20140333 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171206

MONITORING YEAR 2 HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT NCDEQ Contract 005795
Draft DMS ID No. 96316
Data Collection Period: January - October 2017
Draft Submission Date: November 14, 2017
Final Submission Date:
PREPARED FOR:
I 7k
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
7
as
143
MONITORING YEAR 2 HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT NCDEQ Contract 005795
Draft DMS ID No. 96316
Data Collection Period: January - October 2017
Draft Submission Date: November 14, 2017
Final Submission Date:
PREPARED FOR:
I 7k
NC 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 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

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, UTI, 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 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 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 and April 2016. A
conservation easement is in place on 32.4 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) assessments and site visits were completed between January and October
2017 to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and
stream success criteria for MY2. The overall average stem density for the Site is 472 stems per acre and
is therefore on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. All restored and enhanced
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - DRAFT

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 all restoration reaches during MY2 and two bankfull events
were recorded on each reach during MY1, resulting in attainment of the MY7 stream hydrology success
criteria.
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - DRAFT

HOLMAN MILL MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 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 2 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............................................................................................................1-3
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 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-3
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
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 2 Annual Report - DRAFT 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 11 (Ell) reaches included UTI (Reach 2 and 4), Ell; UT2 (Reach 1), Ell; UT2 (Reach 2), E1;
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 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 2 Annual Report - DRAFT 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 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY2 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 per 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 MY2 vegetative survey was completed in August 2017. The 2017 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average stem density of 472 stems per acre which is well above the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre required at MY3 and approximately 25% less than the baseline density recorded (634
stems per acre). When including volunteer stems, the average stems per acre is 620. This is well above
the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre. There is an average of 11 stems per plot as
compared to 15 stems per plot in MYO. Eleven of the twelve vegetation plots are on track to meet the
success criteria required for MY7 (Table 9, Appendix 3). Vegetation plot 12 did not meet the interim
success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. However, when counting volunteer trees vegetation plot
12 meets the interim success criteria. 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
Vegetation plot 12 will not meet the MY3 interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. The
primary reason for this plot not meeting is due to the poor survival rates of tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) of which comprised five of the fifteen trees planted in this plot. All five tulip poplars were
either dead or missing during MY2. Additionally, there was significant competition from herbaceous
WHolman Mill Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - DRAFT 1-2

vegetation within the plot which out competed some of the planted trees. However, with inclusion of
volunteer species there are 486 stems per acre which is well above the MY3 interim success criteria of
320 stems per acre. This area will be monitored in subsequent years and corrective actions will be taken
if deemed necessary.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in March 2017 and all streams within the Site are
stable. 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 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 MY2.
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. Multiple bankfull events were recorded on all restoration
reaches during MY2 and two bankfull events were recorded on each reach during MY1, resulting in
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 2 Summary
Eleven of the 12 vegetation plots are on track to meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted
stems per acre as noted in CCPV. When including volunteer species all 12 vegetation plots meet the MY3
interim requirement. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Multiple
bankfull events in separate years have been documented on all restored stream reaches at the Site,
resulting in 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 2 Annual Report - DRAFT 1-3

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in 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 2 Annual Report - DRAFT 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 2 Annual Report - DRAFT 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

C c11T11=`
03030002050050
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
- Project Area
oo
3 J i.l
T CID •',
'ate U
CL
`Audi �!
03030003070010 ;, H -i
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
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.
�IVWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk�
_ter
nen �nnn nn cnn�n C����'
%7 Directions:
From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 West towards Durham.
Take exit 273A for NC -54 West toward Chapel Hill.
1^` ` Travel approximately three miles and turn right to follow
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
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.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 96316
1 1 1 Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Alamance County, NC

! T!W 4J. ;,„ �Kr�
r, .. ,
ol
i' ♦•� each?
� 7
r29 UT2 Reach 4 1
UT2 Reach 3 j
� � 1
� m j
� m 1
IZ 1
1 r 1
1 ° I
1 J 1
1 j
j

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Stream
RiparianWetland
MITIGATIONr
parian
Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
p
Offset
Type R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
HEMENNEEMEMM
Totals 3,884
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
PROJECT• ••
As -Built Stationing/ Existing
Footage/
Credits
Reach ID
Location
Acreage
Approach
Restoration or Restoration
Equivalent Restoration
Footage / Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
(SMU / WMU)
STREAMS
UTto 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
Pi
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
P1
Restoration
540
1
540
UT2 Reach
200+00-205+88
588
Ell
Restoration
588
2.5
235
UT2 Reachl
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
Pi
Restoration
167
1
167
UT2B
500+00-504+29
429
Ell
Restoration
429
2.5
172
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian
Wetland (acres) Non
-Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (acres)
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,706
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancementl
293
Enhancement II
6,718
-----------------------------
Creation
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
HighQualityPreservation
-
-
-
-
-

