20180665 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2020_20200929

ID#* 20180665 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/29/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/29/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180665
Existing IDf
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Alexnader Farm
County: Alexander
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As -Built Plans
File Upload: AlexanderFarm_100048_MYO_2020.pdf 47.14MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

AS -BUILT BASELINE
MONITORING REPORT
FINAL
ALEXANDER FARM MITIGATION SITE
Alexander County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7416
DMS Project No. 100048
Catawba River Basin HUC 03050101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-00451
NCDEQ DWR#: 18-0665
RFP #: 16-007277
Data Collection Period: April 2020 — July 2020
Submission Date: September 23, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street; 3rd Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603

PREPARED BY:
/_T.V3010a:13.91111►1aLTA [Q011to] :11►[el ]IIaQ13 1
ALEXANDER FARM MITIGATION SITE
Alexander County, NC
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050101
DIMS Project No. 100048
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-00451
W
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
�/ As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full -delivery stream mitigation project at the
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS). The project restored, enhanced, and preserved a total of 6,722
linear feet (LF) of perennial stream in Alexander County, NC. The Site is located within the DIMS targeted
local watershed (TWL) for the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050101 and the NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-08-32. The project is providing 4,258.100 stream mitigation units (SMUs)
for the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101130010 (Catawba 01).
The Site's immediate drainage area as well as the surrounding watershed has a long history of
agricultural activity. Stream and wetland functional stressors for the Site were related to both historic
and current land use practices. Major stream stressors for the Site included channel incision and
widening, a lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation, a lack of bedform diversity and aquatic habitat, and
agricultural related impacts such as channel manipulation or straightening and concentrated run-off
inputs from agricultural fields. The effects of these stressors resulted in channel instability, loss of
floodplain connection, degraded water quality, and the loss of both aquatic and riparian habitat
throughout the Site's watershed when compared to reference conditions. The project approach for the
Site focused on evaluating the Site's existing functional condition and evaluating its potential for
recovery and need for intervention.
The project goals defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2019) were established with careful
consideration of 2009 Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and objectives to
address stressors identified in the watershed through the implementation of stream restoration and
enhancement activities and wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation activities, as well as riparian
buffer re -vegetation. The established project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability,
• Reconnect channels with historic floodplains,
• Improve in -stream habitat,
• Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from adjacent farm fields,
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and wetland vegetation,
• Exclude livestock, and
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed April - May 2020. Planting and baseline
vegetation data collection occurred in April 2020. Vegetative plot species were confirmed in early June
2020 after leaf -out. Installation of monitoring features and sediment data collection was completed in
April 2020. Fencing installation was completed in July 2020. Minimal adjustments were made during
construction and specific changes are detailed in Section 5.1. Baseline (MYO) profiles and cross-section
dimensions closely match the design parameters with little variation. The Site has been built as
designed and is expected to meet the upcoming monitoring year's success criteria.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
�/ As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report

ALEXANDER FARM MITIGATION SITE
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................1-6
1.1 Project Location and Setting......................................................................................................
1-6
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................
1-6
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach..................................................................
1-7
1.3.1 Project Structure................................................................................................................
1-7
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach........................................................................................
1-7
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data............................................................................
1-9
Section 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS...........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Streams......................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile............................................................................................................
2-1
2.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Photo Documentation.......................................................................................................
2-2
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation................................................................................................
2-2
2.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................
2-2
2.3 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Visual Assessments....................................................................................................................
2-2
2.5 Schedule and Reporting.............................................................................................................
2-2
Section 3.0 MONITORING PLAN & METHODOLOGY..........................................................................3-1
3.1 Streams......................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile............................................................................................................
3-1
3.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4 Photo Reference Points.....................................................................................................
3-2
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation................................................................................................
3-2
3.1.6 Visual Assessment.............................................................................................................
3-2
3.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................
3-2
3.3 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................3-3
Section 4.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLAN.....................................................4-1
4.1 Adaptive Management Plan......................................................................................................4-1
Section 5.0 AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)....................................................................................5-1
5.1 Record Drawings........................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.1 All Reaches: ........................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.2 UT1 Reach 1A.....................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.3 UT1 Reach 1B.....................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.4 UT1 Reach 2.......................................................................................................................
5-1
5.1.5 UT1 Reach 3.......................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.6 UT1 Reach 4A.....................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.7 UT1 Reach 4B.....................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.8 UT1A..................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.9 BMP...................................................................................................................................
5-2
5.1.10 Vegetation Planting Plan...................................................................................................
5-2
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment.........................................................................................................
5-3
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel..................................................................................
5-3
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
�/ As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report iii

