20140333 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

BASELINE MONITORING
DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT
BASELINE REPORT
Final
HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
DEQ Contract 005795
DMS Project Number 96316
Data Collection Period: January 2016 — April 2016
Draft Submission Date: May 20, 2016
Final Submission Date: November 2, 2016
aCaUFTIMIT613
INC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
Wk*
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed a full delivery project at the Holman Mill Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 8,717 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in
Alamance County, NC. It is anticipated that the Site will generate 3,884 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs)
through the restoration and enhancement of UT to Pine Hill Branch and five unnamed tributaries (UT1,
UT1A, UT2, UT2A, UT213). The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
0303002 (Cape Fear 02) near Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1). The Site is also within the Cane Creek Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) (HUC 03030002050050), which flows into Cane Creek and eventually into the
Haw River. A conservation easement was recorded on 32.4 acres within 2 parcels.
The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed, which has been designated as a
Nutrient Sensitive Water. The TLW was identified in the DMS's Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (RBRP) report. This RBRP plan identifies agricultural operations and degraded water
quality based on "fair" and "good -fair" benthic ratings as the impairments in the Cane Creek watershed.
The RBRP report also identifies the successful completion of a number of stream and wetland projects
within the Cane Creek watershed. The Site fully supports the Cataloging Unit (CU) -wide functional
objectives stated in the 2011 Request for Proposals (RFP) to reduce and control nutrient inputs, reduce
and control sediment inputs, and protect and augment Significant Natural Heritage Areas in the Cape
Fear 02 River Basin.
The mitigation project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River
Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Holman Mill Mitigation Site project area, others,
such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects.
Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals
and objectives. These project goals were established and completed with careful consideration of the
goals and objectives described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS's mitigation needs, while maximizing
the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed. The following project specific goals
established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) are to:
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs by removing cattle from streams and
establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor to intercept and process sediment and
nutrients before they reach the channel during storm events;
• Reduce sediment loads by stabilizing eroding stream banks;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Install instream structures to improve bed and bank stability, create fish and macroinvertibrate
habitat, and help oxygenate streamflows; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between January 2016 and April 2016.
Minimal adjustments were made during construction, as needed, based on site conditions and
availability of materials. One small section of the design alignment was adjusted to avoid impacts of
mature trees. Specific changes are detailed in Section 5.1. Baseline (MYO) profiles and cross section
dimensions closely match the design parameters. Cross section widths and pool depths occasionally
deviate from the design parameters but fall within a normal range of variability for natural streams. The
Site was built as designed and is on track to meeting the upcoming monitoring year's success criteria.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................1-1
1.1 Project Location and Setting......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach...................................................................1-2
1.3.1 Project Structure................................................................................................................1-3
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach........................................................................................1-3
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data............................................................................1-4
Section 2: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA..............................................................................................2-1
2.1 Streams......................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Photo Documentation........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................2-2
2.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Schedule and Reporting.............................................................................................................2-2
Section 3: MONITORING PLAN......................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4 Photo Reference Points.....................................................................................................3-2
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................3-2
3.1.6 Visual Assessment..............................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................3-2
Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN.....................................................................4-1
4.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Site Boundary.............................................................................................................................4-1
Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)..................................................................................5-1
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings..........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 UT1.....................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 UT1A...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 UT2 Reach 2.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.4 UT2 Reach 3.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.5 UT2 Reach 4.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.6 UT2A...................................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment.........................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel..................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................5-3
5.2.3 Hydrology...........................................................................................................................5-3
Section6: REFERENCES.................................................................................................................6-1
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/ Asset Map
Figure 3.0-3.2
Monitoring Plan View Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6a -c Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters- Cross Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 Record Drawings
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL v

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Holman Mill Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the southern portion of Alamance County, southeast
of Snow Camp (Figure 1). The Site is approximately 20 miles southeast of the City of Burlington. From
Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham. Take exit 273A for NC -54 West toward Chapel Hill. Travel
approximately three miles and turn right to follow NC -S4 West. Travel approximately 3.9 miles, take the
Jones Ferry Road exit towards Carrboro. At the end of the ramp, turn left onto Jones Ferry Road and
continue 0.9 miles. Turn right onto Old Greensboro Road. Travel 17.9 miles and turn left onto Holman
Mill Road. Travel approximately 3.3 miles; the entrance to the Site is located on the left before reaching
Clark Road. The Site is located on two parcels owned by two different property owners. See Holman Mill
Mitigation Plan Table 1 (Wildlands, 2015) for property owners, and Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN).
A conservation easement was recorded on 32.4 acres within two parcels (Deed Book 3472, Pages 951-
968).
The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed, which has been designated as a
Nutrient Sensitive Water. The Site's watershed is within the Cane Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
HUC 03030002050050 and was identified in the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 (RBRP) report. This RBRP plan identifies agricultural
operations and degraded water quality based on "fair" and "good -fair" benthic ratings as the
impairments in the Cane Creek watershed. The RBRP report also identifies the successful completion of
a number of stream and wetland projects within the Cane Creek watershed.
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations
ranging anywhere from 300 to 1,500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and
deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks. The area is called "Slate Belt" because of the slatey cleavage
of many of the surficial rocks. The region's geology also includes coarse-grained intrusive granites.
Specifically, the proposed restoration site is located in the CZfv subregion within the Carolina Slate Belt.
The CZfv subregion is classified as felsic metavolcanic rock. These rock types are described as
metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs interbedded with mafic and intermediate
metavolcanic rock, meta-argillite, and metamudstone.
The six streams on the Site are located within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR)
subbasin 03-06-04 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The NCDWR assigns best usage classifications to State
Waters that reflect water quality conditions and potential resource usage. None of the six tributaries are
classified by NCDWR and therefore are required to meet standards for Class C waters. Class C waters are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life. The downstream receiving water, UT to
Pine Hill Branch (NCDWR Index No. 16-28-5-1), is classified as Water Supply V — Upstream (WS -V) and
Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) by NCDWR. Class WS -V waters are protected as water supplies and
typically flow into other water bodies that are directly used as sources for drinking, culinary or food
processing purposes. NSW classification represents water bodies that require nutrient management
plans to reduce water quality impacts due to excessive nitrogen and phosphorus levels and algal
populations.
Prior to construction activities, the stream channels had been degraded by livestock access and
agricultural practices. Impacts to the stream included direct access by livestock, trampling of the riparian
vegetation and stream banks, channelization, eroding banks, and a lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation.
The adjacent floodplain area had been cleared for pasture and was grazed by livestock. The riparian
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-1

vegetation was either absent, limited to the streambanks, or periodically disturbed. Table 4 in Appendix
1 and Tables 5a -b in Appendix 2 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The mitigation project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River
Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Holman Mill Mitigation Site project area, others,
such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects.
Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals
and objectives. These project goals were established and completed with careful consideration of the
goals and objectives described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS's mitigation needs while maximizing
the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed. The following project specific goals
established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) are to:
The primary project goals will be:
• Reduce fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorous inputs by removing cattle from streams and
establishing and augmenting a forested riparian corridor to intercept and process sediment and
nutrients before they reach the channel during storm events;
• Reduce sediment loads by stabilizing eroding stream banks;
• Return a network of streams to a stable form that is capable of supporting biological functions;
• Install instream structures to improve bed and bank stability, create fish and macroinvertibrate
habitat, and help oxygenate streamflows; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
Secondary project objectives are expected to include:
• Improving instream nutrient cycling by incorporating woody debris into constructed riffles and
bank stabilization measures;
• Reducing thermal loadings through establishment of riparian shading;
• Reconnecting channels with floodplains to raise the local water table; and
• Create and implement a stream and riparian area restoration design that is both natural and
aesthetically pleasing.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The site design was developed to restore a small stream complex to a naturally occurring community, to
create riparian habitat, and to improve water quality. Key factors addressed in the design were the
establishment of stable habitats, improvement of riparian buffers, and the restoration of natural
migration patterns for fish spawning. Figure 2 and Table 1 in Appendix 1 present the stream mitigation
components for the Holman Mill Mitigation Site.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in May 2015. Construction activities were
completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc in March 2016 and the planting was completed by Bruton
Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2016. The baseline as -built survey was completed by Kee Mapping and
Surveying, in April 2016. There were minor deviations reported in the as -built project elements
compared to the design plans. A few structures were either added, eliminated, or adjusted slightly
based on field conditions. In one location the stream alignment was adjusted to avoid impacts with
mature trees. Field adjustments made during construction are described in detail in section 5.1.
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information for this project.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-2

