HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140333 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119Al lei ZIILei Oki IIII [cw"11I'M
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 005795
DMS ID No. 96316
Data Collection Period: March - October 2016
Draft Submission Date: December 16, 2016
Final Submission Date: January 11, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
INCrk It
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 22S
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
jlorch@wildlandseng.com
Phone: 919.851.9986
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 six unnamed tributaries (UT to Pine Hill Branch, UT1, UT1A,
UT2, UT2A, and UT213). The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002 (Cape Fear 02) near Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1) and is within the Cane Creek Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) (HUC 03030002050050). On-site streams flow into Cane Creek and eventually into the
Haw River.
The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed, which has been designated as a
Nutrient Sensitive Water. The TLW was identified in DMS's Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009 (RBRP) 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 macroinvertebrate
habitat, and help oxygenate streamflows; and
• Protect existing high quality streams and forested buffers.
The project is helping meet the goals for the watershed and providing numerous ecological benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others,
such as pollutant removal and reduced sediment loading have farther -reaching effects. In addition,
protected parcels downstream of this site promote cumulative project benefits within the watershed.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between January 2016 and April 2016. A
conservation easement is in place on 32.4 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments and site visits were completed between March and October, 2016
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream
success criteria for MY1. The overall average stem density for the Site is 603 stems per acre and is
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL
therefore on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. All restored and enhanced
streams are stable and functioning as designed. Hydrologic monitoring stations with crest gages and
pressure transducers were installed on the Site to document bankfull events on the restoration reaches.
Multiple bankfull events were recorded on each restoration reach during the 2016 annual monitoring
period, therefor partially fulfilling the Monitoring Year 7 hydrology success criteria.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL
HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component / Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Contact Table
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-2
Table 12a -d
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
Cross Section Plots
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.6
Maintenance Plan..............................................................................................................1-3
1.3
Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-3
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component / Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -f
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Appendix 4
Stream Photographs
Table 10a -c
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -c
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -d
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL iii
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Holman Mill Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the southern portion of Alamance County, southeast
of Snow Camp off of Holman Mill Road (Figure 1). The Site is located within the Jordan Lake Water
Supply Watershed (HUC 03030002050050), which has been designated as a Nutrient Sensitive Water.
The Site is in in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project
watershed consists primarily of agricultural and wooded land. The drainage area for project site is 1,077
acres (1.68 square miles).
The project streams consist of six unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. Stream restoration reaches
included UT1 (Reach 1 and 3), UT2 (Reach 3 and 4) and UT2A. Stream enhancement I (EI) and
enhancement II (Ell) reaches included UT1 (Reach 2 and 4), Ell; UT2 (Reach 1), Ell; UT2 (Reach 2), EI;
UT213, Ell; UT1A, Ell; and UT to Pine Hill Branch, Ell. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration
and enhancement of 8,717 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream channels. The riparian
areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. The final
mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the DMS in May 2015. Construction activities were
completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2016. Planting and seeding activities were
completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2016. Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted
between January 2016 and April 2016. Annual monitoring will occur for seven years with the close-out
anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed
project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information for the Site.
A conservation easement (32.4 ac; Deed Book 3472, Page 968; Deed Book 3472, Page 951) has been
recorded and is in place along the stream riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity within two
tracts; a tract owned by the Russell B. Hadley Revocable Trust and a tract owned by the M. Darryl
Lindley Revocable Trust, respectively. The project is expected to provide 3,884 SMU's by closeout.
A project vicinity map and directions are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated in
Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams and vegetative communities on the Site had been severely
impacted due to direct livestock access to the streams and riparian zones. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and
Tables 10a through 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
many of these benefits are limited to the Holman Mill Site area, others such as pollutant removal and
reduced sediment loading have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and
ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project goals were
established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the
RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift
within the watershed.
The following project goals and related objectives established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015)
included:
The primary project goals 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;
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 1-1
• 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.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the
project. The vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria
presented in the Holman Mill Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 12
standard 10 -meter by 10 -meter vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within
the project easement area.