5.2.2 Vegetation......................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.3 Wetlands............................................................................................................................5-4
Section 6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE.............................................................................................6-1
Section 7.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................7-1
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
�/ As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report iv

APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures, Tables, and Documentation
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Figure 3.0-3.3
As -Built Monitoring Plan View
Table 1
Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Post Contract
IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes (March 29, 2018)
Credit Ratios
Memo (April 16, 2018)
Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7 Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 8 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross -Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 10 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 11a — 11b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 Record Drawings
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS)
Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
Interagency Review Team (IRT)
Monitoring Year (MY)
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Stream Mitigation Unit (SMU)
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Unnamed Tributary (UT)
Wetland Mitigation Unit (WMU)
Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin Priorities (RBRP)
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
�/ As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report v

Section 1.0 PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Alexander Farm Mitigation Site (Site) is in Alexander County approximately 6 miles west of Statesville
and 15 miles northeast of Hickory (Figure 1). Unnamed tributaries to Elk Shoals Creek originate within the
project limits, and were restored, enhanced, and preserved as part of this project. Elk Shoals Creek drains to
Lookout Shoals Lake on the Catawba River, the primary water supply for the City of Statesville. The Site is
located within the Elk Shoals Creek targeted local watershed (TLW) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03050101130010 and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Upper Catawba River Basin 03050101.
Located in the Northern Inner Piedmont belt within the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS, 1985), the
project watershed is dominated by agricultural and forested land.
The Site contains two unnamed tributaries, UT1 and UT1A, and eighteen riparian wetlands; however,
no credit is being sought for project wetlands. For this project UT1 was broken into six reaches (Reach
1A, Reach 113, Reach 2, Reach 3, Reach 4A, and Reach 413). The project Site is bisected by Elk Shoals
Church Loop Road between Reach 2 and Reach 3.
The overall Site topography consists of a gradually sloped valley running through the center of the
project. Upstream of Elk Shoals Church Loop Road, the Site is characterized by a moderate slope. UT1
Reach 1 originates within the Site limits at a spring head and flows downslope through a moderately
confined valley surrounded by open pasture. Approximately 600 feet downstream of the headwaters,
the valley widens and continues downstream as a broad gently sloping floodplain to Elk Shoals Church
Loop Road. Downstream of the road crossing, UT1 continues flowing south within a broad gently
sloping floodplain to its confluence with UT1A from the left floodplain, where it originates as a wetland
seep. At the confluence, UT1A and joins UT1 and continues south to its confluence with to Elk Shoals
Creek within a broad alluvial floodplain. The site drains approximately 256 acres of rural land.
Prior to construction activities, the streams throughout the Site were in various stages of impairment related
to the current and historical agricultural uses. UT1 Reach 1 was mostly incised and disconnected from the
floodplain, with short segments of floodplain connectivity. The bed was trampled and severely impacted by
cattle. Bedform diversity and habitat was very poor, primarily due to sedimentation and incision.
UT1 Reach 2 was overwide and trampled but well vegetated with herbaceous species from abutting
wetlands. As it approached the Elk Shoals Church Loop Road, the creek alternated between areas of incision
and floodplain connection. The bed was choked with fine sediments and trampled, with several active cattle
wallow areas.
UT1 Reach 3 begins just downstream of the Elk Shoals Church Loop 48-inch culvert. It is wooded and cattle
have been excluded from this section of the farm. The majority of the reach consisted of low, stable stream
banks with a few scour pockets located near ATV crossings.
Within the wooded valley, UT1 Reach 4 was extensively eroded, incised, and laterally unstable with erosion
present on both banks, transverse bars, and sharp meander bends. As the stream exited the wood line, bank
heights decreased, the channel narrowed, and the stream banks became well vegetated with annual
herbaceous species; however, the channel was still deeply incised and disconnected from its historic
floodplain.
Pre -construction conditions are outlined in Table 4 of Appendix 1 and Table 6 of Appendix 2.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the Upper Catawba Basin. The project goals were
established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the 2009 Upper Catawba
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 1-6