1.3.1 Project Structure
The project will provide 3,884 stream mitigation units (SMUs). Refer to Figure 2: Project
Component/Asset Map for depiction of the stream restoration features and Table 1 for the project
component and mitigation credit information for the Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The design streams were restored with the appropriate level of intervention based on the surrounding
landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration of existing
watershed conditions and trajectory. The Site consists of stream restoration and enhancement (Figure
2) activities. The specific proposed restoration activities are described below.
The stream restoration portion of this project includes five reaches:
• UT1 Reach 1: UT1 beginning at Holman Mill Road and running directly downstream of UT1A,
approximately 208 feet in length;
• UT1 Reach 3: UTI following 423 feet of enhancement 2 on UTI Reach 2, approximately 309
feet in length;
• UT2A: UT2A from Northern property boundary to confluence with UT2, approximately 540
feet in length;
• UT2 Reach 3: UT2 following section of enhancement 1 and running to the confluence with
UT2A, approximately 482 feet; and
• UT2 Reach 4: UT2 directly downstream of confluence of UT2 and UT2A to its terminus with
UT to Pine Hill Branch, approximately 167 feet.
The project also includes stream enhancement on six reaches classified as enhancement II (Ell) and
one reach classified as enhancement I (EI):
• UT1 Reach 2: UTI between restoration reaches 1 and 3, approximately 423 feet;
• UT1 Reach 4: UT1 following restoration reach 3 to UT1 terminus with UT to Pine Hill Branch,
approximately 1,658 feet in length;
• UT1A: short spring fed channel starting near Holman Mill Road, approximately 94 feet in
length;
• UT2 Reach 2: approximately 293 feet of enhancement I starting at bedrock knick point;
• UT2 Reach 1: UT2 at northern property line transitioning to reach 2 at bedrock knick point,
approximately 588 feet; and
• UT213: approximately 429 feet flowing southwest to northeast to its terminus with UT2.
• UT to Pine Hill Branch: 3,526 feet in length near eastern property boundary;
The restoration reaches were designed to be similar to C/E type streams according to the Rosgen
classification system (Rosgen, 1996). The specific values for the design parameters were selected based
on designer experience and judgment and were supported by morphologic data from reference reach
data sets. The design width to depth ratios range from 13 to 14. A width to depth ratio in the 10 to 14
range is the delineating line between the C and E stream type. The morphologic design parameters are
shown in Appendix 2, Tables 6a, 6b, and 6c for the restoration reaches, and fall within the ranges
specified for C/E streams (Rosgen, 1996).
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-3

1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a full delivery contract with DMS. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History, Project
Contacts, and Project Baseline Information and Attributes, respectively.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-4

Section 2: PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The stream and wetland performance criteria for the project site follow approved performance criteria
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.2, 06/08/2012), the DMS Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (11/7/2011), and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and NCDWR. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of
the finished project. The stream restoration and enhancement sections of the project will be assigned
specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation.
Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period.
If all performance criteria have been successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during
separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after year
five. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
2.1 Streams
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration and enhancement I reaches should be stable and should show
little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per DMS guidance, bank
height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to
be considered stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess
whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a trend in
vertical incision or eroding channel banks over the seven year monitoring period. Changes in the channel
that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth
ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if
channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation
(11/7/2011) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. A longitudinal profile was conducted as part of
the as -built survey to provide a baseline for comparison should it become necessary to perform
longitudinal profile surveys later during monitoring and to insure accordance with design plans.
2.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed annually in restoration and enhancement level I reaches
for classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle cross section to
characterize the pavement. Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement level I reaches
should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and
smaller particles in the pool features.
2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-1

photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration reaches within the seven year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will
continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have been
documented.
2.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative
success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third
monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. Planted
vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If
this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less
than 260 five-year-old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated with written
approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT). The extent of
invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period (year five or seven).
2.3 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. Based
on the DMS Monitoring Report Template (version 1.5, 06/08/2012), the monitoring reports will include
the following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background;
• Monitoring current condition maps with major project elements noted such items as grade
control structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross sections, crest gages, and pressure
transducers;
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Assessment of the stability of the Site based on the cross sections;
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species;
• Stream flow gage attainment;
• A description of damage by animals or vandalism;
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented;
and
• Wildlife observations.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-2

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, vegetative, and hydrological data to assess the
project performance based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis or until
performance criteria is met. The performance of the project will be assessed using measurements of the
stream channel's dimension, pattern, substrate composition, permanent photographs, vegetation, and
surface water hydrology. Any areas with identified high priority problems, such as streambank
instability, aggradation/degradation, or lack of vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met. Figures 3.0 — 3.2 depict locations of all monitoring activities
described below.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments will follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification document (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 1 for
the monitoring locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
A total of eight cross sections were installed along the stream restoration reaches. Two cross sections
were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle and pool sections in
proportion to DMS guidance. Each cross section was permanently marked with pins to establish its
location. Cross section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg to monitor any trends in bank erosion. If moderate bank erosion is
observed at a stream reach during the monitoring period, a series of bank pins will be installed in
representative areas where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater than three
feet. Bank pins will be installed in at least three locations (one in upper third of the pool, one at the mid-
point of the pool, and one in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will be monitored by measuring
exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion progression. Annual cross
section and bank pin surveys (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one (MY1), two (MY2),
three (MY3), five (MY5), and seven (MY7). Photographs will be taken annually of the cross sections
looking upstream and downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring show a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation
(11/7/2011) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Stream pattern and profile will be assessed visually as described below in section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration and enhancement I reach each year for
classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle cross section to
characterize the pavement during the years of the cross section survey.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-1

3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 45 permanent photograph reference points were established within the project area after
construction. Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years
following construction. Permanent markers were established so that the same locations and view
directions on the site are monitored each year. Photographs will be used to monitor stream restoration
and enhancement reaches. The photographer will make every effort to maintain the same view in each
photo over time. The representative digital photo(s) will be taken on the same day(s) the surveys are
conducted.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Three manual crest gages and three pressure transducer automated crest gages were installed on the
Site (Figure 3, Appendix 1). The crest gages were installed at three surveyed riffle cross sections along
UT1, UT2 and UT2a (XS 4, 5 and 7), and will be checked during each site visit to determine if a bankfull
event has occurred since the last visit. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris
lines and sediment deposition as evidence of bankfull events. Additionally, the pressure transducer data
will be plotted and included in the annual monitoring reports.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along all stream and wetland areas on a semi-annual basis during
the seven year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral
and/or vertical instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated
health (i.e. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or
livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) map,
photographed, and accompanied by a written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-
evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required,
recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
3.2 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey -DMS Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006) to monitor and
assess the planted woody vegetation. A total of 17 standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation plots were
established within the project easement area.
Vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted corridor of the restoration areas to
capture the heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The vegetation plot corners have
been marked and are recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit.
Reference photographs were taken at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite
corner during the baseline monitoring in March 2016. Subsequent annual assessments following
baseline survey will capture the same reference photograph locations. Species composition, density and
survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will
be provided and will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems
will be marked annually, as needed, based off of a known origin so they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the baseline year's living
planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-2

Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed on the mitigation project. A physical inspection of the
Site shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring
period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the
first two years following site construction and may include one or more of the following components.
4.1 Stream
Stream problem areas will be mapped and included in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) as part of
the annual stream assessment. Stream problems areas may include bank erosion, structure failure,
beaver dams, aggradation/degradation, etc. Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may
include chinking of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water runoff flows into the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and
head -cutting.
4.2 Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. Vegetative
problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual vegetation assessment.
Vegetation problems areas may include planted vegetation not meeting performance criteria, persistent
invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous cover, or grass suffocation/crowding of
planted stems. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
4.3 Site Boundary
Site boundary issues will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual visual assessment.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other
means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,
damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 4-1

Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed in March 2016. The survey included
developing an as -built topographic surface, locating the channel boundaries, structures, and cross
sections. For comparison purposes, the baseline monitoring divided the reach assessments in the same
way they were established for design parameters: UTI, UT2 Reach 2, UT2 Reach 3, UT2 Reach 4, and
UT2a.
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings
A half size set of record drawings are located in Appendix 4 with the post -construction survey,
alignments, and any significant field adjustments made during construction for the project. Minimal
adjustments were made during construction, where needed, based on field evaluation.
5.1.1 UT1
• Station 100+00 rock added to roadside ditch to provide flow dissipation and structural support;
• Station 100+75 brush toe was not installed in order to avoid impacts to existing mature trees;
• Station 101+35 rock outlet was relocated due to changes in drainage patterns between project
design and construction;
• Stations 105+10, 106+30, and 106+60, constructed riffles were installed where channel
stabilization was needed.
• Station 107+50 angled log drops were installed rather than log j -hooks to avoid impacts to existing
mature trees.;
• Station 111+90 constructed riffle was shifted upstream where channel stabilization was needed;
• Station 114+45 brush toe was not installed in order to minimize impacts to steep hillslope;
• Station 116+45 sod mats were extended further downstream to stabilize the bank; and
• Station 117+90 constructed riffle was installed for grade stabilization.
5.1.2 UT1A
• UT1A was stabilized during construction due to degradation that occurred between project design
and construction.
5.1.3 UT2 Reach 2
• Station 206+125 constructed riffle was not installed in order to allow plunge pool downstream of
bedrock to remain; and
• Station 207+50 angled log drop was not installed to avoid impacts to existing mature trees.
5.1.4 UT2 Reach 3
• No field adjustments were made during construction.
5.1.5 UT2 Reach 4
• Station 213+90 to Station 215+30 alignment changed to avoid impacts to existing mature trees
and to avoid impacting eroded banks that had formed on UT to Pine Hill Branch.
5.1.6 UT2A
• Station 301+15 brush toe was not installed in order to avoid impacts to existing mature trees.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-1

5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between March 2016 and April 2016. The first annual
monitoring assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2016. The streams will be monitored for a
total of seven years, with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2022. The close-out for the
Holman Mill Mitigation Site will be conducted in 2023 given the performance criteria has been met. As
part of the closeout process, DMS will evaluate the Site at the end of the fourth year monitoring period
to determine whether or not the Site is eligible to closeout following monitoring year five. If the Site is
meeting performance criteria, DMS will propose to the IRT to proceed with the closeout process. If the
Site is not meeting performance criteria, then an additional two years of monitoring will be conducted
by Wildlands.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Refer to Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile
The MYO profiles closely match the profile design parameters with the exception of the pool depths and
riffle slopes. On the design profiles, riffles were depicted as straight lines with consistent slopes.
However, at some locations the as -built survey riffle profiles are not consistent in slope due to natural
deposition and scour within some riffle reaches. The surveyed riffle slopes exceed design parameters on
UT2 Reach 4 due to the straightening of the channel from stations 213+90 through 215+30 to avoid
existing mature trees. Additionally, constructed pool depths exceed design parameters and are expected
to trend towards design depths as a result of natural deposition over time. These variations in riffle
slope and pool depths do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions and will be
assessed visually during the CCPV site walks. The plotted longitudinal profiles and related summary data
can be found in Appendix 2.
Dimension
The MYO dimension numbers fall within standard ranges as compared to the design parameters.
Variations are primarily associated with a wider constructed bankfull width as reflected in the cross
sections. It is expected that over time as vegetation is established, the channels may narrow more
toward dimensions characteristic of an E channel. This narrowing over time would not be seen as an
indicator of instability in and of itself. Summary data and cross section plots of each project reach can be
found in Appendix 2.
Pattern
The MYO pattern metrics fell within the design parameters for all six reaches. A major alignment change
occurred on UT2 Reach 4 between stations 213+90 and 215+30 in order to avoid impact to existing
mature trees and to realign the confluence away from a bank on UT to Pine Hill Branch which had
become unstable since the site design. Pattern data will be evaluated in monitoring year five if there are
any indicators through the profile or dimensions that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred.
Sediment Transport
As -built shear stresses and velocities are similar to design calculations and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along all restoration reaches. The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates
an overall increase in substrate particle size (Tables 6a — 6c). The substrate data for each constructed
reach was compared to the design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the
potential for bed degradation. The shear stresses calculated for the constructed channels are within the
allowable range, which indicates the channel is not at risk to trend toward channel degradation.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-2

5.2.2 Vegetation
The MYO vegetation survey was complete in March 2016. The average MYO planted density is 634
stems/acre, which exceeds the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 planted stems per acre.
Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
5.2.3 Hydrology
At this time, there have been no bankfull events recorded since completion of construction. Bankfull
events recorded during 2016 will be included in the year one monitoring report.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-3

Section 6: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS -DMS Protocol for
Recording Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from http://www.nceep.net/business/
monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP). http://porta 1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2015). Holman Mill Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 6-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

03030003070010
03030002050050
ii I
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site oft he
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and
therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their
designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk�
111-1 � A, - . — .
�I Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
- Project Area
ft-
r�
/ J , f,
f
�sy
232
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Alamance County, NC
Directions:
From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham.
Take exit 273A for NC -54 West toward Chapel Hill.
Travel approximately three miles and turn right to follow
Rd f
NC -54 West. Travel approximately 3.9 miles, take the
-
Jones Ferry Road exit towards Carrboro. At the end
`
of the ramp, turn left onto Jones Ferry Road and continue
V2?,:
0.9 miles. Turn right onto Old Greensboro Road.
Travel 17.9 miles and turn left onto Holman Mill Road.
Travel approximately 3.3 miles; the entrance to the Site
a
is located on the left before reaching Clark Road.
I
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Alamance County, NC

c
2014 Aerial Photography
P -•-•
•-•-•-•-•-s._._._._._._:_._._._._......._.__._._._. Sheet 2
L ° �T
1 I
�• * UT 1 I
2
•�
each 4 -k
V� Vis' '•/•�•`•`• \/'� ^* ' � �' �' mp * 1
q •�z7T2 Reach 3'�.�• 1 ! x
1 i i
MA
c j I
•
'i
o '
I h-
�•.. °
i -- '�. �• '•rte ° i
Red * i
•e I l
i
w
1
i

iWO
�.�.�•�•r•r•r• Ch W''P7
.r..�.r.Rea $ 9
•UT1 Reach 2• - UT1 P? s
. .--------------------
y• - - . > .may, . h, I ►. vi •' i
., �; � fir: ��•i'� !�f�1���+�
2014 Aerial Photography
• ��• .•
PP 10
-0 ` PP 11 • pp -•►•'►•�•�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.r.r•r•'•— PP 15
PPrb2 �PP 14
UTI Reach 4 AC/
------------------------------------------
j PP 22 1
j � 1
1 1
f
Am
1
� 1
PP 1 j
j
1�' 1
1
JP1
d 1
P P 20
/
/
/
/
/
V /
m I
r4 /
Z
c 1
4 �
O ;
ti
� 1
1
1
1
1
pp 1 81
1 � /
1
/ PP 17 1
1 ,r•a,'••r