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Activity or Report
Date Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
April 2014 -April 2015
May 2015
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) Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
March 2016
May 2016
March 2016
Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
September 2016
December 2016
September 2016
Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
March 2017
December 2017
August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2018
December 2018
2018
Year 4 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2019
December 2019
2019
Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2020
December 2020
2020
Year 6 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2021
December 2021
2021
Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
2022
December 2022
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 2 - 2017
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
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
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 2 - 2017
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
PROJECT•
Physiographic Province
SUMMARY INFORMATION
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
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-04
Project Drainage 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
Parameters
UT to Pine UT1 UT1A UT2 UT2A UT26
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
I NA
Underlying mapped soils
Georgeville silty clay loam, Local alluvial land, Herndon silt loam,
Goldston Channery silt loam
Drainage class
--- --- --- ---
Soil Hydric status
--- ---
Slope
--- --- --- --- ---
;E�j
FEMA classification
AE I --- I AE AE ---
Native vegetation community
Piedmont bottomland forest, Bottomland hardwood forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation - Post -Restoration
REGULATORY•
Regulation
0%
1 •
Applicable.3,. 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
I No
I N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

,1
.i
WWII
2016 Aerial Photography
_._._.-.-------._._ ._*_ �heet 2
&PZ �*AMU each 4
Ch
0000
_ s
. t'!� _ - _ �� *��•i •�•UT2 Reach 3w•w.w. *. 1
• •••
* � I
/ , w• e 1 ¢A.
1
10
w,Re
•�• •.e,+ch 3
CD i w•w•w. * _ w •w• r ; i
------•---------•--- --- --- ---• tea•—-�r-—•——--------------.i
w.w•w• * •�•w each •� *� / i �

i ,
OWN•PP 3,k,�•�(/`�` each
•�•o._._.__._._._._.�•�•�'�T1 (leach 3 PPS PP 9 ...r..
t •, •UT1 Reach 2• i ` * * PP 10 PP 11 'e•�•�•���' �.
i PP A' - PP 5, PP 13
_ i -�� , f * \ * •tea._•_•_•_•_•_._. _.�.i
���*3q ji;. _ i`,� �, �( *� I'.�•�•�.�•`• * PP1,2 _ •1. *� PP 14
1 �' J�4�•` ��.o•''• •�. _
UTI Reach 4
-------------------
J'
t { _
2016 Aerial Photography
4

♦ �7
u•'*
1 NPP 2
A*
6Aerial Photography
• r-tia ... r.
PP 6
r�
U7,1 Reach3'�•_..
PP 7 A
i
PP 8
C7
PP 9
C3
PP 11
12 -
PP 42
PP 33
PP 34-
ReaCh
��O
♦�-
PP. 29
PP
44 UT2 Reach 4
*� j
`e
PP 32
.e
*
.. _ _ ._
PP 35 PP 36
_. -�q
•• '�
, I PP 40
A
i
! I �.` PP 45 *�-�
PP 41 1� 1
P�28
i•d� i
.e
e
* *
Rea C h
+ee
UTZ
PP 3$PP,439\
PP 27
1
PP 31
e'
�•.. Reach
*
?
���'�.
4
eye•
�.e•�•�'�'...w,`♦
1
_ _ _
�•
PP 26
e•+-
6 AAA Al
1
1
1
I
j
I
1
( I
PP 25 j
1
* 1
. 1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
PP 11
12 -

