0 283 7 3 0 486 4 10 0
567 2 10 0 648 3 8 0 648 2 11 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
445 3 10 0 324 2 5 0 324 3 6 0
607 3 12 0 567 3 7 0 567 2 9 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
486 2 8 0 405 4 6 0 486 3 7 0
648 2 10 0 607 2 10 0 445 2 7 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
324 4 5 0 324 3 4 0 364 2 8 0
607 2 10 0 567 2 9 0 567 3 7 0
Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives
324 2 5 0
648 2 9 0
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 10 F
Veg Plot Group 3 R
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
Veg Plot Group 4 R Veg Plot Group 5 R
Veg Plot Group 6 R
Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F
Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot Group 1 R Veg Plot Group 2 R
Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
6.0 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
7.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.0 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐Section 1‐UT1A
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
View Downstream
809
811
813
815
0102030
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
303+62 Pool
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
4.6 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.6 max depth (ft)
4.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1 width‐depth ratio
10.2 W flood prone area (ft)
2.2 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Cross‐Section 2‐UT1A
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
View Downstream
809
811
813
815
0 10203040
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
303+78 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
24.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
20.7 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
21.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
17.2 width‐depth ratio
68.4 W flood prone area (ft)
3.3 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 3‐UT1 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
806
808
810
812
814
816
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
200+79 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
16.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
17.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
21.6 width‐depth ratio
99.9 W flood prone area (ft)
6.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 4‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
805
807
809
811
0 102030405060708090
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
204+51 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
19.4 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.5 max depth (ft)
21.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.2 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 5‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
803
805
807
809
811
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
204+95 Pool
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
40.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
24.2 width (ft)
1.7 mean depth (ft)
3.1 max depth (ft)
26.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 6‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
798
800
802
804
0 1020304050607080
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
212+84 Pool
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
14.5 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
15.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3 width‐depth ratio
89.6 W flood prone area (ft)
6.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross‐Section 7‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
800
802
804
806
0 1020304050607080
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
213+34 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
15.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
16.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.9 width‐depth ratio
72.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 8‐UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
795
797
799
0 102030405060
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
218+86 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
23.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
19.7 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.2 max depth (ft)
20.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.4 width‐depth ratio
72.4 W flood prone area (ft)
3.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 9‐Oak Hill Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
796
798
800
802
804
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
103+34 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
24.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
20.9 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
22.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.1 width‐depth ratio
83.7 W flood prone area (ft)
4.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 10‐Oak Hill Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
795
797
799
801
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
107+14 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
63.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
30.9 width (ft)
2.1 mean depth (ft)
4.4 max depth (ft)
33.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.9 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 11‐Oak Hill Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
793
795
797
799
0 102030405060708090
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
107+57 Pool
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
51.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
32.4 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
3.1 max depth (ft)
33.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
20.4 width‐depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 12‐Oak Hill Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
789
791
793
795
797
0 102030405060708090100110
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
113+43 Pool
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
32.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
21.7 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft)
22.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3 width‐depth ratio
100.8 W flood prone area (ft)
4.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 13‐Oak Hill Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
791
793
795
797
799
0 102030405060708090
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
113+90 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
36.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.)