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre at the end of the
seven-year monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative success will be the survival of at
least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period (MY3) and at least
260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5). Planted vegetation must average 10
feet in height at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by MY5
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 provided written approval is provided by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2016. The 2016 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 603 stems per acre within the standard planting zones, which is well above
the interim requirement of 320 stems/acre required at MY3 and approximately 4% less than the
baseline density recorded (634 stems/acre). There is an average of 14 stems per plot as compared to 15
stems per plot in MYO. All 12 of the plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7
(Table 9, Appendix 3). Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition
assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
No vegetation areas of concern were identified during MY1.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in September 2016. All streams within the Site are
stable. In general, cross sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum
depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio. Bank height ratios fall within the appropriate Rosgen stream type
parameters. Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement reaches indicated maintenance of
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2
coarser materials in the riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools. Longitudinal profile surveys are not
required on the project unless visual inspection indicates reach wide vertical instability. Refer to
Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) map, and
stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
No stream areas of concern were identified during MY1.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. Two bankfull events were recorded on all restoration
reaches during MY1 resulting in partial attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria. Refer to
Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Maintenance Plan
No maintenance plan is necessary at this time.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All vegetation plots are on track to meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre as
noted in CCPV. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Multiple bankfull
events have been documented on all restored stream reaches at the Site, resulting in partial fulfillment
of the hydrologic success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 1-3
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored
quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance
with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring
protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.Pdf.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Holman Mill Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -
Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Holman Mill Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL 3-1
APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
Snot,, Launp%a
{;nit,n CLa �
03030002050050
a
`+ 0303000307b010 I
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site ofthe
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 r
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their `Gr
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.
OWWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING r
0 0,5 1 Miles
I I
'vP
r°
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Alamance County, INC
Conservation Easement
Stream
tream Restoration
7"
...........
2014 Aerial Pt
------------ ------
UT2 Reach 3 UT2 Reach 4
rA
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
N/A: not applicable
MITIGATION
Stream
RiparianWetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
parian
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
P
Type R
Totals 3,884
RE
N/A
R
N/A
RE
N/A
R
N/A
RE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reach ID
As -Built Stationing/ Existing Footage /
Location Acreage
PROJECT e •e
Approach Restoration or Restoration
Pproac
quiva
Equivalent Restoration
ge ge
Footage / Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
ga
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
UTI Reach 3
106+31- 109+40
331
Pi
Restoration
309
1
309
UT1 Reach 4
109+40 -125+98
1,687
Ell
Restoration
1,658
2.5
663
UTSA
400+00-400+94
84
Ell
Restoration
94
2.5
38
UT2A
300+00-305+40
468
P1
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
E1
Restoration
293
1.5
195
UT2 Reach
208+81-213+63
396
Pi
Restoration
482
1
482
UT2 Reach
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)
a •a
Riparian
e
Wetland (acres) Non -Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (acres)
Upland (acres)
Restoration
1,706
Riverine
-
Non-Riverine
-
-
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancementl
Enhancement II
Creation
293
6,718
-
-
-Jim
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 1 - 2016
Activity or Report
Date
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
April 2014 -April 2015
May2015
Final Design - Construction Plans
May 2015 - October 2015
October 2015
Construction
January 2016 - March 2016
March 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
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
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
January 2016 -April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
March 2016 - October 201E
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
December 2019
Year 5 Monitorin
2020
December 2020
Year 6 Mon:
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 1- 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Angela Allen, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986, ext. 106
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 1- 2016
PROJECT•
•
Project Name
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
County
Alamance County
Project Area (acres)
32.4 Acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°51'310.12"N, 79"23'16.00"W
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
03030002050050
DW R Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,077
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
REACH SUMMARY
49% Forested/Scrubland, 42%Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous, 4%
Pasture, 3% Watershed Impervious Cover, 2% Residential, <1% Open
Water
INFORMATION
Parameters
UT to Pine UTI UT1A UT2 UI UT213
Hill Branch
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
II
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%
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 Act
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 (LAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
UT to Pine Hill Branch and portions of UT2 and
UT2A are located within the floodway and
flood fringe (FEMA Zone AE, FIRM panel
8786).
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
WILDLANDS(Key)
0 175 350 525 700 Feet Holman Mill Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Alamance County, NC
�,
P;� ter,` `c� _ .�•- ,-.- - _ -
,`�' i� •���........................e Reach 3
•�UT1 P
UT1 Reac-.,
P.P2 •. P
PP:S' iL
PP6 PP ---------------------
014 Aerial Photography
PP 22 I -
PP 1
PP 15 PP 16
-
...�.
PP 20'
PP 19
1
1
1
ti
�
J 1
�
1
�
1
1
1
j
1
1
�
1
PP 18'�
1
*
�
1
`
PP 17 1
1
q4 .
P
PP 4
�P5
UT1 Reach 3•�,�•�.