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
-Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number o
Unstable
table
Segmen
'Its
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stabi ,
Performing as
Intended
Number III
Stabiiz�
in_
V Woody
egetationi
lo.ta.e-ilh
Stabilizing
Wood
Vegetation
Adjust %
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
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.
10
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
30
30
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1A
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
-Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number o
Unstable
table
Segmen
'Its
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stabi ,
Performing as
Intended
Number III
n_
Stabiiz�
V Woody
egetationi
lo.t..e-ilh
Stabilizing
Wood
Vegetation
Adjust %
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
o
0
100%
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
meanderbend Run
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
nla
n/a
meander bend Glide
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%
1 /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 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
-Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number o
Unstable
table
Segmen
'Its
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stabi ,
Performing as
Intended
Number III
m_
Stabiiz�
V Woody
egetationi
IF..t..e-I1h
Stabilizing
Wood
Vegetation
Adjust %
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
o
0
100%
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 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2A
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
-Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number o
Unstable
table
Segmen
'Its
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stabi ,
Performing as
Intended
Number III
n_
stabiiz�
V Woody
egetationi
lo.t..e-ilh
Stabilizing
Wood
Vegetation
Adjust %
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
o
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
11
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 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2B
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
-Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number o
Unstable
table
Segmen
'Its
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stabi ,
Performing as
Intended
Number III
n_
stabiiz�
V Woody
egetationi
IF..t..e-I1h
Stabilizing
Wood
Vegetation
Adjust % 1,01
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(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
meanderbend Run
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
nla
n/a
meander bend Glide
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%
1 /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 2 - 2017
UT to Pine Hill Branch
M"M
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number o
Unstable
table
Segmen
'Its
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stabi ,
Performing as
Intended
Number III
n_
Stabiiz�
V Woody
egetationi
lo.t..e-ilh
Stabilizing
Wood
Vegetation
Adjust % 41
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Meander Pool
Condition
Length Appropriate
n/a
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
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%
1 /a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
n/a
n/a
n/a
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
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
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
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 2 - 2017
Planted Acreage 14
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(Ac)
Mho
0
0
Acreage
0%
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
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%
Easement Acreaee 32.4
Invasive Areas of Concern JAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1 1,000 1 0 1 0 1 0%
Easement Encroachment Areas JAreas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). I none 1 0 1 0 1 0%

Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 1— looking upstream (03/07/2017) I PHOTO POINT 1— looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 2 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 3 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 4 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) PHOTO POINT 4 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 5 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 6 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 7 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 7 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
14
PHOTO POINT 8 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 9 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 10 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 11— looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 12 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 13 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 13 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 14 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 14 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 15 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 16 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 16 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 17 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 18 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)

;lk
127,
t
5 Y✓� X I{}��. moi+.' yy,Y `y , ��. -i"
• • • . 1 1 1 • • • • • 1 1 1
f
i
�n
y
� 4,44
S
r�
�P
F, �l
is ' '
y'
ZA
r�
�P
F, �l
is ' '

PHOTO POINT 22 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 22 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 23 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 25 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 25 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 26 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 27 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 27 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 28 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 28 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 29 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 29 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 30 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 30 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

r y yg�
YG �
C C y 7
'' ; adv l� "a g K � ,� - �� i f �:. 4 : 1• ISy ��',la � ' y � ��. ,�' � � '� +. � � �� � ���
U �
Wk
i 'S C
Y
8 Y � •iP' • " ,� r
l
- 4 N
• ••law3mrone . 1 1 1 • ••10 1 &J IM Lois]1 1 1
'w
�r� r C`':.- `ems" �� .�, .✓.� �� Y- �; ,. _..> �'. .. � r a -
't'3 1# t�'>si� �yJ.� -�, m, i -0e• .p;r ;
j� 'aa,.� � ,,�� ��� �' � -_ Yom- $-° ,, ��; ♦ � 'rr � _
5 �?
y �f F'
r
�' J
Ia s
a �

PHOTO POINT 34 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 34 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 35 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 36 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 36 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 37 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) PHOTO POINT 37 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 38 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 38 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 39 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 40 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 40 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 41— looking upstream (03/07/2017) PHOTO POINT 41— looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking upstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 42 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

PHOTO POINT 43 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 PHOTO POINT 43 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 44 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) PHOTO POINT 44 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)
PHOTO POINT 45 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) PHOTO POINT 45 — looking downstream (03/07/2017)

Vegetation Photographs

i
sT 3 1
Y `1f.'
x�'
i
sT 3 1
Y `1f.'
x�'

Vegetation Plot 7 (08/03/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (08/03/2017) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (08/03/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (08/03/2017)
Vegetation Plot 11(08/03/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 (08/03/2017)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Plot
Success Criteria
Met (Y/N) Tract Mean
1
Y
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y 92%
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
N