28.9 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft)
29.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
22.8 width‐depth ratio
94.4 W flood prone area (ft)
3.3 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2023
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Cross‐Section Plots
Cross‐Section 14‐Oak Hill Reach 4
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
View Downstream
787
789
791
793
795
0 10203040506070
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Width (ft)
120+18 Riffle
MY0 (3/2022)MY1 (6/2023)Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MY0 Area)Floodprone Area
Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 8.0 12.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 0.6 0.8 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 1.4 2.2 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 37.0 85.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1.3 1.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
PRE‐EXISTING
CONDITIONS
Silt
F6b E4b
9.6
UT1A
4.3
DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
5.5
2.6
0.5
9.3
0.3
0.5
1.2
18.4
1.6
10.7
UT1 Reach 1
15.9
24.5
0.7
18.7
1.1
3.2 ˗˗˗
23.4
1.5
2.4
15.9
2.9
1.0
16.0
40.2
1.20
0.0064
F4 C4 C4
31 42 ˗˗˗
0.0077 0.0060
9.9
12.2
0.2
0.4
1.9
1.03 1.20
51.0
1.2
73
1.07 1.10
˗˗˗
0.0250
12.0
17.0
0.0274
15.0
1.0
0.0320
E4b
1.8
22.0
˗˗˗
1.10
2.2
54.8
1.2
17.5
Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 14.8 16.4 3
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 37.0 85.0 72.6 100.0 3
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 0.8 1.0 3
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.8 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 12.0 15.2 3
Width/Depth Ratio 1 14.3 21.0 3
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 4.7 6.1 3
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 40.2 56.9 3
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 44.0 100.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1.7 2.1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
1.0
0.0070 0.0040
0.0070
98
14.4
1.7
1.4
40.0
19.9
2.0
2.4
Oak Hill Reach 1
PRE‐EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
UT1 Reach 2
9.1 17.0
16.2
1.5 1.1
2.2
14.1 18.4
5.9 16.0
1.8
2.4
3.3 ˗˗˗
G4 C4 C4
52 51 ˗˗˗
1.15 1.20 1.20
72.4
1.2
2.2
0.0070
20.0 21.5
0.0070
14.0
1.4
27.5 28.4 25.3
18.2
1.20
22.6 ˗˗˗
B4c C4 C4
47.6
3.4
1.0
0.0046
90 ˗˗˗
1.30 1.20
Table 8c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 51 115 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 1.7 2.3 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 55 125 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 2.1 2.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
0.0052 0.0055
PRE‐EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
Oak Hill Reach 2
14.6 23.0
21.2
79
1.9 1.5
3
28.1 33.4
7.6 16.0
5.4
2.0 1.0
2.5 ˗˗˗58.6
0.0055
G4c C4 C4
94 88 ˗˗˗
2.2
29.1
1.65 1.20 1.20
0.00510.0057
Oak Hill Reach 3
19.3 25.0
22.3
49.8
1.5 1.8
102.5
1.4
43.9
12.9 14.0
149 ˗˗˗
2.6
2.6 1.0
C4 C4
2.6
C4
31.5
15.8
4.6
56.4
0.0060
8.0 ˗˗˗
1.15 1.20 1.20
95
83.8
1.2
2.1
25.5
17.7
4.0
Table 8d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 1 55 125 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1 2.1 2.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11
Width/Depth Ratio 1 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1 2.2 5.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0 1.1 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 1
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Other
1.16 1.20 1.20
0.00540.0050 0.0070
1.7 ˗˗˗
E5 C4 C4
122 156 ˗˗˗
67.2
11.2 14.0 18.8
4.6 3.6
2.3 1.0
35.1 43.9 36.1
94.3
1.8 1.8
1.4
PRE‐EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
(MY0)
Oak Hill Reach 4
19.8
2.3 2.7
25.0 26.0
90.7
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 810.59 810.49 810.05 810.22 807.79 807.84
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 809.87 810.07 810.08 809.96 808.20 808.29 806.22 806.15
LTOB2 Elevation 811.26 811.19 810.59 810.53 810.05 810.36 807.79 807.82
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.1 0.5 0.6 1.8 2.1 1.6 1.7
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.0 3.2 1.2 1.4 22.0 24.8 12.8 12.5
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 802.44 802.48 797.65 797.70
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 804.21 804.75 798.88 799.32 800.62 800.62 796.18 796.14
LTOB2 Elevation 807.22 807.23 802.40 802.45 802.44 802.45 797.65 797.71
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)3.0 2.5 3.5 3.1 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.6
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)26.1 20.6 43.0 40.7 15.2 14.8 12.0 12.0
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 799.74 799.80 798.06 798.12 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 797.55 797.53 795.97 795.77 793.40 793.56 789.76 790.97
LTOB2 Elevation 799.74 799.72 798.06 798.05 797.76 797.91 794.01 794.06
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 4.4 4.4 4.2 3.1
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)25.3 23.6 25.5 24.1 64.9 63.9 73.1 51.4
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 794.36 794.39 790.90 790.95
Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Thalweg Elevation 791.77 791.87 788.21 788.35
LTOB2 Elevation 794.36 794.44 790.90 790.97
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)31.5 32.7 36.1 36.6
UT1 Reach 1UT1 Reach 2
Cross‐Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 9 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 10 (Riffle)
Oak Hill Reach 2
Table 9. Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Cross‐Section 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross‐Section 7 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 6 (Pool)Cross‐Section 5 (Pool)