PP 6 _ - �•`
•`'�•e• - PP9
PP 42 *IWW-N" 'RIV WT,-Imw-wl
PP 33
1
PP 34 `
`•`•�•�'�. r?Reach �" -1�, t'.. 1PP 43 -
l
•`•�♦ - �� PP 44® .1 ' _ I Cl1 4 PPJ29
.. 'PP 32 * .` PP 40 PP 41 j
I• * PP 35 PP 36
ISI • *
Rea 3
C)?
i 2R6
j I• ���•�. PP 37 , PP 38 PyP 39 \ PP 27 ,
PP 31
•I '(tib � I �•�. Reac � ` ,
f PP 30 I•I - �•�• PP 26 1
1
1
j � 1
1
a 1 % 1
1 ( 1
PP 25 j
1 * 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1'�
1 1
1 PP 24 1
1 1
1
♦ j
PP 10
PP 11
ea h
4 Aerial Photography �•�•
12
PP 23
m�
0 �
4t
12
-11
Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UTI
[MaCi.r c1harm.l
ategory
Ch ...... u b -Category
1. Vertical Stability
Metric
Aggradation
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
0
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
0
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
100%
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Foot ge with
Staaflizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
t00%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
13
13
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
13
13
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
12
12
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
13
13
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
Totals
0
1 0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
30
10
100%
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a Piping
underneath sills or arms.
30
30
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
10
10
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
10
10
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UTl A
Major Channel
Category
I
Channel Sub -Category
1. Vertical Stability
Metric
Aggradation
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
0
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
0
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
100%
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Foot ge with
Statilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1.Bed
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
t00%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
3
3
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
meander bend Run
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend(Glide)n/a
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
1 0
100%
1 n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UT2
[MaCi.r c1harm.l
ategory
Ch ...... u b -Category
1. Vertical Stability
Metric
Aggradation
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
0
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
0
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
100%
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Foot ge with
Staabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
t00%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
13
13
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
13
13
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
1 0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a Piping
underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
3
3
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table Sd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UT2A
Major Channel
Category
I
Channel Sub -Category
1. Vertical Stability
Metric
Aggradation
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
0
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
0
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
100%
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Foot ge with
Statilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1.Bed
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
t00%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
it
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
it
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
10
10
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
1 0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a Piping
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
2
2
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UT2B
Major Channel
Category
I
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Aggradation
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
0
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
0
% Stable,
Peff—ing as
Intended
100%
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Foot ge with
Staaflizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1.Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
meander bend Run
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend(Glide)n/a
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
1 0
100%
1 n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 -2016
UT to Pine Hill Branch
or Chamnel
Fc�
a,.g.r,
PC hannel Sub -Category
Metric
Aggradation
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
0
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
0
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
100%
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Foot ge with
Statilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
t00%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
Condition
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
meanderbend Run
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend(Glide)n/a
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercutsthat are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
1 0
100%
1 n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
4. Habitat
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
n/a
n/a
n/a
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Planted Acreage 14
Vegetation Category
NumberMapping
Definitions Threshold
.
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1
Polygons
0
Acreage
0
Acreage
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0
0%
criteria.
Total
0
0
0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0%
Stream Photographs
PHOTO POINT 1— looking upstream (09/06/2016) PHOTO POINT 1— looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 4 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 5 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 7 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) PHOTO POINT 9 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 10 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 13 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
� SfF
` .. A•. f ` GF � t i' ' hl:. 5 y� .ate' _ -•i a
_ - '_ �.: moi✓
ter' 1 - � ty 4 ' -• (S� _
' - � `. t % rT •?r tea.
IVA
ix
AR
a� , � t'd►' �f��r
v..
ti
K�
� SfF
` .. A•. f ` GF � t i' ' hl:. 5 y� .ate' _ -•i a
_ - '_ �.: moi✓
ter' 1 - � ty 4 ' -• (S� _
' - � `. t % rT •?r tea.
IVA
ix
AR
a� , � t'd►' �f��r
v..
ti
i
•�
V
{
•,i'e�
� {'� `fi
may#
,�"r^'
� SfF
` .. A•. f ` GF � t i' ' hl:. 5 y� .ate' _ -•i a
_ - '_ �.: moi✓
ter' 1 - � ty 4 ' -• (S� _
' - � `. t % rT •?r tea.
IVA
ix
AR
a� , � t'd►' �f��r
v..
ti
'S a F• 4{a Y _ �
s � Mays'{�.yrk � � � A•�'s�['J�' BSc f/ -Y '. - S SVS^ l}j. � -.��(�
±CYC �]'/�l'" i' �rM1 •-�� /
� � r
�' ' ,.�'- y '�: �T '� ^ f �i� } � r T� a Y, .a'. -�• ,$
• • • • . . 1 ' 1 . 1 • • • .. • • 1 ' 1 . 1
. " �"g'�^th G, " ':C��'� �. _ may. y z A�• ' L 'K'
t
-
n- _
• • • 1 .. . 1 1 . 1 • • • 1 .. .. - 1 1 . 1
c: s x Wd
'� ';►`�� `„ �iro� �� .. fly. _.: ���r
ti
r
� _ � ��•ri} l
ESI „ ; �. E,'z • o ��„ � •� xi * ' � ��� � t
r
", Nit
�.
r r r j� by "
pl
e
f
- f
F A_ .iY
IY
ry
^� ,, s�• iia r,:� � '�' _
4pMe
yes'"
*4'<.
yT . er
w n `moi ?'�•
OU"
:' r
f 7,
....