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Report Prepared By
Jason Lorch
Date Prepared
8/18/2017 12:54
Database Name
Holman Mill MY2- cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
F:\Projects\005-02146 Holman Mill\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
JASON -PC
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.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
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 2 - 2017
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
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
6
6
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
5
5
5
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, American
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
14
14
11
11
11
14
14
14
11
11
11
14
14
15
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
4 4 44 4 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5
6
566.6 566.6 566.6 445.2 445.2 445.2 566.6 1 566.61 566.6 1445.2 1 445.2 445.2 566.6 1566.6
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
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
8
8
9
3
3
3
5
5
5
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
6
13
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, American
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
2
2
2
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Salix nigra
Black Willow
ITree
3
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
ITree
3
7
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
12
12
21
11
11
14
13
13
33
13
13
14
10 1
10
14
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
3 3 4 1 4 4 1 5 3 3 5 4 4 5 4 1 4
6
485.6 1485.6 1849.81445.2 1445.2 1566.61526.11526.11 1335 526.1 526.1 566.6 404.7 404.7
566.6
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96316-WEI-0011
96316-WEI-0012
MY2 (2017)
MYl (2016)
MYO (2016)
PnoLSFP-all T 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
27
27
27
28
28
28
31
31
31
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
42
42
44
39
39
39
39
39
39
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
5
26
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
14
14
16
33
33
33
35
35
35
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, American
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
22
22
22
41
41
41
45
45
45
Quercus palustris
Pin Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
15
15
18
18
18
18
18
18
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Salix nigra
Black Willow
ITree
3
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
ITree
10
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species counti
Stems per ACREI
11
1 11
1 11
6
6
12
140
140
184
179
179
179
188
188
188
1 1 12 12 12
0.02 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.30
5 1 5 1 5 1 4 4 1 6 6 6 10 6 1 6 6 6 6
6
445.2 1445.2 1445.2 1242.8 1242.8 1485.6 472.1 472.1 620.5 603.7 1603.7 1603.71 634 1 634 1
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes,
T: Total Stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Parameter
Gage
UT1 -Reach 1/3
Agony Acres
Reach
UT1A-
1
UT to Polecat Creek
UT to Varnals
Creek
UTI - Reach
1/3
UTI - 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)
12 >36 25 65 20
64 15 1 65 23
24
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7 1.0 1 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 (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
1
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)
N/A
--
---
---
---
---
12.5
31.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
N/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)
---
2.5
1.8
2.5
2.6
0.9
1.7
1.5
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
N/A
34 1 52
8
82
2
44
20
53
Pool Volume (ft)
--
--
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
62
1 82
21 1
93
1 28
1 SO
1 15
1 45
12
1 69
1 11
1 4S
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
I S6
1 90
1 14 1 60
1 19
1 50
1 8
1 47
1 10
1 45
1 9
1 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
9.0
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%
---
---
-
-
---
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
---
---
---
---
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
0.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
69.7/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
1.6
---
---
---
0.9
0.7
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
---
---
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
---
---
--
--
---
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 7 3.5
4.4 1 5.2
3.2
3.5
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14.0
25.3
20.3
54.0
14.0
15.0
16.7
Q-NFF regression
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation
---
---
---
Q-Mannings
---
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
468
468
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,648
---
---
---
519
517
Sinuosity
1.12
1.35
1.40
1.20
1.15 T 1.20
1.10
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2
---
---
---
---
---
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 2 - 2017
L•1N
*: Alignment change during—Aunction created steeper rif0es
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
®®®®®®®®®®
PRE -RESTORATION
CONDITION
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
EFT Ml
EFT
Ml
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
Width/Depth Ratio
®®gym®omoo©mmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmm�m®0
mmmmmmmmommm®mmm�
Rosgen Classification
0®0000000
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Q-USGS extrapolation
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
*: Alignment change during—Aunction created steeper rif0es
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2A
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
RESTORATION
PRE-
REFERENCE
REACH
DATA
DESIGN
Parameter 71
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 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 14 180
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4 1.0 T 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 F 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 1.0 0.9 1 1.1
3.2 --- --- --- ---
1.0
18.3
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
17.9 38.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
N/A
0.0040 0.0470
0.0240
0.0570
0.018
1 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)
--- N/A 34 52 8
1 82 2
36
29 62
Pool Volume (ft)
-- -- --
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
15 30
21
93
28
50
15
45
10
57
25 40
Radius of Curvature (ft)
5.8 33
14
60
19
50
8
47
8
37
11 31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
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
T 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%
___
___
___
___
___
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
___
___
___
___
___
___
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
0.18/8.66/33.11/
128/2655/>2048
---
---
---
---
3.15/11.86/18.3/
43.5/101.2/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
1.85
--
--
--
0.52
0.45
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
---
I--
--
--
---
--
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)
9.0 25.3 20.3 54.0 9.0
8.6
Q-NFF regression
--- ---
Q-USGS extrapolation
--- ---
Q-Mannings
--- ---
Valley Length (ft)
--- --- --- --- 480
480
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
468 --- --- --- 540
540
Sinuosity
1.15 1.35 1.40 1.20 1.15 1.25
1.13
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
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 2 - 2017
N/A: Not Applicable
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
.
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
r
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6
MY7 Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 570.5
570.5
570.5
569.8
569.8
569.8
554.1
554.1
554.1
553.9
553.9
553.9
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.9
7.7
7.2
8.4
7.3
7.1
9.6
8.9
8.5
7.5
6.8
6.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 23.6
21.6
21.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
23.4
17.0
17.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 4.6
3.8
3.6
7.4
6.5
5.8
8.2
8.1
7.9
4.3
3.0
2.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.6
15.8
14.4
9.5
8.3
8.7
11.3
9.8
9.2
13.1
15.4
15.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.0
2.8
3.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.1
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.o
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
MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 520.1
520.1
520.1
519.5
519.5
519.5
520.5
520.5
520.5
520.2
520.2
520.2
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7
9.8
9.2
9.9
10.7