►moi
mm
2014 Aerial Photography
PP 6
O'
PP 42
.�.—.—+—.—.—. —.—. —. o. e. —....
e {
------
..............
----------------------------------
------------------------ %
PP 33
* . 'a3'jc• -'
1
•• UT2 Reach 4 * PP 29
P.P 44
•• PP 40PP 41
,► PP 28
PP 45'1
Reach 3 '0 �\ i
* PP 37 uTf� w� PP 3$ y �* PPi39 \ * PP 27 1
•`•�•�• PP 26 1.
-
i
• � i
1
1 1
j PP 25 i
1 * 1
1 1
1
"t 1 PP 24
,�•�
each 3
PP 7
PP 8
PP 9
PP 10
PP 11
e
•�'� _ash 4 a
12

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
MITIGATION
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen
Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE
R RE
R RE
Totals 3,884
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
•
• '•
Reach ID
As -Built
Stationing/
Location
Existing
Footage/ Approach
Acreage
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits (SMU/
WMU)
STREAMS
UT to Pine Hill Branch
600+00 - 635+26
3,526
Ell
Restoration
3,526
5
705
UT1 Reach 1
100+00-102+08
215
P1
Restoration
208
1
208
UT1 Reach 2
102+08 - 106+31
433
Ell
Restoration
423
2.5
169
UT1 Reach 3
106+31- 109+40
331
Pl
Restoration
309
1
309
UT1 Reach 4
109+40 -125+98
1,687
Ell
Restoration
1,658
2.5
663
UT1A
400+00-400+94
84
Ell
Restoration
94
2.5
38
UT2A
300+00-305+40
468
Pl
Restoration
540
1
540
UT2 Reach 1
200+00 - 205+88
588
Ell
Restoration
588
2.5
235
UT2 Reach2
205+88 - 208+81
298
El
Restoration
293
1.5
195
UT2 Reach 3
208+81-213+63
396
Pi
Restoration
482
1
482
UT2 Reach 4
213+63 - 215+30
242
P1
Restoration
167
1
167
UT2B
500+00 - 504+29
429
Ell
Restoration
429
2.5
172
Restoration Level Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 1,706 - - - - -
Enhancement
Enhancement 1 293
Enhancement 11 6,718
Creation - - -
Preservation - - - - -
High Quality Preservation
N/A: not applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 0 -2016
Activity or Report
Date Collection
Complete
Completion or Scheduled
Delivery
Designer
April 2014-
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Mitigation Plan
May 2015
April 2015
919.851.9986
May 2015-
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Final Design -Construction Plans
October 2015
October 2015
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Construction
January 2016-
March 2016
Planting Contractor
March 2016
P.O. Box 1197
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
March 2016
March 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2016
March 2016
March 2016-
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Seed Mix Sources
May 2016
April 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
2016
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
December 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
2020
December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
2021
December 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
2022
December 2022
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Angela Allen, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Live Stakes
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 0 -2016
PROJECT•
•
Project Name
I Holman Mill Mitigation Site
County
IAIIIamance County
Project Area (acres)
32.4 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude;
35°51'310.12"N, 79"23'16.00"W
PROJECT11- • SUMMARY
INFORMATION
Physiographic Province
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
0303000205005C
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
1,077
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
49% Forested/ Scrubland, 42% Agriculture/ Managed Herbaceous, 4% Pasture, 3% Watershed Impervious Cover, 2%
Residential, <1% Open Water
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
UT to Pine Hill UTI
Branch
UT1A UT2 UT2A UT2B
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
3,526 2,598
94 1,530 540 429
Drainage area (acres)
1,077 102
20 130 47 18
NCDWR stream identification score
44.5 33.5/30.5
25.5 35 36.75 26.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
N/A
Morphological Desription (stream type;
P
P
I
P
P
I
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
1
11
NA
III/IV
III/IV
NA
Underlying mapped soils
Georgeville silty clay loam, Local alluvial land, Herndon silt loam, Goldston Channery Silt Loam
Drainage class
--- ---
--- ---
Soil Hydric status
--- ---
--- ---
Slope
--- ---
FEMA classification
AE AE
--- AE AE ---
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest, Bottomland hardwood forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-
Restoration
0%
REGULATORY• •
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification
No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety;
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species AM
Yes
Yes
Holman Mill Mitigation Plan(2015); Wildlands determined "no effect" on
Alamance County listed endangered species.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated
3/24/14).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
UTto Pine Hill Branch and portions of UT2 and UT2A are located within the
floodway and flood fringe (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel 8786).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity/Length by Reach
Frequency
UT to Pine UTI UT1a UT2-R1 UT2-R2, R3, R4 UT2a UT2b
Hill Branch
Riffle Cross Section
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
Dimension
Pool Cross Section
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
Annual
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach -wide (RW),
Riffle (RF) 100 pebble
N/A
1 RW, 2 RF
N/A
N/A
1 RW, 1 RF
1 RW, 1 RF
N/A
Annual
Hydrology
Crest Gage
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
Annual
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
12
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
Bi -annual
Exotic and Nuisance
vegetation
Photos
45
Annual
Project Boundary
Annual
Reference Photos
Annual