_ .:tom fir.-• � �- r ��,. �. -._
w
1.
'+t
y
24:
tL-
f�
v_. _",. "+'^`ti•.�}., }ryry a e, - .�.
5
If
_I�
PHOTO POINT 37 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 37 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 38 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 38 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 40 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 40 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 41— looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 41— looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 43 — looking upstream (09/06/2016) 1 PHOTO POINT 43 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 44 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 44 — looking downstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 45 — looking upstream (09/06/2016)
PHOTO POINT 45— looking downstream (09/06/2016)
Vegetation Photographs
Vegetation Plot 1 (09/06/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 (09/06/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 (09/06/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 (09/06/2016)
3;
R ...._C�,
Vegetation Plot 5 (09/06/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 (09/06/2016)
Vegetation Plot 9 (09/06/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (09/06/2016)
Vegetation Plot 11(09/06/2016) 1Vegetation Plot 12 (09/06/2016) 1
APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Plot
MY1 Success Criteria Tract Mean
1
Y
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y 100%
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Report Prepared By
Kenton Beal
Date Prepared
12/5/2016 10:10
Database Name
Holman Mill MY1- cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
F:\Projects\005-02146 Holman Mill\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
KENTON
File Size
82616320
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
UMMARY-------------------------------------
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------- ----
Project
Project Code
96316
Project Name
Holman Mill
Description
Stream Restoration Project
Sampled Plots
12
Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 - 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%
Current Plot Data (MY1 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
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green 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, American
Tree
I
I 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
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
15
15
15
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 4 4 5 1 5 5 5 1 5 5 4 1 4 4 5 5
1
5
607 607 607 1647.5 1647.5 1647.51 607 1 607 1 607 607 1 607 1 607 607 607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 - 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%
Current Plot Data (MY1 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
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
5
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, American
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
9
9
9
5
5
5
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
3
3
3
22
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
11
11
11
16
16
16
16
16
16
14
14
14
15
15
15
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 3 3 5 1 5 1 5 4 4 1 4 5 1 5 5 5 5
5
445.2 445.2 445.2 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 647.5 566.6 566.6 1566.61 607 607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1 - 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%
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96316-WEI-0011
96316-WEI-0012
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
28
28
28
31
31
31
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
39
39
39
39
39
39
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
33
33
33
35
35
35
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, American
Tree
5
5
5
7
7
7
41
41441
45
45
45
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
11
18
18
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
11
20
20
20Stem
count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
16
15
15
15
179
179
188
188
188
1 1 12 12
0.02 0.02 0.30 0.30
5 5 5 5 5 5 6 1 6 6 6 6
1
6
647.5 1647.51647.51 607 607 607 603.7 1603.7 603.7 634 634
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%
APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year I. 2016
UTI
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
RESTORAT101M
PRE-
REFERENCE
REACH
DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Parameter
Gage
UT1 - Reach 1/3
Agony Acres UT1A-
Reach 1
UT to Polecat
Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
UT1 -
Reach
1/3
UT1 - Reach
1/3
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I
Max
Min
Max
Min
I 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.S
7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
12 >36 25 65 20 64 15 1 65 23
24
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7 1.0 F 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 0.8 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
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
1 10.1 5.2 9.6 8.1 9.3 14.1 13.1 13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0 >3.9 3.2 8.3 1.9 6.1 1.9 8.3 3.0 3.1
Bank Height Ratio
2.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0
D50 (mm)
33.1
28.8
32.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--
---
---
---
12.5
31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
/A
0.0040
0.0470
0.0240 0.0570
0.0158
0.0661
0.0200
0.0690
Pool Length (ft)
-- --- --- --- 6.0
23.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A.5
ELN/A
1.8
2.5
2.6
0.9
1.7
1.5
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ftp)
Pattern
34
52
8
82
2
44
20
Em
53
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
1 62 1 82
1 21
1 93
1 28
1
50
1 15 1
45
1 12
1
69
1 11
1 45
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
1 56 90
14
60
19
50
8
47
10
45
9
37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
6.2 9.91.5
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
1 31
75
Meander Width Ratio
6.8 9.0
2.3
1 8.9
3.0
5.3
1.0
3.0
1.6
8.9
1.5
5.7
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
1.6
--
--
--
0.9
.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
69.7/128
0.7
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10
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
B4 E4 E4 E4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2 3.2
Discharge (cfs)
14.0 25.3 20.3 54.0 14.0
Q-NFF regression
"3.S3.6Bankfull
---
---
---
--- --- --- --- 468 468
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,648 519 517
Sinuosity
1.12 1.35 1.40 1.20 1.15 1.20 1.10
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
-- --- --- --- 0.0246
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.025 0.004 0.028 0.012 0.017 0.015 0.03 0.0203
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2
*: Alignment change during consturcdon created steeper riffles