10.6
6.6
7.5
7.4
9.7
8.6
9.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 100.0
100.0
100.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
100.0
100.0
100.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8
0.9
0.9
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 4.5
4.4
3.9
8.9
9.0
8.4
3.2
2.7
2.7
9.1
8.6
9.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.5
21.9
21.1
11.0
12.7
13.4
13.5
20.7
20.6
10.4
12.3
10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 10.4
10.2
10.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.1
13.3
13.4
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
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 2 - 2017
UT1 Reach 1
(---): Data was not provided
Min Max
Min Max
YS
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.9
7.7
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
24
22
22
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)
4.6
3.8
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
15.8
14.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
2.8
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
32.0
43.7
7.1
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 (k)
20 53
Pool Volume (fta)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
11 45
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
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
208
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0246
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0203
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
0.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
SC/1.19/9.1/57.4/
SC/SC/4.9/61.0/
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
69.7/128
107.3/256
163.2/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
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 2 - 2017
UT1 Reach 3
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.5
6.8
6.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
23
17
17
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.3
3.0
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
15.4
15.0
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
2.5
2.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
28.8
22.6
23.6
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 F7
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
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
309
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0246
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0203
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
0.22/2.97/6.6/38.7/
SC/1.19/9.1/57.4/
0.75/13.14/23.6/63.4/
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
69.7/128
107.3/256
138.2/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reaches 3. 4
(---): Data was not provided
Min Max
Min Max
YS
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.7
9.8
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.5
4.4
3.9
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
21.9
21.7
Entrenchment Ratio
10.4
10.2
10.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
11.4
35.0
41.3
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 Classificationj
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)l
649
Sinuosity (ft)
1.15
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0119 0.0237
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0120 0.0176
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
SC/2.18/5.6/
1.0/9.17/24.5/53.7/
19.15/31.72/41.3/84.3/
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
34.0/56.9/362.0
77.8/128
123.1/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Holman Mill Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2A
(---): Data was not provided
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.6
7.5
7.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.2
2.7
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
20.7
20.6
Entrenchment Ratio
15.1
13.3
13.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
18.3
29.7
7.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17.9 38.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0007 0.0520
Pool Length (ft)
16.3 33.0
go
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5 3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
29 62
Pool Volume F7
��
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 Classificationj
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)l
540
Sinuosity (ft)
1.10
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0129
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0143
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3.15/11.86/18.3/43.5/.21/6.69/20.1/53.1/
SC/0.87/1.9/32.0/
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
101.2/362
75.9/128
75.9/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0% 1
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 1 -UTI
100+65 Riffle
574
572
c
0
FloodproneArea
v
w
570
568
0 10
20 30 40
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2016) �MY1(9/2016)
�MY2(03/2017) -Bankfull-
Bankfull Dimensions
s
3.6 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.2 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
7.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
4`
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4 width -depth ratio
21.6 W flood prone area (ft)
3.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 2 -UTI
100+80 Pool
c
574
v
572
566
0
570
�
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull
568
Bankfull Dimensions
5.8 x -section area (ft.sq.).
7.1 width (ft)_
x <
0.8 mean depth (ft)
w
1.4 max depth (ft)
7.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
�s
+
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)�
8.7 width -depth ratio
$`
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
'X>
View Downstream
c
v
566
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
�
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 3 -UTI
108+95 Pool
558
556
0
554
)
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) �MY2 (3/2017) —Bankfull
v
552
S50
0 10
20 30
40 50
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
,
7.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.5 width (ft)
rr,
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
9.7 wetted perimeter (ft),.�
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
,v
9.2 width -depth ratioNOM
`
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
)
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) �MY2 (3/2017) —Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 4 -UTI
109+10 Riffle
558
556
c
0
v 554
w
552
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2016) �MY1(9/2016) �MY2(03/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.8 x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.4 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
6.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0 width -depth ratio
17.0 W flood prone area (ft)
2.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
-
9
Survey Date: 3/2017
i
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
c
0
v 554
w
552
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2016) �MY1(9/2016) �MY2(03/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 5-UT2
212+00 Riffle
522
�
0
v
w
520
FloodproneArea
sls
0 10
20 30
40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2016)
�MY1(9/2016)
�MY2(03/2017) —Bankfull—
Bankfull Dimensions
3.9 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.2 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
21.7 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
10.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 6-UT2
212+25 Pool
szz
szo
0
>
v
w
518
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) �MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull
516
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft
Bankfull Dimensions
8.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
� n NN N�1L
K s
: "
10.6
width (ft)'
AIS7V t, t" !9'
0.8
mean depth (ft)�`
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.4
wetted perimeter (ft):.
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
N
MF I
�E
Survey Date:
3/2017
Field Crew:
Wildlands Engineering
s,
7
View Downstream
)
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) �MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 7-UT2A
304+85 Riffle
522
�
0
v
w
520
FloodproneArea
sls
0 10 20 30
40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO(03/2016) �MY1(9/2016)
�MY2(03/2017) —Bankfull
—
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
7.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
20.6 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
13.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
�e
View Downstream
FloodproneArea