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary and Data Plots

Table 6a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
RESTORATIONPRE-
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Parameter
Gage
UTI - Reach 1/3
Agony Acres UT1A-
Reach 1
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
UTI - Reach
1/3
U71 -Reach
1/3
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.7
9.1
10.4
5.3
10.9
9.3
10.5
7.8
7.5
7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
11.5 >36 25 65 20 64.0 15 T 65 23.4
23.6
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7 1.0 T 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.8 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.3 10.7 11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3 4.3 4.3 4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8.1 7.3 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3 14.1 13.1 13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2 >3.9 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 1.9 8.3 3.0 3.1
Bank Height Ratio
H1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0
D50 (m m)
33.11
28.8
1 32
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--
---
--
12.5
31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--
0.004
0.047
0.024
0.057
0.0158 0.0661
0.0200
0.0690
Pool Length (ft)
--
---
--
6.0
23.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
--
LN/A
1.8
1.5
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
--
34
52
"88
"24
20
EM
53
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
62 1 82
1 21
1
93
28
50
15
45
12
69
11
1 45
Radius of Curvature (ft)
56 90
14 60
19
50 8
47
10 45
9
37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
6.2 9.9
1.5 5.8
2.0
5.3 0.6
3.2
1.3 5.8
1.2
4.7
Meander Length (ft)
209 300
N/A
--
-- --
--
25 128
31
75
Meander Width Ratio
6.8 9
2.3 8.9
3.0
5.3 1.0
3.0
1.6 8.9
1.5
S.7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
1.6
--
--
--
0.85
.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
69.7/128
0.7
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.16
0.30
0.41
0.41
0.16
0.16
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
2% --- --- --- 2% 2%
Rosgen Classification
34 E4 E4 E4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2 3.2 3.5
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14 25.3 20.3 54.000 14.0 15.0
16.7
Q-NFF regression
---MENEEMENNEEMENNEEM
---MENEEMENNEEM
---
---- -- -- 468 468
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,648 519 517
1.12 1.35 1.4 1.2 1.15 1 1.20 1 1.1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z
--- -- --- 0.0246
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.025 0 O-O4F 0.028 0.012 0.017 0.015 1 0.03 0.0203
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 6b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2
+: Alignment change duringconsturction created .steeper riffles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
®®®®®®®®®®Dimension
PRE -RESTORATION
WNDITION J
U-
.1. DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
and Substrate - RiffleBankfull
Width (ft)Floodprone
Width (ft)Bankfull
Mean DepthBankfull
Max DepthBankfull
Cross Sectional Area ft)
®�
Izzzz
zzzzz
��
zzzzz
zzzzz��
c,
®®�mmomom©mmmmm
1111
zzzz
zzzz
zzzz
zzzz
zzzz
zzzz
zzzz
zzzz
mmmmmmmm®mmmm�mm0
mmmmmmmmommmmmmm0
zzzz® zzzzE
zzzzz zzzzz
zzzz®
zzzzz
zzzzz
®®®®®
zzzzz
zzzzz
zzzzz
®®®®®
zzzz®
zzzzz
zzzzz zzzzz
zzzzz zzz
®®
zzzz
zzzzz
zzzz
zzzz
zzzzz
zzzz
zzzzz
zzzz
��
zzzzz
zzzz
zzzzz
zzzz
zzzzz
zzzz
zzzzz
zzzz
1���Mmmmffl
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
®00000®0Bankfull
Velocity (fps)
®ems zzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz
®ems »»® zzzzz »zzz zzzzz »»®
®ems zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz
zzzzz
zzzzz
zzzzz
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
�� zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz����Water
Surface Slope (ft/ft)'Bankfull
Slope (ft/ft)
MR.
+: Alignment change duringconsturction created .steeper riffles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 6c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2A
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
RESTORATION
PRE-
REFERENCE
REACH
DATA
Parameter
Gage
UT2A
Agony Acres UT1A-
Reach 1
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
UT2A
UT2A
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.1
9.1
10.4
5.3
10.9
9.3
10.5
6.4
6.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
11.5 >36 25 65 20 64.0 14 1
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.7 0.9
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.1 10.7
11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3 3.3
3.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12 7.3
10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3 13.0
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.3 >3.9 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 2.2 12.5
15.1
Bank Height Ratio
3.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.00.9 1.1
1.0
D50 (mm)l
3.18
18.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--
--
--
--
17.9 38.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--
N/A
0.004
0.047
0.024
0.057
0.018
0.08
0.0007 0.0520
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
--
16.3 33.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.4
2.5
1.8
2.5
2.6
0.8
1.6
1.5 3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
--
N/A
34
52
8
82
2
36
29 62
ow ow
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
15 30
21
93
28
50
15
45
10
57
25 40
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
5.8 33
14
60
19
50
8
47
8
37
11 31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1 6.5 1.5 1 5.8 2.0 5.3 0.6 3.2 1.3 5.8
1.7 4.7
Meander Length (ft)
27 69
N/A
--
--
--
--
20
105
41 61
Meander Width Ratio
2.9 5.9 2.3 8.9 3.0 S.3 1.0 3.0 1.6 8.6
3.8 6.1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
Silt/Clay/0.56/3.18/
17.4/25.53/64
1.85
0.52
3.15/11.86/18.3/43
.5/101.2/362
0.45
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft'
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.08
0.30
0.41
0.41
0.08
0.08
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
2% --- --- --- 2%
2%
Rosgen Classification
C4b E4 E4 E4 C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.5 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2 3.1
2.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
9 25.3 20.3 54 9.0
8.6
Q-NFF regression
---
---
---
--- --- --- 480
480
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
468 540
1.15 1.35 1.4 1.2 1.15 1.25
540
1.1
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
-- -- ---
0.0129
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.023 0.0040 0.028 0.012 0.0170 0.007 0.018
0.0143
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6
MY7 Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MY6 MY7 Base MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4
MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 570.5
569.8
554.1
553.9
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.9
8.4
9.6
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft) 23.6
N/A
N/A
23.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6
0.9
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9
1.6
1.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz) 4.6
7.4
8.2
4.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.6
9.5
11.3
13.1 11
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.0
N/A
N/A
3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7 Base
MYI MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base MYI
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 520.1
519.5
520.5
520.2
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7
9.9
6.6
9.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 100.0
N/A
100.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8
1.6
0.7
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 4.5
8.9
3.2
9.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.5
11.0
13.5
10.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 10.4
N/A
15.1 1
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol 1.0
1 1
1 1
1.0
1 1 1
1 1.0 1 1
1
1.0

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1 Reach 1- Sta 100+00 to Sta 102+08
UT1 Reach 3 - Sta 106+31 to Sta 109+40
575
559
574
558 ♦ A
♦
573
572
571
--------- --
570
____ ♦ �
Y
569
—__
-
•
w568
—--------- ----- ♦♦♦
567♦
♦ ♦
— — —_— ___ ___ — ♦
>
566
X
N
X
---
565
---
c As.
564
555—�
—
554
563
____ — ♦
A ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 2
•
562
561
560
10000
10050 10100 10150 10200
Station (feet)
f TW (MYO-3/2016) _ _ _- WS (MYO-3/2016) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-3/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-3/2016)
UT1 Reach 3 - Sta 106+31 to Sta 109+40
560 -
559
558 ♦ A
♦
557
556
�
♦ ♦ ♦
♦
w
---
c As.
555—�
—
554
____ — ♦
A ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 2
•
553
552
551
M
x x
550
10630
10680 10730 10780
10830 10880 10930
Station (feet)
0 TW (MYO-3/2016) _ _ _ - WS (MYO-3/2016)
♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-3/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-3/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2 - Sta 205+88 to Sta 208+81
530
529
528
527
526
v
525
524
w 523
522
521
520
20580 20630 20680 20730 20780 20830 20880
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-3/2016) _ _ _ • WS (MYO-3/2016) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-3/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-3/2016)
m_________
525
524
X
523
522
521
v
520
m
20931
519
_
____
w
518
517
516
Ln
LD
515
UT2 Reach 3 - Sta 208+81 to Sta 213+63
525
524
X
523
522
521
v
520
m
20931
519
w
518
517
516
Ln
LD
515
20881
20981 21031
21081 21131
21181
21231 21281 21331
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-3/2016)
— — — • WS (MYO-3/2016)
♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-3/2016)
♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-3/2016)
X