UT1A
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
UT1 Reach 2
1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
2LTOB Area and Max depth ‐ These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB
elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
Cross‐Section 11 (Pool)
Oak Hill Reach 3
Cross‐Section 12 (Pool)
Oak Hill Reach 3Oak Hill Reach 4
Cross‐Section 13 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 14 (Riffle)
Oak Hill Reach 1
Appendix D
Hydrology Data
Reach MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029)
UT1A 4/28
UT1 Reach 2 N/A
Oak Hil Creek
Reach 4 4/28
MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029)
Annual
Preciptation Total
(in)
38.95
WETS 30th
Percentile (in)39.13
WETS 70th
Percentile (in)49.00
Normal Below Normal
*30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS Station GASTONIA, NC for 20 years prior to previous year. 35.2671, ‐81.1436
** Rainfall data for Jan. 1 ‐ Dec. 31. CHERRYVILLE 2.2 SSE 35.3535, ‐81.3584 (3.5 miles from Site).
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
* Data collected from Jan. 1 ‐ Dec. 31
Table 10. Bankfull Events
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wyant Lands Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100067
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Table 12. Wetland Gage Summary
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
2022 MY1 (2023) MY2 (2024) MY3 (2025) MY4 (2026) MY5 (2027) MY6 (2028) MY7 (2029)
1 50% 66%
2 3% 13%
3 1% 2%
4 0% 0%
5 2% 3%
6 1% 2%
7 12% 13%
8 16% 13%
9 2% 5%
10 3% 5%
11 11% 21%
Gage
DMS Project No. 100120
WETS Station: GASTONIA, NC
Growing Season: 3/20/2023 to 11/14/2023 (239 Days)
Performance Standard: 12.0% or 29 consecutive days.
Max. Consecutive Hydroperiod (Percentage)
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
159 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #1 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
30 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #2 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
5 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
1 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
6 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #5 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
4 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #6 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #6
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
30 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #7 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
32 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #8 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
12 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #9 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #9
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
11 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #10 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #10
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wetland Rehabilitation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
3
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
3
51 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Gage #11 Criteria Level Soil Surface Manual Measurement 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #11
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
120 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #1 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
7 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #2 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
2 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #3 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #3
Probe Removed
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #4 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
4 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #5 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
3 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #6 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #6
Probe Removed
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
29 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #7 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
38 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #8 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Re‐establishment
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
4 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #9 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #9
Probe Removed
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland Creation
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
6 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #10 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #10
Probe Removed
Groundwater Gage Plots
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐ 2022
Wetland GWG11
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
St
a
r
t
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
3/
2
0
/
2
0
2
2
En
d
of
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
Se
a
s
o
n
11
/
1
4
/
2
0
2
2
27 max consecutive days
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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
‐70
‐60
‐50
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
Le
v
e
l
(i
n
)
Pre‐Regrading Monitoring ‐2022
Daily Precipitation Gage #11 Criteria Level Soil Surface 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy Groundwater Gage #11
Probe Removed
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
809
810
811
812
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy: CG1 (UT1A)
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
800
801
802
803
804
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy: CG2 (UT1 Reach 2)
Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
788
789
790
791
792
793
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(i
n
)
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(f
t
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
Oak Hill Dairy: CG3 (Oak Hill Creek, Reach 4)
Soil Temperature Probe Plot
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100120
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(F
)
Monitoring Year 1 ‐2023
Soil Probe #1 Temperature Criteria Level
Oak Hill Dairy Soil Temperature Probe #1
Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Information
DMS Project No. 100120
DMS Project No. 100120
As‐Built Survey Completed ‐ Regrading October 2022 November 2022
Monitoring, POC Mimi Caddell
828.774.5547 x107
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Construction Contractor
Wildlands Construction, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 140
Charlotte, NC 28203
Table 14. Project Contact Table
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167‐B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
828.774.5547
Designer
Jake McLean, PE, CFM
2027
Year 6 Monitoring December 2028
Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2029 December 2029Vegetation Survey 2029
Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey 2025 December 2025Vegetation Survey 2025
2024 December 2024Vegetation Survey 2024
Invasive Treatment September 2023
December 2023
Stream Survey February ‐ March 2022
Vegetation Survey February 2022Baseline Monitoring Document
(Year 0) Regrading Vegetation
Survey February 2023
January ‐ March 2022 April 2022
Construction (Grading) Completed September 2021‐January 2022 January 2022
Planting Completed February 2022 February 2022
Wetland Regrading Completed October 2022 October 2022
Regrading Planting Completed February 2023 February 2023
Fremont, NC 27830
Planting Contractor
Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 ‐ 2023
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Task Completion or
Deliverable Submission
Project Instituted N/A April 2019
Mitigation Plan Approved July 2019 ‐ March 2021 March 2021
April 2023
As‐Built Survey Completed
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 1197
Stream Survey June 2023
Vegetation Survey August 2023
Year 4 Monitoring December 2026
Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2027 December 2027Vegetation Survey
Year 1 Monitoring
Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey
Appendix F
Correspondence
1
June 8, 2023
Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
Subject: Boundary Inspection Report – MY0 Site
Oak Hill Dairy Project, Gaston, NC; DMS ID No. 100120
Matthew,
The MY0 boundary inspection was conducted by DMS on June 1, 2023. The inspection was conducted in
accordance with the DMS Property Checklist which included an office review and a site visit to document site
conditions. The entire easement boundary was inspected during the site visit to validate easement integrity and
identify any potential issues on the site. This report summarizes those inspection results. Site photos and locations
are shown on the attached kmz map.
Office Review:
The office review did indicate a few small areas of concern. There is a small structure listed as a barn on the plat
that is not part of the project but is located very close to the CE line.
Multiple other farm structures are located close to the easement boundary.
Multiple ROW’s are located on the plat.
Field Inspection:
The easement corners were adequately monumented with aluminum caps but a few of my checks revealed
missing stamps.
Corner and in-line markings were generally adequate with the few exceptions noted on the action items and
documented in the attached kmz file.
The small internal trail indicated on the plat is no longer used and is excluded from the project.
Action Items
1. Check stamps on all corners and add stamps where missing.
2. Remove debris from KMZ points #P9.
3. Remove old fence at KMZ #P5,#P6
4. The PVC pipes added during construction that drain the road have been added to property geodatabase
queue for the infrastructure feature class.
Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Horton
Project Specialist
NCDEQ-DMS
Cell: (919) 218-3480
2
cc: R:\EEP PROJECT LIBRARY FILES\PROJECT DELIVERABLES(REPORTS)\FD PROJECTS\Liberty Rock
787701 (#100135)\4_T2_Cons_Ease\DMS Easement Inspections\MY0
November 17, 2023
ATTN: Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778‐8211
RE: Boundary Inspection – MY0 Site
Oak Hill Dairy Project
Gaston, NC
DMS Project ID No. 100120
Dear Matthew Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Oak Hill Dairy ‐ MY0 boundary
inspection report by the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The following Wildlands
responses to DMS’s comments are noted below.
Office Review:
The office review did indicate a few small areas of concern. There is a small structure
listed as a barn on the plat that is not part of the project but is located very close to the
CE line.
Wildlands Response: The referenced barn was removed during construction.
Multiple other farm structures are located close to the easement boundary.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will continue to monitor the easement boundary for
encroachments. Any issues will be addressed with the landowner and reported in annual
monitoring reports.
Multiple ROW’s are located on the plat.
Wildlands Response: Noted.
Field Inspection:
The easement corners were adequately monumented with aluminum caps but a few of
my checks revealed missing stamps.
Corner and in‐line markings were generally adequate with the few exceptions noted on
the action items and documented in the attached kmz file.
The small internal trail indicated on the plat is no longer used and is excluded from the
project.