Cross Section Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross Section 8-UT2A
305+10 Pool
522
c
v
w
0
520
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) �MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.8 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
11.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
c
v
w
518
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2016) +MY1 (9/2016) �MY2 (3/2017) -Bankfull

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI, Reachwide
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
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 4
38
42
41
41
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125 2
-5
2
2
43
100
Fine
0.125
0.250
60
43
90 SIIUCIay Sand
vel
We
Medium
0.25
0.50
43
80
a ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
43
0 70
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0 2
2
4
4
47
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8 1
1
1
48
3 50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
48
Fine
4.0
5.6 3
1
4
4
51
�? 40
128
1
Fine
5.6
8.0 2
2
4
4
55
30
w
4
4
Medium
8.0
11.0 2
180
2
2
57
a 20
2
98
€€
Medium
11.0
16.0 5
1
6
6
63
100
Small
362
512
100
10
512
—19
Coarse
16.0
22.6 6
3
9
9
72
2048
Coarse
22.6
32
Bedrock
2048
>2048
72
0
100
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45 3
3
3
75
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45
64 10
1
11
11
85
Small
64
90 5
1
6
6
91
MY -/2016 --1-12
Mv003/x016 1]
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
-5
70
60
50
Sma I I
90
128
1
1
1
92
Large
128
180
4
4
4
96
Large
180
256
1
1
2
2
98
€€
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt/Clay
Di5 = Silt/Clay
Dso = 4.9
D� = 61.0
D95 = 163.2
Total 53 50 103 100 100
Total 53 50 103 100 100
-5
70
60
50