(--+ Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
®®®®®®®®®®
PRE -RESTORATION
CONDITION
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width
�ft)
F odprone Width ft)
10
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
11111
®� 1111 1111 111��
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
VIII
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate I%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Bankfull Slope [ft/ft)
*: Alignment change during consturcdon created steeper riffles
(--+ Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2A
( --- ): Data. was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
RESTORATION
PRE-
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
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 14 1 80
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4 1.0 7 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
1 11.3 5.4 12.4 10.3 12.3 3.3
3.2
Width/Depth Ratio
12 7.3
1 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
15.1
Bank Height Ratio
3.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 =0.212.5
1.0
D50 (mm)
3.2
18.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--
---
---
---
17.9 38.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--
N/A
0.0040
0.0470
0.0240
FoO570
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
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
N/A
1 15
1 30
1 21 1
93
1 28
1 50
1 15
1 45
1 10
1 57
1 25
1 40
Radius of Curvature (ft)
5.8
33
14 60
19
50
8
47
8
37
11
31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
6.5
1.5 5.8
2.0
5.3
0.6
3.2
1.3
5.8
1.7
4.7
Meander Length (ft)
27
69
N/A
--
--
--
--
20
105
41
61
Meander Width Ratio
2.9
9.0
2.3 8.9
3.0
5.3
1.0
3.0
1.6
8.6
3.8
6.1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
1.85
-
-
-5/
0.52
0.45
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d 16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft'
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m'
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.Z 2.4 2.2 3.5 4.4 5.2 3.1
2.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
9.0 25.3 20.3 54.0 9.0
8.6
Q-NFF regression
---
---
---
--- --- --- --- 480
480
Q-LISGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
468 540
1.15 1.35 1.40 1.20 1.15 1.25
540
1.13
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
--- --- -- ---
0.0129
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.023 0.0040 0.028 0.012 0.0170 0.007 0.018
1 0.0143
( --- ): Data. was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
N/A: Not Applicable
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 570.5
570.5
569.8
569.8
554.1
S54.1
553.9
553.9
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.9
7.7
8.4
7.3
9.6
8.9
7.5
6.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 23.6
21.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
23.4
17.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.9
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (f?) 4.6
3.8
7.4
6.S
8.2
8.1
4.3
3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.6
15.8
9.5
8.3
11.3
9.8
13.1
15.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.0
2.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.1
2.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
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 MY5
MY6
MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYS
MY2 I MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 520.1
520.1
519.5
519.5
520.5
520.5
520.2
520.2
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7
9.8
9.9
10.7
6.6
7.5
9.7
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 100.0
100.0
N/A
N/A
100.0
100.0
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8
0.9
1.6
1.7
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftp) 4.5
4.4
8.9
9.0
3.2
2.7
9.1
8.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.5
21.9
11.0
12.7
13.5
20.7
10.4
12.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 10.4
10.2
N/A
N/A
15.1
13.3
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A: Not Applicable
Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTI Reach 1
(-): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max
=in Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.9
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
24
22
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.6
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
2.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
DSO (mm)
32.0
43.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.5 31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0200 0.0690
Pool Length (ft) 6.0 23.6
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.5 3.4
Pool Spacing (ft) 20 53
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
11 4S
Radius of Curvature (ft) 9 37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 4.7
Meander Wave Length (ft) 31 75
Meander Width Ratio 1.4 5.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
C4
208
1.1
0.0246
0.0203
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d1o0
0.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
69.7/128
SC/1.19/9.1/57.4/
107.3/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(-): Data was not provided
Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTI Reach 3
(-): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max
=in Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.5
6.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
23
17
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.3
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
28.8
22.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.5 31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0200 0.0690
Pool Length (ft) 6.0 23.6
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.5 3.4
Pool Spacing (ft) 20 53
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
11 45
Radius of Curvature (ft) 9 37
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.2 4.9
Meander Wave Length (ft) 31 75
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 6.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
C4
309
1.1
0.0246
0.0203
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
69.7/128
SC/1.19/9.1/57.4/
107.3/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(-): Data was not provided
Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 Reaches 3.4
(-): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max
=in Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.7
9.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.5
4.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio
10.4
10.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
11.4
35.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15 46
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0135 0.0592
Pool Length (ft) 11 60
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.5 3.1
Pool Spacing (ft) 33 61
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20 52
Radius of Curvature (ft) 18 45