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2 Reach 4 - Sta 213+63 to Sta 215+30
520
519
♦ ♦ ♦
A -
518
517
________________________—________
�
516
v
515
514
>
513
512
511
510
21363 21413 21463 21513
Station (feet)
♦ TW (MYO-3/2016) ® _ _ A WS (MYO-3/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-3/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-3/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2A - Sta 300+00 to Sta 305+40
530
529
528
527
526
525 _—♦�, ♦► ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦,♦ ♦
— _.
524 ____ — ♦♦
523 _____
CU
♦
522♦
_—_ r
m
521 _
♦ A ♦
_____
520
_v
LL,
-----
519
518
517
516X
00
X
515
30000 30050 30100 30150 30200 30250 30300 30350 30400 30450 30500
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-3/2016) — WS (MYO-3/2016) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-3/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-3/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section I- UTI
100+65 Riffle
574
572
i
$
c
570
FloodproneArea
O
m
v
w
568
566
0 10
20
30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2016)
-Bankfull
-
Bankfull Dimensions
4.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
8.2 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6 hyd radi (ft)
13.6 width -depth ratio
-=—;
23.6 W flood prone area (ft)
3.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
y--
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
Y
View Downstream
FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 2- UTI
100+80 Pool
574
.,
572
570
0
v
w
568
566
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.4 x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
_
9.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
9.5 width -depth ratio
_
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
3
r
View Downstream
.,
570
0
v
w
568
566
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) -Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 3- UTI
108+95 Pool
sss
556
554
0
v
w
Ss2
S50
0 10 20 30 40 SO
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.2 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
is •• ,� '.. -
10.4 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
y
11.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream
0
v
w
Ss2
S50
0 10 20 30 40 SO
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) -Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 4- UTI
109+10 Riffle
558
556
554
0
v
w
552
S50
0 10 20
30 40 SO
Width (ft)
�MYO(03/2016)
-Bankfull-Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
�K
4.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
& 16
7.5 width (ft)
-9 _
0.6 mean depth (ft)
..
0.9 max depth (ft)
7.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
13.1 width -depth ratio
23.4 W flood prone area (ft)
3.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 5- UT2
212+00 Riffle
522
520
o
m
v
w
518
0 10
20
30 40
50
60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2016)
—Bankfull
—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
"y
4.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.7 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
9.9 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
20.5 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
10.4 entrenchment ratio
.
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream
520
o
m
v
w
518
0 10
20
30 40
50
60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2016)
—Bankfull
—FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 6- UT2
212+25 Pool
522
520
0
v
w
518
S16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (02/2015) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.9 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
10.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
11.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream
520
0
v
w
518
S16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (02/2015) -Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 7- UT2A
304+85 Riffle
szz
v
w
518
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(02/2015) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
0
szo
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.6 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
6.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
13.5 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
15.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
G .: k_
.
,
View Downstream
v
w
518
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(02/2015) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (NCDMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 8- UT2A
305+10 Pool
szo
0
v
w
szz
518
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (02/2015) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.7 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
10.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9 hyd radi (ft)
10.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream
szo
0
v
w
518
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (02/2015) —Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.22
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
9
11
11
11
Di00 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3 50
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
6
17
E
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
19
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
v
�
1
1
1
20
d
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
5
6
6
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
6
8
8
34
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
4
6
6
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
4
6
6
46
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
5
9
9
55
_
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
1
4
4
59
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
2
5
5
64
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
1
7
7
71
Coarse
22.6
32
5
3
8
8
79
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
9
88
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
94
Small
64
90
4
4
4
98
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
gp
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.22
D85 =
2.97
D50 =
6.6
D80. =
38.7
D95 =
69.7
Di00 =
128.0
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
gp
SiftlClay
T Sand I 1�avel
bble
r
a ro
100
2' 70
j 60
3 50
80
E
C
70
40
v
�
60
d
y 30
u
0
v,
50
a 20
40
u
m
3
10
20
10
_
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-03/2016
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
v
�
60
d
0
v,
50
2
40
u
m
3
30
20
10
_
0
O9 ytiy lih Oh
o, o, o•
'r 'L ,y� b y0 0 ,y'v 1b ,L,o 3ti Qh 6A Co t �O
ti ti ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
6.69
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
d
u
6
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
8
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
1 4
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
40
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
50
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
68
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
84
Small
64
90
8
1 8
92
Small
90
128
4
4
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
6.69
D35 =
19.57
D50 =
32.0
D84 =
64.0
D95 =
117.2
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
UT1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
u
d
60
a
50
f0
u
40
R
3
30
20
10
_
0
ro'L .yh by Oh
p0 p1 p•
1 'L ,L0 b 5� 1ti 16 6 3ti by (ob pp ,p, Wp,o yro - 1ti ,yG 0.0 A6
�'1' 1 1 'L °i 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
5.15
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
13
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
17
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
1 5
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
43
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
53
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
69
1 'L ,L0 b 5� 1ti 16 6 3ti by (ob pp ,p, Wp,o yro - 1ti ,yG 0.0 A6
�'1' 1 1 'L °i 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
81
Small
64
90
11
1 11
92
Small
90
128
6
6
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.15
D35 =
16.63
D50 =
28.8
D84 =
70.2
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
UT1, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
u
d
60
a
50
f0
u
40
R
3
30
20
10
_
0
p'L .yh by Oh
p0 p1 p•
1 'L ,L0 b 5� 1ti 16 6 3ti by (ob pp ,p, Wp,o yro - 1ti ,yG 0.0 A6
�'1' 1 1 'L °i 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
29
30
30
30
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
31
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
r
31
Medium
0.2S
0.50
`w
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a r
31
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
3
34
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
4
4
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
1
S
S
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
2
7
7
50
Fine
S.6
8.0
2
2
4
4
54
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
2
8
8
62
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
2
8
8
70
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
1
6
6
76
Coarse
22.6
32
4
2
6
6
82
Very Coarse
32
45
9
2
11
11
93
Very Coarse
45
64
3
20
3
3
96
Small
64
90
1
1
1
97
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
................................................
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
100
� MYO-03/2016
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 —
2.18
D50 =
5.6
D80. =
34.0
D95 =
56.9
D100 =
362.0
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIR/clay
T
Sand
avel
90
80
bble
r
C 70
gp
m
60
`w
0 50
a r
2' 70
M 40
u
m 30
j 60
20
c 10
3 50
0
Doti yti5 tih Oh
'r 'L ,y� b 5� 0 ,y'v 1� tib 3ti Ah 6A 1 Ao •�� p ti p g 1ti •lb R$ 0�O
1 3 h ,y0 �O
TO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016
E
40
y 30
u
20
COL
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MYO-03/2016
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
m
60
`w
0 50
-
M 40
u
m 30
20
c 10
0
Doti yti5 tih Oh
'r 'L ,y� b 5� 0 ,y'v 1� tib 3ti Ah 6A 1 Ao •�� p ti p g 1ti •lb R$ 0�O
1 3 h ,y0 �O
TO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
2.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
22
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
10
32
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
1 4
36
Medium
8.0
11.0
12
12
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
20
20
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
72
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
78
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
84
Very Coarse
45
64
6
1 6
90
Small
64
90
8
8
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
............:::::::::......
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
Cross Section S
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.00
D35 =
7.32
D50 =
11.4
D84 =
45.0
D95 =
79.2
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
UT2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
u
d
60
a
50
m
u
40
R
3
30
20
10
_
0
p'L .yh by Oh
p0 p1 p•
1 'L ,L0 b 5� 1ti 16 6 3ti by (ob pp ,l'b Wp,o yro - 1ti ,yG 0.0 A6
�'1' 1 1 'L °i 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3.5
36
36
36
36
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
36
Fine
0.125
0.250
36
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
37
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
1
1
1
38
!,
d
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
3
4
4
42
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
3
5
5
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
3
5
5
52
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
3
11
11
63
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
10
8
8
71
_
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
7
78
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
9
Oytiy lih Oh
o, o, o•
5
5
83
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
5
88
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
95
Very Coarse
32
45
95
Very Coarse
45
64
1
a
1
1
96
Small
64
90
3
3
3
99
Small
90
128
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
0 -
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
lBedrock
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT2A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
3.5
D80. =
17.1
D95 =
32.0
D100 =
180.0
UT2A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
SIR/clay
T
Sand 1
1avel
Individual Class Percent
bble
100
r
80
90
a ro
80
2° 70
70
m
60
!,
d
j 60
v,
50
40
3 50
m
3
30
M
E
40
20
c
10
_
0
9
Oytiy lih Oh
o, o, o•
'r 'L ,y� b y0 0 ,y'v 41 tib 3ti Qh 6A Co ."tttip h6
ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
y 30
u
■ MYO-03/2016
20
a
10
Ak—L
0 -
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-03/2016
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
60
!,
d
0
v,
50
40
U
m
3
30
M
Z
20
c
10
_
0
9
Oytiy lih Oh
o, o, o•
'r 'L ,y� b y0 0 ,y'v 41 tib 3ti Qh 6A Co ."tttip h6
ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 93616
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
3.15
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
9
9
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
9
Coarse
0.5
1.0
9
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
d
u
9
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
6
15
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
18
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
26
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
1 7
33
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
43
Coarse
16.0
22.6
18
18
61
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
75
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
85
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
92
Small
64
90
2
1 2
94
Small
90
128
3
3
97
Large
128
180
1
1
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.15
D35 =
11.86
D50 =
18.3
D84 =
43.5
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
w
30
u
a 20
10
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-03/2016
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
u
d
60
a
50
f0
u
40
R
3
30
20
10
_
0
�'L .yh by Oh
pp p1 p•
1 'L ,L0 b 5� 1ti 16 6 3ti by (oC` CO ,l'b Wp yro pti 1ti ,yG 0.0 A6
�ti 1 1 ti °i 5 y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-03/2016