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
70
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle
Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
90
UTI, Cross Section 1
Silt/Clay
min max
0.000 0.062
10
Percentage
10
Cumulative
10
80
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
10
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
4
4
14
90
silt clay
a d avel
bble r
Medium
0.25 0.50
2
2
16
80
pqu a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
m
16
70
u
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
4
4
20
60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
2
2
22
50
20
Very Fine
2.8 4.0
4
4
26
E
Fine
4.0 5.6
16
16
42
�? 40
Fine
5.6 8.0
12
12
54
30
100
Small
Medium
8.0 11.0
10
10
64
U
a 20
Large
512
1024
1024
2048
Medium
11.0 16.0
10
10
74
2048
>2048
100
Total
10
100
100
Coarse
16.0 22.6
6
6
80
Coarse
22.6 32
2
2
82
0
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45
4
4
86
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45 64
4
4
90
Small
64 90
4
4
94
wrou3noe rywo, jos Mn-03non
Small
90 128
94
Large
128 180
94
Large
180 256
6
6
100
UTI, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
70
100
90
80
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
'Lyp 3b'L y'L ,lh a0 90
100
;Medium
— — — — — ;Large/Very
.......................
Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
Des = 0.50
Das = 4.83
Dso = 7.1
D80. = 37.9
Dss = 190.9
Doo = 256.0
100
90
80
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
,th
6'L 15 Oh
p0 p1 p�
'Lyp 3b'L y'L ,lh a0 90
ticle Class Size (mm)
ParMY149/2M6 —2-12017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle
Class
Class
Percent
min max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
UTI, Cross Section 4
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
10
10
10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
10
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
2
2
12
90
SIIVClay
a d avel
bble r
Medium
0.25 0.50
2
2
14
80
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
4
4
18
70
u
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
18
60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
2
2
20
50
20
Very Fine
2.8 4.0
20
E
c
Fine
4.0 5.6
2
2
22
�? 40
Fine
5.6 8.0
2
2
24
30
100
Small
Medium
8.0 11.0
6
6
29
U
a 20
Large
512
1024
1024
2048
Medium
11.0 16.0
12
12
41
2048
>2048
100
Total
10
100
100
Coarse
16.0 22.6
8
8
49
Coarse
22.6 32
8
8
57
0
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45
16
16
73
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45 64
12
12
84
Small
64 90
4
4
88
�wrou3noe rywo, os �Mn-03non
Small
90 128
6
6
94
Large
128 180
4
4
98
Large
180 256
2
2
100
UTI, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
Small
256
362
6'L p
DO 01 p
-yti 1 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
100
Small
362
512
100
;Medium
— — — — — ;Large/Very
.......................
Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
102
100
100
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi = 0.75
Di5 = 13.14
Dso = 23.6
D84 = 63.4
D95 = 138.2
Dioo = 256.0
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
6'L p
DO 01 p
-yti 1 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2, Reachwide
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
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
18
18
17
17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
18
100
Fine
0.125
0.250 1
1
2
2
20
90 SIItlCIay Sand
avel
bble
r
8.0
Medium
0.25
0.50 1
2
3
3
23
80
11.0
a ro
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0 2
1
3
3
26
0 70
3
4
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
Coarse
22.6
32
26
60
9
9
62
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
27
3 50
72
Very Coarse
Very Fine
2.8
4.0 1
3
4
4
31
Small
64
90
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
4
35
�? 40
128
3
1
Fine
5.6
8.0 1
2
3
3
38
30
w
3
3
100
Large
180
256
a 20
100
€€
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
10
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
TTFin
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
0
100
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Mv00w-, MY -/21016 --1/21]
31
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
-5
70
60
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
41
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
6
6
47
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
4
7
7
53
Coarse
22.6
32
7
2
9
9
62
Very Coarse
32
45
8
2
10
10
72
Very Coarse
45
64
11
2
13
13
84
Small
64
90
6
3
9
9
93
Small
90
128
3
1
4
4
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
€€
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt/Clay
Das = 5.63
Dso = 19.0
D� = 63.2
D95= 105.9 X96
Dioo = 180.0
Total 51 52 103 100 100
Total 51 52 103 100 100
-5
70
60
50