Action Items:
1. Check stamps on all corners and add stamps where missing.
Wildlands Response: All corners were checked by Kee Mapping and Surveying. Easement
markers with missing stamps were stamped and ones that were stamped with incorrect
marker number were corrected.
2. Remove debris from KMZ points #P9.
Wildlands Response: Metal debris was removed from the easement at this location by the
landowner.
3. Remove old fence at KMZ #P5, #P6.
Wildlands Response: Old fencing was removed from the easement at these locations.
4. The PVC pipes added during construction that drain the road have been added to property
geodatabase queue for the infrastructure feature class.
Wildlands Response: Noted
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jake McLean
Senior Water Resource Engineer, Project Manager
jmclean@wildlandseng.com
August 17, 2023
ATTN: Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Notice of Initial Credit Release
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin – CU#03050102 – Gaston County
DMS Project ID No. 100120
Contract No. 7867
SAW‐2019‐00833
Dear Steve Kichefski:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) comments from the As‐Built/MY0 review for the Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site. The
following Wildlands responses to NCIRT’s comments are noted below.
Casey Haywood/Steve Kichefski, USACE:
1. It is understood that the BMP’s were designed to address stressors and potential impacts to
the mitigation site from the adjacent land use. To confirm, are either of the BMP’s located
within the 50 ft buffer or was additional land acquired for both BMPs? Were the BMPs built
to plan and were they part of the regrading in 2022? Please confirm the depth of each.
Wildlands Response: BMP #1 along UT1 is located mostly within the 50 ft buffer,
although some additional land acquisition was required to implement the BMP and tie
into field grades. BMP #2 along Oak Hill Creek is located mostly outside of the 50 ft
buffer and approximately 1 acre of land was acquired to implement the BMP.
Neither BMP was regraded as part of floodplain grading efforts in 2022. Both BMPs
were built approximately to plan as shown on the as‐built drawing, with minor changes
expanded upon here:
BMP#1 was adjusted from 4 smaller cells down to 2 larger cells and truncated slightly.
The larger cells help maintain comparable volume storage to the original design. The
reason for the truncation was that it was deemed advantageous (and feasible) to use
the truncated area to distribute and spread flows across the floodplain, serving as a
filter strip and de facto extension of the BMP between stations 205+50 – 208+50. A
critical component of feasibility was that the designer and contractor agreed that the
valley wall could be moved slightly near 206+75 in order to allow flows to remain on the
floodplain instead of forcing them back into the channel in the outer meander near
206+75. This was deemed a net benefit to treatment and therefore implemented as
described.
BMP#2 was modified slightly near the uphill entrance due to hillslope grading
considerations. It was constructed an average of 6” deeper than proposed, in part to
offset the minor loss in volume storage due to the grading modification at the entrance.
BMP#1 has an average depth of 12”. BMP #2 has an average depth of 15‐18” (with
maximium depths of approximately 24”).
2. There were several areas of wetland that were not planted with bareroots due to
inundation. Were any of these areas part of the regrading that was completed in October
2022? What is the estimated size of each area? Do you believe they will remain inundated
through the life of the project and/or are there any concerns that the area of inundation
may increase? Please continue monitoring these areas to determine if supplemental
planting or remedial action will be needed since credits are tied to vegetative performance
standards. With no bare root plantings, will the area meet vigor and diversity standards, and
is the strata appropriate for the identified wetland community?
Wildlands Response: The inundated areas were not regraded. The areas were originally
planted with live stakes instead of bare roots, which are doing well. There are five
inundated areas that were only planted with live stakes and they range from 365 sq. ft.
to 0.20 acres, with most being “pocket” size. Areas of greater ponding depth are not
expected to affect the project meeting vegetation success criteria and we do not believe
these areas will increase in size, but potentially decrease if anything as the influence of
site vegetation increases. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas and will
supplement trees, as necessary. The inundated areas are becoming increasingly
vegetated with both herbaceous and woody plants‐ vegetation primarily consists of
black willow, silky willow, elderberry, dogwood, jewelweed, rushes, and sedges, which
are appropriate species for the wetland community.