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Holman Mill

PHOTO POINT 1— looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 1— looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) PHOTO POINT 3 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

p
" C l Tik 1 .i IBi I �sJ
i
1
r�.
U.-
i�x
A t
� t
0
Mq�4
4fi
1
r�.
0
Mq�4
4fi

PHOTO POINT 7 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

PHOTO POINT 10 — looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 10 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 11— looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

PHOTO POINT 13 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 14— looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 — looking downstream (03/09/2016) 1
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

PHOTO POINT 16 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) PHOTO POINT 16 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking upstream (03/24/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 18 — looking upstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 18 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)

� u
�" L '' x �'� �4�� �' � � � � air.. •r (�•
U"
t

PHOTO POINT 22 — looking upstream (03/24/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 22 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 23 — looking upstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 23 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 24 — looking upstream (03/24/2016) PHOTO POINT 24 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)

PHOTO POINT 28 — looking upstream (03/24/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 28 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 29 — looking upstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 29 — looking downstream (03/24/2016)
PHOTO POINT 30 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) PHOTO POINT 30 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

Ili : � r' �.•� Ix*:
1t
dt
vt
'y
r
Jp J1rl
s a !I
a�
dt
'y
Jp J1rl
s a !I
a�
r
A� b
J

'
11,11lam
y 2!�
ofF 0 i TIMI 9yP�-
�� , • �q�N d4ryl 5 �'l� �§ 1 +�.� � I � �✓ r� '�2 F � ll�lY � Y�'f
ro
Plip..y� �k�in • ��faYl yid. )l,.� r 1•I'�.`Zn.''el.'��1;1�r
Hill • •• • I I' I • • • •• •• I 1' I
AL
r•,.i "kr, r �Lr � At 01 ° It ip ! : �� ' 1 PI! � � ..2�
� v ..p7♦F^ _
�5
3aMEOW0
E
• • •• •• • I I• I • • •• •• •• I I' I
6
At
MIN.,
t'! M �' 1 V s �n �l
d� �i � I �,�9�, �"'V�,IT• V I � u� � ����,��I F _ `: {'� �.IN.'
-
�;_
r
a
_ y I {t ! .✓".�niF' Yk i t'"`K.�� .. ,may t �F � �A..`

PHOTO POINT 37 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 37 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 38 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 38 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

PHOTO POINT 40 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 40 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 41— looking upstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 41— looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) PHOTO POINT 42 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

PHOTO POINT 43 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 43 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 44 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 44 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)
PHOTO POINT 45 — looking upstream (03/09/2016) PHOTO POINT 45 — looking downstream (03/09/2016)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96316-WEI-0001
96316-WEI-0002
96316-WEI-0003
96316-WEI-0004
96316-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
16
16 1
16
16
15
15
15
16
16
1 16
16 1
16
16
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
5
4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4U47.51647.5
5
647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 607 607 607 647.5 647.5 647.5
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96316-WEI-0006
96316-WEI-0007
96316-WEI-0008
96316-WEI-0009
96316-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
5
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
11
11
11
5
5
5
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
S
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 45 5 5 5 5
5
566.6 1 566.61 566.6 647.5 1 647.51 647.5 647.5 1 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 47.51
647.5
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96316-WEI-0011
96316-WEI-0012
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
31
31
31
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1 39
39
39
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
35
35
35
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
5
5
5
7
7
7
45
45
45
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
20
20
20
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
16
15
15
15
188
188
188
1 1 12
0.02 0.02 0.30
5 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 6 6
6
647.5 1647.5 647.5 607 1 607 1 607 634 634
634
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Holman Mill

VEG PLOT 1(03/24/2016) 1 VEG PLOT 2 (03/24/2016) 1
VEG PLOT 3 (03/24/2016) 1 VEG PLOT 4 (03/24/2016) 1
VEG PLOT 5 (03/24/2016) 1 VEG PLOT 6 (03/24/2016)

VEG PLOT 7 (03/24/2016)
VEG PLOT 8 (03/24/2016)
VEG PLOT 9 (03/24/2016) 1 VEG PLOT 10 (03/24/2016) 1
VEG PLOT 11(03/24/2016) 1 VEG PLOT 12 (03/24/2016) 1

APPENDIX 4. As -Built Plan Sheets

Cape Feer ]diver Basin 03030002
Alamance County, North Carolina
for
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
ecrp.
ACCURACY
I, NOLAN R. CARMACK, CERTIFY THAT THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY PORTION OF THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION AND THAT THE ORIGINAL DIGITAL FILES WERE PROVIDED
BY KEE MAPPING AND SURVEYING, PA AS SHOWN ON AN AS—BUILT
SURVEY FOR "THE STATE OF NC, DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES",
JOB #1510161—A8, DATED OCTOBER 25TH, 2016 AND WERE
INCORPORATED HEREIN BY WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC TO PRODUCE
THE RECORD DRAWINGS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED AT
THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET THE FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC
DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO THE
ACCURACY OF CLASS A HORIZONTAL AND CLASS C VERTICAL; THAT
TH RIGINAL A A WAS OBTAINED BETWEEN THE DATES OF
31 9(6-/o i " . THAT THE CONTOURS SHOWN AS BROKEN
LINES MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD AND ALL COORDINATES
ARE BASED ON NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE
BASED ON NAVD 88; THAT THIS MAP MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS AS STATED IN TITLE 21, CHAPTER 56,
SECTION .1606; WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION
NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.
OFFICIAL SEAL
CAfe ///
'Q SEAL
�,� L•5078 ��
NOLAN R. CARM L-5076
�lq sUR��•'•pV:
NC DEQ Division ®f
Mitigation Services
FINAL RECORD DRAWINGS
Issued October 2016
Stream Origins
Streams Latitude Longitude
UTI N 35° 51'09.14" W 790 23' 29.27'
UT2 N 350 51'18.47" W 790 23' 15.11"
UT2A N 350 51' 19.28" W 790 23'06.82"
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
Streams Overlay Overview
Legend
Streams Overlay Plans
Cross Section and Typical Section Overlays
Planting Plan
Project Directory
Surveying:
Kee Mapping & Surveying, PA
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Brad Kee, PLS
828-575-9021
Enggineerir!
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
]License No. F-0831
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Angela N. Allen, PE
919-851-9986
Owner:
NCD EQ Division of
Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Kristic Corson
919-707-8935
DEQ Contract No. 005795
DMS ID No. 96316
i
„CARO/
B,,.
ESS/0 9,----.
4 SEAL v
040280
I
-,�'.cFtA N PYO
z

NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
NOTE: 1. AT STATION 100+00 LT, ROCK WAS
ADDED TOROADSIDE DITCH. SEE
SECTION 5.1 OF AS BUILT REPORT.
2. AT STATION 100+75 RT, BRUSH TOE
WAS NOT INSTALLED IN ORDER TO
AVOID IMPACTS TO EXISTING,
MATURE TREES.
3. AT STATION 101+35 RT, ROCK OUTLET
WAS RELOCATED DUE TO CHANGES IN
DRAINAGE PATTERNS BETWEEN
PROJECT DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION.
4. UT1A WAS STABILIZED DURING
CONSTRUCTION DUE TO
DEGRADATION THAT OCCURRED
BETWEEN PROJECT DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION.
575
570
560
555
100+00
AS -BUILT BANKFULL
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PRO POSED THALWEG
i
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
100+50
101+00
101+50
102+00
102+50
103+00
575
570
565
560
555
103+50 103+80
cl \ TIES TO EXISTING FENCE EX_ /
V
575 — Y C I
d
I
U I
1 \ II00
y IO
o
io2+00
50
i V P .'<=/'� \ 102+DD Q
o ,
O- moo- - -
I 57o I
f
33,
C_
33
3J 5 37
0' 2' 4' 6'
Iveancay
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZ-)
I,
zZ
J?oe
Q 6
o z az oqw
w v
Z
Qmm S
�Z�srE
w3 LL
i
JC�20�OF ESS/p / 9•,�''.
4 SEAL v
040280
01 NEED 4,,pC:
E
,a2