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.9 4.6
Meander Wave Length (ft) 56 130
Meander Width Ratio 2.1 3.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
C4
649
1.15
0.0119 0.0237
0.0120 0.0176
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/2.18/5.6/
34.0/56.9/362.0
1.0/9.17/24.5/53.7/
77.8/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(-): Data was not provided
Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.96316
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2A
(-): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.6
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.2
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
20.7
Entrenchment Ratio
15.1
13.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
18.3
29.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17.9 38.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.0007 0.0520
Pool Length (ft) 16.3 33.0
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.5 3.3
Pool Spacing (ft) 29 62
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25 40
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.7 4.7
Meander Wave Length (ft) 41 61
Meander Width Ratio 3.8 6.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
C4
540
1.10
0.0129
0.0143
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
3.15/11.86/18.3/43.5/
101.2/362
.21/6.69/20.1/53.1/
75.9/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(-): Data was not provided
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 1 - UTI
100+65 Riffle
574
572
�
0
570
v
w
FloodproneArea
568
566
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2016)
�MY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
'
8.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5 hyd radi (ft)
15.8 width -depth ratio
21.6 W flood prone area (ft)
2.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
FloodproneArea
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 2 - UTI
100+80 Pool
574
572
�
0
570
v
w
568
566
0 10
20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016)
+MYl (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
e
6.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.3 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
8.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
8.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
�
0
570
v
w
568
566
0 10
20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016)
+MYl (10/2016) —Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 3 - UTI
108+95 Pool
:.�
558
556
� 554
0
v
w
552
550
0 10 20 30 40 SO
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) +MYl (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1 x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.9 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
10.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
9.8 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
:.�
� 554
0
v
w
552
550
0 10 20 30 40 SO
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) +MYl (10/2016) —Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Section 4 - UTI
109+10 Riffle
558
556
c
0
6.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
554
max depth (ft)
7.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
w
15.4
width -depth ratio
17.0
W flood prone area (ft)
552
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (03/2016) t MYl (10/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
1.0
Bankfull Dimensions
3.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
7.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
17.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 5 - UT2
212+00 Riffle
522
�
0
v
w
520
FloodproneArea
518
0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2016)
�MY1(10/2016)
-Bankfull
-
Bankfull Dimensions
4.4 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.8 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
10.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4 hyd radi (ft)r
21.9 width -depth ratio
-
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
-
10.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
v
Survey 2016
Y Date: 10/
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
FloodproneArea
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 6 - UT2
212+25 Pool
522
520
c
0
516
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) +MYl (10/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.0 x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.7 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
11.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd radi (ft)
12.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
c
w 518
516
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) +MYl (10/2016) -Bankfull
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 7 - UT2A
304+85 Riffle
522
/w -
FloodproneArea
=T
i
�
0
v
w
520
518
0 10 20
30 40
50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(03/2016)
�MY1(10/2016)
-Bankfull
-
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
k
7.5 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
7.8 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3 hyd radi (ft)
20.7 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
13.3 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
y �h
View Downstream
FloodproneArea
Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Cross Section 8 - UT2A
305+10 Pool
522
Bankfull Dimensions I ''
8.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.3 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
12.0 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
12.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
� 520
0
v
w
518
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (03/2016) +MYl (10/2016) -Bankfull
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UTI, Reachwide
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
2
9
11
11
11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
11
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
6
6
6
17
90
SI!VClaySand'vel
We
Medium
0.25 0.50
2
2
2
19
80
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
50
1
1
1
20
0 70
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
1
5
6
6
26
w 60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
2
6
8
8
34
3 50
Very Fine
2.8 4.0
2
4
6
6
40
Fine
4.0 5.6
2
4
6
6
46
U=40
Fine
5.6 8.0
4
5
9
9
55
w 30
Medium
8.0 11.0
3
1
4
4
59
u
a 20
Medium
11.0 16.0
3
2
5
S
64
Small
256
362
10
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
Coarse
16.0 22.6
6
1
7
7
71
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Coarse
22.6 32
5
3
8
8
79
0
50
100
100
100
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45
9
9
9
88
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45 64
5
1
6
6
94
Small
64 90
4
4
4
98
t MYO-03/2016 MY3-09/2016
Small
90 128
2
2
2
100
Large
128 180
100
Large
180 256
100
UTI, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
tiyo
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
D100 = 128.0
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi = 0.22
0i5 = 2.97