3. Appendix F shows a map of potential wetland areas to be regraded to design grade from the
August 8, 2022 IRT memo, but it is unclear if all these areas were regraded. Provide a figure
that shows which areas were regraded including the BMPs and whether any remaining
areas do not match the approved design. If areas currently are not meeting design grade or
were graded deeper than the approved, please provide a figure that shows grading depths
using pre‐and‐post construction survey data.
Wildlands Response: The areas that were proposed for regrading were approximately
the same as those ultimately regraded during the fall 2022 regrading efforts. A figure of
regraded areas is being provided that shows the minor field changes. BMPs were not
regraded. The figure title is: “Regraded Areas – Prop. Vs. Actual”. (Continued)
An additional figure of areas that were left higher or lower than the proposed design is
being provided as well. Information is provided on this figure discussing each area that
was left high or low. Only three areas were graded (or left) deeper than proposed and
the figure indicates the depth of these areas. The figure title is: “Areas Higher and Lower
than Design Grade”.
4. Appreciate the fencing realignment to the top of slope on UT1 and Oak Hill Creek. In
addition, thank you for providing the groundwater gauge soil boring data.
Wildlands Response: Noted.
5. Since gages were installed prior to growing season 2022, please include 2022 data in the
MY1 for gages that were not relocated due to regrading. This is just supplemental
information to show wetland trends for the site considering the amount and various types of
wetland credit.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands will include both 2022 and 2023 groundwater gage data
in the MY1 report.
A copy of these NCIRT comments and our response letter will be included in the MY1 report.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jake McLean
Senior Water Resource Engineer, Project Manager
jmclean@wildlandseng.com
January 5, 2024
ATTN: Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Service
RE: Oak Hill Dairy Draft MY1 Report Review
Catawba River Basin – CU# 03050102 – Gaston County
DMS Project ID No. 100120
Contract # 7867
Dear Matthew Reid,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the NC Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) Report for the Oak Hill Dairy
Mitigation Site. The DMS’s comments and Wildlands’ responses are noted below.
Report indicates that Hydrilla was discovered in approximately 450 linear feet of Oak Hill
Creek Reach 4 and was mechanically treated. Was heavy equipment used to remove the
invasive species or was this completed using handwork? Please provide an update of
treatment success in the MY2 report.
Wildlands Response: Hand tools were used to remove Hydrilla. Wildlands will continue
to monitor and treat the Hydrilla. Updates will be included in the MY2 (2024) report.
Did the large tree that was removed from Oak Hill Creek Reach 1 result in any bank damage
and does WEI think this blockage may be responsible for the aggradation upstream?
Wildlands Response: No bank damage has been observed due to fallen tree. The
blockage is unlikely to have caused or contributed to the aggradation upstream. Off‐site
erosion is likely causing the increased sediment load within the project area. Wildlands
expects aggradation to be flushed through the system during larger rainfall events.
Only 5 of 11 gauges met success criteria. Recognizing that this is only MY1 and below
average rainfall was received, does WEI have concerns with the wetland hydrology success
on the site? Are there plans to install additional gauges at this time?
Wildlands Response: Due to the below average rainfall during the MY1 growing season,
Wildlands is not currently concerned about the wetland hydrology success on site and
does not have plans to install additional groundwater gages at this time. Wildlands will
continue to closely monitor groundwater levels and if any gage’s performance trajectory
indicates continued failure, Wildlands will consider installing additional gages.
Has WEI considered installing a rain gauge onsite since the closest gauge is 15 miles away?
Wildlands Response: The daily and monthly rainfall data is collected from the
CHERRYVILLE 2.2 SSE station which is located 3.5 miles from the Site and is an accurate
representation of the rainfall for the Site. This station does not include 20 years of data;
therefore, the WETS data is collected from the GASTONIA, NC station which is located
15 miles from the Site.
Thank you for providing the 2022 gauge data that was requested by the IRT during the MY0
review as well as addressing the Boundary Inspection action items.
Wildlands Response: Noted.
Digital Deliverable Comments:
No comments.
Wildlands Response: Noted.
As requested, two copies of the report along with Wildland’s response letter will be included
inside the front cover of the FINAL MY1 (2023) revised report as well as in the digital support
files. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mimi Caddell
Environmental Scientist
mcaddell@wildlandseng.com