565
565
560
560
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL
AS-BUILTBANKFULL
555
--
.
�
555
/
/
1
�
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
550
550
NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE
BASED ON PROPOSED 545545
ALIGNMENT. 103+80 104+00
104+50
105+00 105+50
106+00 106+50 107+00
107+50 108+00 106+50
12' STEEL GATE
EX ---f= o' z' a'
6'
--XX
I
c
20' 40'
60'
I
/
hoRrory nq
I
Sg0
ILn-
pI
M
c)
7_ 00
oil
O_
a—I:
QI
I
_
I
I
560
I
I
I
•�
NOTE: 1. AT STATIONS 105+10,106+30 AND
3�
106+60, CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES WERE
- 3J 3J
37 I
INSTALLED WHERE CHANNEL
3J
3J 33 3J D 3J 3J
3J D
H
STABILIZATION WAS NEEDED.
I
2. AT STATION 107+50, ANGLED LOG
DROPS WERE INSTALLED RATHER
I
THAN LOG J -HOOKS TO AVOID
IMPACTS TO EXISTING, MATURE
TREES ON LEFT BANK.
�✓
I,
zz
6
z
Q azogw
w z v
z
Qmm R
�w3 LL
i
i
pC,20�pF ESS/0 T•'�-s
4 SEAL v
040280
�'UG I NEED 4,,pC:
cV
ca

560 560
3
i
(VERTI
0' 20'
AL
40' 60'
(HORIZONTA)
AS -BUILT
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
555
555
550
550
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
545
545
NOTE:
AS-BUILT540
540
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. 106+50 109,00 109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 viz+oo 112+50 112+90
NOTE: 1. AT STATION 111+90, CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLE WAS SHIFTED UPSTREAM
WHERE CHANNEL STABILIZATION WAS
NEEDED.
I
I
I � I
y6� 555 I
550 I
UT1
�1�Okp0 I O
--�•1 I p
+ 111+00 ._ 112+00L'_..- +- I Q
00o yyy C� I L
Z
Q
I
� I
--� �J 3J 3J
7aJ / 3J 3J 30
3J 3D �—
I I
I I
0' 2'
4' 6'
(VERTI
0' 20'
AL
40' 60'
(HORIZONTA)
I
zo
J? aw
�
ory�m
Q o `Y viz
z 2 z m w
z
Qmm u
raz E
l�'3 LL
i
i
pC,20�pF ESS/0 T,'�•'.
4 SEAL v
040280
�'UG I NEED 4,,pC:

NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
535
530
6d:'1
520
515
204+40 204+50
205+00
205+50
PROPOSED THALWEG PROPOSED BANKFULL
AS -BUILT BAN KFULL
AS -BUILT THALWEG
206+00
--------------- -zp�-----_--_
Cf
F - -
00
U
I
1
I
NOTE: 1. AT STATION 206+25, CONSTRUCTED 3 -DX 3J
RIFFLE WAS NOT INSTALLED IN ORDER
TO ALLOW PLUNGE POOL 1
DOWNSTREAM OF KNICK POINT TO
REMAIN. X�
2. AT STATION 207+50, ANGLED LOG
DROP WAS NOT INSTALLED TO AVOID
IMPACTS TO EXISTING, MATURE
TREES.
206+50
207+00
T
535
530
525
520
515
207+50 208+00 208+50 208+70
2' 4' 6'
,veanuq
20' 40' 60'
,HORIZO-)
I
z�
�� awJorym
Q `Y
zv'�6
u
iz
z11
Qmm R
�Z �srE
w3 LL
i
JC�20�OF ESS/0 T•,,•�.
4 SEAL v
040280
G I NEED 4,,pC:
A
cV
bu
N O
�m`'
00
n/
,aa�

I NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
530
525
520
515
PROPOSED BAN KFULL
_ PROPOSED THALWEG AS -BUILT BANKFULL
510 ; 1 1i
208+70 209+00
AS-BUILTTHALWEG
530
525
520
N
209+50
I
210+00
I I i I I I I i I I I i I
210+50 211+00 211+50
I I I I I
212+00
I I 1 1 4 510
212+50 212+80
I
O
00
�o
00
00
Q
v1
- eti
J
v
S�0
o
3J 3J 3D 3J 3J
pC,ZO�pF ESS/p 9,•''.
4 SEAL v
" 040280 "
O
O
U
F
O
b� z
,}
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERT-)
.i O
0' 20' 40' 60' /u
(HORIZONTAL)
N I'••�Io•�, 1,�•)
1�

NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON PROPOSED
ALIGNMENT UP TO POINT WHERE
AS -BUILT ALIGNMENT DEVIATES FROM
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT. AT THIS POINT,
ONLY THE AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON
THE AS -BUILT ALIGNMENT IS SHOWN.
NOTE: 1. AT STATION 213+90, ALIGNMENT
CHANGED TO AVOID IMPACTS TO
EXISTING, MATURE TREES AND TO
AVOID IMPACTING ERODED BANKS
THAT HAD FORMED ON RIGHT BANK
OF UT TO PINE HILL BRANCH.
525
PROPOSED BANKFULL
AS -BUILT BANKFULL
520
51
PROPOSED THALWEG
AS -BUILT THALW EG
AM
505 4-
212+80
213+00
213+50
214+00
I
I520
I
VT2
214+50
215+00
525
520
ML.t
510
i F 505
215+50215+60
214+ 0
_ ,---
c -i 305+40
Ln
DO -
x
I may,
Q - l
x --
I
213+00
Tc
I
I
I r�
I �
I
I
0' 2'
4' 6'
Iveanuq
0' 20'
40' 60'
HORIZOMALI
i
i
I,
zz
o
z
Q azogw
w z v
z
Qmm �
raz �srE
l�'3 LL
i
i
CARO�
JC�20�OF ESS /0 •'.
4 SEAL v
040280
A,, I NEED
N

NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
3 NOTE: 1. AT STATION 301+15, BRUSH TOE
WAS NOT INSTALLED IN ORDER TO
AVOID IMPACTS TO EXISTING,
MATURE TREES.
535
530
AS -BUILT BANKFULL
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPOSED BANKFULL ---1 I I I 1 r-- PROPOSED THALWEG I I I I I I I I
525
520
515 +_
300+00
AS -BUILT THALW EG
535
L/n� ry
I-� m
zZ'o 0
Jorym
Q `Y
z v'�o
u
iz
w o z � v
z
Qmm B
ra 3 LL
530 m
525
520
515
300+50. 301+00 301+50 302+00 302+50 303+00 303+50 303+60
Sti5
525 \
v
300+00 al
�O
tl
SZS �
°SEAL�9
040280
O
05
U
-F i•�
7O
H
0' 2' 4' 6' r
)VERTICAL) '�
0' 20' 40' 60'J
(HORIZONTAL) l W
� V
W
E
VN
o
�
•rel
3
o
�9
Q
n
4

NOTE:
AS -BUILT PROFILE BASED ON
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT.
530 530
525
520
6167
510 i I i
303+80 304+00
/
PROPOSEDTHALWEG
304+50 305+00
AS -BUILT BANKFULL
PROPOSEQ BANKFULL --I
305305=50
525
520
MR
iF 510
306+00 306+20
0' 2'
4' 6'
I�HTIU
LI
0' 20'
40' 60'
(HOPIZONTAII
I,
zz
�
Jo e
z '
Q o
aw`Y�v'iz
w
z
Qmm B
E
ral�'3 LL
i
i
.CA�O.
pC,ZO�OF ESS/0 T,'�•'.
4 SEAL v
040280
�'UG I NEED 4,,pC:
bA
Q
4
g
4�
N
75
r-+
E a 2