Dso = 6.6
Dgy = 38.7
095 = 69.7
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi = 0.22
0i5 = 2.97
Dso = 6.6
Dgy = 38.7
095 = 69.7
60
50
40
tiyo
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1, Cross Section 1
UT1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
70
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
100
Count
UT1, Cross Section 1
Silt/Clay
min max
0.000 0.062 6
Percentage Cumulative
6 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
80
6
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
c
6
90
Silt/Clay
a avel
bble r
Medium
0.25 0.50
6
g0
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
6
70
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
6
a 60
V
m
40
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
6
50
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 2
2
8
E
Fine
4.0 5.6 6
6
14
u' 40
Fine
5.6 8.0 4
4
18
30
u
Medium
8.0 11.0 4
4
22
a 20
45
64
Medium
11.0 16.0 6
6
28
64
90
8
8
92
Small
90
10
4
4
Coarse
16.0 22.6 12
12
40
2
2
98
Coarse
22.6 32 10
10
50
98
Small
256
362
2
2
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45 18
18
68
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
Particle Class Size (mm)
VerL
y
100
MY003/2016 MYl-09/2016
Id
UT1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
70
100
90
80
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
m
40
30
20
c
10
0
b'ti �h .ti5 Oh
00
'Y 'ti ,ti4 b 41 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti by �b -O ,ti'b 160 h� bti yti ,tib b0 0�O
h6 ti 1 ti 3
Coarse
45
64
16
16
84
Small
64
90
8
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
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi = 6.69
Das = 19.57
Dso = 32.0
D84 = 64.0
D95 = 117.2
Dloo = 362.0
100
90
80
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
m
40
30
20
c
10
0
b'ti �h .ti5 Oh
00
'Y 'ti ,ti4 b 41 1ti y6 6 ,y'ti by �b -O ,ti'b 160 h� bti yti ,tib b0 0�O
h6 ti 1 ti 3
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-03/2016 amyl -09/2016
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1, Cross Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
5.15
Das =
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
70.2
D95 =
107.3
Count
180.0
90
UT1, Cross Section 4
Silt/Clay
min max
0.000 0.062 6
Percentage Cumulative
6 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
70
6
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
6
90 Silt/Clay
a avel
bble r
Medium
0.25 0.50
50
6
80
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
6
70
40
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0 2
2
8
a 60
30
Very Fine
2.0 2.8 4
4
12
50
20
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 1
1
13
E
Fine
4.0 5.6 4
4
17
u' 40
Fine
5.6 8.0 4
4
21
30
Medium
8.0 11.0 5
5
26
U
a 20
Medium
11.0 16.0 8
8
34
Coarse
45
64
12
12
10
Small
Coarse
16.0 22.6 9
9
43
92
Small
Coarse
22.6 32 10
10
53
0
Large
128
180
2
2
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45 16
16
69
100
Small
256
362
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
MVP03/2016 MYl-09/2016
Total
100
100
100
b'ti �h .ti5 Oh 'Y
00 01 o
'L ,ti4 b h6 42 1ti y6 6 3ti by �b -O ,ti'b 260 h� bti yti ,tib b0 0%
titi 1 1 'ti '3 yo yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MM-03/2016 amy-9/2016
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
5.15
Das =
16.63
Dso =
28.8
D84 =
70.2
D95 =
107.3
D1oo =
180.0
90
80
70
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
Coarse
45
64
12
12
81
Small
64
90
11
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
100
100
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
5.15
Das =
16.63
Dso =
28.8
D84 =
70.2
D95 =
107.3
D1oo =
180.0
UT1, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2, Reachwide
..................................
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Diameter (mm) Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min max Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT2, Reachwide
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062 1
29
30
30
30
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
1
1
1
31
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
31
90 Silt/ClaySand'vel
bble
r
Medium
0.25 0.50
31
80
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
Fine
5.6
8.0
31
0 70
4
4
54
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
3
3
3
34
w 60
62
Medium
11.0
Very Fine
2.0 2.8 2
2
4
4
38
3 50
16.0
22.6
5
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 4
1
S
S
43
E
4
2
6
Fine
4.0 5.6 5
2
7
7
50
�= 40
11
11
93
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
w 30
96
00
64
90
1
1
1
97
u
a 20
90
128
1
1
2
2
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
10
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-03/2016 MY3-09/2016
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
Fine
5.6
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
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
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
60
50
Reachwide 40
Channel materials (mm)
016= Silt/Clay
0i5 = 2.18
Dso = 5.6
Dgy = 34.0
095 = 56.9
Dloo = 362.0
�
d
w
d
16
u
A 30
20
c 10
0
ooetiotiyh oye oy ti ti tiw a 56 � titi tib �ti6 3ti a5 6o- �o tiyro ��o tiyo 3eti ytiti yoyo�o�w �9�
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -03/2016 0 MYl-09/2016
80
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2, Cross Section 5
UT2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
UT2, Cross Section 5
Silt/Clay
min max
0.000 0.062
12
Percentage Cumulative
12 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
12
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
12
90
Silt/Clay
a avel
bbl. r
Medium
0.25 0.50
50
12
g0
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
2
2
14
70
40
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
2
2
16
a 60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
20
16
50
c
Very Fine
2.8 4.0
6
6
22
E
Fine
4.0 5.6
10
10
32
u' 40
Small
Fine
5.6 8.0
4
4
36
30
90
128
Medium
8.0 11.0
12
12
48
U
a 20
Medium
11.0 16.0
20
20
68
100
Small
256
362
100
10
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
Coarse
16.0 22.6
4
4
72
>2048
Coarse
22.6 32
6
6
78
0
100
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45
6
6
84
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45 64
6
6
90
MY003/2016 MYl-09/2016
UT2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
m
40
30
20
c
10
0
b'ti �h .ti5 Oh
00 01 0
S 'ti ,ti4 b h6 � yti y6 6 3ti by rab �O .ti<b 160 yti
tih� 3bti ,tib b0 0%
titi ti 1 `� yo ,yo bo
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
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi = 2.00
Das = 7.32
Dso = 11.4
D84 = 45.0
D95 = 79.2
Dloo = 128.0
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
m
40
30
20
c
10
0
b'ti �h .ti5 Oh
00 01 0
S 'ti ,ti4 b h6 � yti y6 6 3ti by rab �O .ti<b 160 yti
tih� 3bti ,tib b0 0%
titi ti 1 `� yo ,yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-03/201fi. aMYl-09/2016
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2A, Reachwide
..................................