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2, Cross Section 5
Cross Section 5
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
19.15
Summary
31.72
Dso =
41.3
Particle
Class
D95 =
123.1
Class
Percent
min max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
UT2, Cross Section 5
Silt/Clay
0.000 0.062
5
5
5
80
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062 0.125
5
100
Fine
0.125 0.250
1
1
6
90
silt/Clay
a d avel
bble r
Medium
0.25 0.50
a
50
6
80
a ro
Coarse
0.5 1.0
m
6
70
u
Very Coarse
1.0 2.0
6
60
Very Fine
2.0 2.8
2
2
8
50
20
Very Fine
2.8 4.0
8
E
Fine
4.0 5.6
c
8
�? 40
Fine
5.6 8.0
8
30
0
Medium
8.0 11.0
6'L ,th 15 Oh S 'L ,y4
DO 01 p�
8
U
a 20
1
V
Particle Class Size (mm)
Medium
11.0 16.0
8
2048
>2048
100
Total
10
100
100
Coarse
16.0 22.6
16
16
24
-0-
Coarse
22.6 32
12
12
35
0
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32 45
20
20
55
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very Coarse
45 64
20
20
75
Small
64 90
12
12
86
�wrou3noe rywo, os �Mn-03non
Small
90 128
10
10
96
Large
128 180
2
2
98
Large
180 256
2
2
100
Small
256 362
100
Small
362 512
100
;Medium
512 1024
100
- - - - - ;Large/Very
ISSUES.
Large
1024 2048
100
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.15
Das =
31.72
Dso =
41.3
D84 =
84.3
D95 =
123.1
Dioo =
256.0
90
80
70
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
6'L ,th 15 Oh S 'L ,y4
DO 01 p�
b 56 4 .s'v y6 6 ,6'L Py �b �O ,10 $O y0 b'L y'L ,lh a0 90
-yti 1 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
.......................
Particle Class Size (mm)
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
102
100
100
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
19.15
Das =
31.72
Dso =
41.3
D84 =
84.3
D95 =
123.1
Dioo =
256.0
UT2, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
10
0
6'L ,th 15 Oh S 'L ,y4
DO 01 p�
b 56 4 .s'v y6 6 ,6'L Py �b �O ,10 $O y0 b'L y'L ,lh a0 90
-yti 1 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2A, Reachwide
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
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 1
25
26
26
26
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
-5
70
26
100
Fine
0.125
0.250 1
60
1
1
27
90 Slltfclay a d
avel
Wer
Medium
8.0
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
31
80
11.0
a ro
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
36
0 70
4
2
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0 7
8
15
15
51
60
5
5
84
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
45
4
1
51
3 50
89
Very Coarse
Very Fine
2.8
4.0 2
1
3
3
54
Small
64
90
Fine
4.0
5.6 5
4
S
5
59
�? 40
128
3
Fine
5.6
8.0 7
2
9
9
68
w
3031
100
Large
180
256
a 20
100
€€
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
10
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
0
100
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�Mro w-, MY—/2016 —Mrs 1/2—
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
-5
70
60
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
50
2
2
70
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
73
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
2
6
6
79
Coarse
22.6
32
3
2
5
5
84
Very Coarse
32
45
4
1
5
5
89
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
93
Small
64
90
4
4
4
97
Small
90
128
3
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
€€
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 = Silt/Clay
Das = 0.87
Dso = 1.9
D� = 32.0
D9s = 75.9
Dioo = 128.0
Total 50 50 100 100 100
Total 50 50 100 100 100
-5
70
60
50

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Holman Mill Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96316)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2A, Cross Section 7
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle
Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
100
w
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
8
90
silt/Clay
a d avel
bble r
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
10
80
m
a ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
14
70
64
1
1
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
22
a 60
100
Small
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
8
30
50
128
180
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
8
38
E
100
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
44
�? 40
Small
362
512
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
10
53
30
u
100
100
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
59
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
67
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
75
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
87
0
0.01
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
99
Particle Class Size (mm)
Very
�wrou3noe rywo, os �Mn-03non
UT2A, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
m
40
Coarse
45
64
1
1
100
Small
64
90
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
10
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
0
Small
362
512
6'L p 15 Oh S 'L ,y4
p0 p1 p
b 56 4 .�'v y6 6 ,6'L Py pb �O ,10 $O yp b'L y'L ,lh a0 90
-yti 1 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
100
;Medium
- - - - - ;Large/Very
.......................
Large
512
1024
1024
2048
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
101
100
100
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi = 1.21
Das = 3.55
Dso = 7.1
D84 = 29.2
D95 = 40.1
Dioo = 64.0
�
w
60
a
50
m
u
m
40
30
20
c
10
0
6'L p 15 Oh S 'L ,y4
p0 p1 p
b 56 4 .�'v y6 6 ,6'L Py pb �O ,10 $O yp b'L y'L ,lh a0 90
-yti 1 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,y0 �O
Particle Class Size (mm)

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Monthly Rainfall Data
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Holman Mill 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Siler City, NC
10
Date of Data Date of
Reach
Collection Occurrence
Method
3/8/2017 4/24/2017
UT1
Crest Gage/
10/17/2017 6/20/2017
3/8/2017 4/24/2017
UT2
Pressure
Transducer
10/17/2017 6/20/2017
3/8/2017 4/24/2017
UT2A
10/17/2017 1 6/20/2017
Monthly Rainfall Data
Holman Mill Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96316
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Holman Mill 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Siler City, NC
10
9
8
7
T
6
L
O
m
S
a
a 4
3
2
1
4. 1
0
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17
Date
2017 Rainfall Data 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
' 2017 monthly rainfall from USDA Station SILER CITY (317924)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Siler City 2 S, NC7924 (USDA, 2002).