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Diameter (mm) Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min max Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
UT2A, Reachwide
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
36
36
36
36
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
2.0
1
3
36
100
42
24
2.0
Fine
0.125 0.250
3
5
5
36
90 Si8/clay
a
Vol
bble
r
Medium
0.25 0.50
1
1
1
37
80
8
3
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
1
1
1
38
0 70
8
8
71
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
w 60
78
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
S
5
83
3 50
16.0
22.6
5
S
5
88
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
95
Very Coarse
32
45
U=40
95
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
w 30
96
Small
64
90
3
3
3
99
u
a 20
90
128
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
10
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-03/2016 MY3-09/2016
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
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
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
8
8
71
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
7
7
78
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
S
5
83
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
S
5
88
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
95
Very Coarse
32
45
95
Very Coarse
45
64
1
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
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
60
50
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
016= Silt/Clay
0i5 = Silt/Clay
Dso = 3.5
D$y = 17.1
095 = 32.0
Dloo = 180.0
� 70
d
w
d
16 40
u
A 30
20
c 10
0
O�ra'LOylh O.1h Oy S 'L ,y`b b 56 � yti y� �,L6 .�'L G5 6b �O yi'b ��O �y0 3bti yyti y�,tib �o�'b X96
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -03/7O16 0 MYl-09/1016
80
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 93616)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
3.15
Das =
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
43.5
D95 =
101.2
min max Count
Percentage Cumulative
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062 9
9
9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
70
9
100
—
Fine
0.125 0.250
9
90 Silt/ClaySandavel
bble r
Medium
0.25 0.50
50
9
g0
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
9
70
40
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
9
a 60
30
Very Fine
2.0 2.8 6
6
15
50
20
Very Fine
2.8 4.0 3
3
18
E
10
Fine
4.0 5.6 4
4
22
u' 40
0
Fine
5.6 8.0 4
4
26
30
Medium
8.0 11.0 7
7
33
U
a 20
Medium
11.0 16.0 10
10
43
Coarse
45
64
7
7
10
Small
Coarse
16.0 22.6 18
18
61
94
i
Coarse
22.6 32 14
14
75
0
Large
128
180
1
1
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45 10
10
85
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
MY003/2016 MYl-09/2016
Total
100
100
100
b'ti �h .ti5 Oh S
00 01 o
'ti ,ti4 b h6 0 ,y'Y y�o 6 3ti by 0b 00 ,ti0 00 h0 p, yti ,tib b0 00
titi 1 1 ti 3 yo ,yo b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MM-03/2016 amy-9/2016
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
3.15
Das =
11.86
Dso =
18.3
D84 =
43.5
D95 =
101.2
D1oo =
362.0
90
80
70
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
Coarse
45
64
7
7
92
Small
64
90
2
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
100
100
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
3.15
Das =
11.86
Dso =
18.3
D84 =
43.5
D95 =
101.2
D1oo =
362.0
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
i
w
d
60
a
50
m
V
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.96316)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Monthly Rainfall Data
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.96316)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Holman Mill 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Siler City, NC
10
Date of Data Date of
Reach
Collection Occurrence
Method
9/6/2016 7/31/2016
UT1
S
10/11/2016 10/8/2016
Crest Gage/
9/6/2016 7/31/2016
UT2
Pressure
10/11/2016 10/8/2016
d 4
3
Transducer
9/6/2016 7/31/2016
UT2A
10/11/2016 10/8/2016
2016 Rainfall Data 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
Monthly Rainfall Data
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No.96316)
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Holman Mill 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Siler City, NC
10
9
8
7
S
6
`0
n 5
Q
d 4
3
2
1
0
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16
Date
2016 Rainfall Data 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
1 2016 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)
' 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2002).