River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report. The project has improved stream functions through stream
restoration and the conversion of maintained agricultural fields into riparian buffer within the Upper
Catawba River Basin, while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. Improvements are
outlined below as project goals and objectives.
Goals
Objectives
Restore stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and
profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
Improve stream channel stability.
system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
Create stable tie-ins for tributaries joining restored channels. Add
bank revetments and in -stream structures to protect restored
streams.
Reconnect channels with historic
Reconstruct stream channels with bankfull dimensions relative to
floodplains.
the floodplain.
Install habitat features such as constructed riffles, cover logs, and
Improve instream habitat.
brush toes into restored streams. Add woody materials to
channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth.
Reduce sediment and fecal coliform and
Construct a step pool stormwater conveyance system to slow
nutrient input from adjacent farm fields.
and treat runoff from farm field before entering Site streams.
Restore and enhance native floodplain and
Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone where
wetland vegetation.
currently insufficient. Remove invasive species within the
riparian corridor.
Exclude livestock from stream channels.
Exclude livestock from stream channels and riparian areas.
Permanently protect the project site from
Establish a conservation easement on the Site.
harmful uses.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The final mitigation plan was approved in October of 2019. Construction activities were completed in
April 2020 by Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc. Turner Land Surveying completed the as -built survey in
May 2020. Following construction, Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. completed riparian planting in April
2020 and wetland planting in May 2020.
A copy of the final sealed survey is included in Appendix 4. Field adjustments made during construction
are described in further detail in section 5.1 and depicted in the record drawings in Appendix 4. Please
refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information.
1.3.1 Project Structure
Project mitigation components are outlined in the Mitigation Assets and Components Table (Table 1) and
depicted in the As -built Monitoring Plan View Maps (Figures 3.0 - 3.3) that are located in Appendix 1.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The mitigation approaches proposed for the streams on the Site were developed to achieve the
potential for functional uplift relative to the existing conditions on the site. The site plan includes elements
of stream restoration, enhancement II, and preservation.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 1-7

Restoration reaches were constructed as Priority 1 except where Priority 2 grading was needed to transition
with existing grade elevations. Restoration reaches were designed to create stable, functional stream
channels with improved dimension, pattern, and profile. Cross -sectional areas were sized for frequent
overbank flows. Bedforms were stabilized and varied with the use of in -stream structures to reduce channel
erosion and improve aquatic habitat.
Enhancement II reaches retained their existing dimension, pattern, and profile. Mitigation activities included
localized bank stabilization and repairs in areas where damage was more significant. Mid -channel bars were
excavated, and the existing alignment was stabilized. Invasive vegetation was treated by either excavation or
herbicide.
Reaches that were stable and functioning were preserved to protect them from future impacts from cattle,
agricultural production, timbering and/or site development. Timber limits were established approximately
30-ft — 50-ft outside of the conservation easement to provide additional wooded buffer. Vernal pools
were placed at discrete runoff locations within the conservation easement to provide additional protection
from timbering practices.
All the project reaches are protected in perpetuity with the implementation of a conservation easement.
Fencing was installed outside of the easement to exclude cattle from the project area. Invasive vegetation
such as Chinese Privet, multi -flora rose, and alligator weed were treated by either excavation or herbicide, as
needed throughout the Site. The streambanks and floodplains were planted with native woody and
herbaceous species as depicted in the planting plan of the record drawings located in Appendix 4.
UT1 Reach 1A and 113
UT1 Reach 1A begins as a perennial stream located at Station 100+00just downstream of a spring head
stabilized by a series of rock sills. UT1 Reach 1A flows southward and receives drainage from multiple small
swales that were stabilized to prevent erosion. UT1 Reach 113 begins at Station 107+70 and continues
flowing southward and receives drainage from multiple stabilized wetland seeps and drainage swales. Reach
113 ends at an easement break at Station 117+39 for an existing permanent culverted farm road crossing.
UT1 Reach 1A and 113 were designed as Rosgen B-type channels and were improved through Priority 1
restoration. The channel beds were raised to reconnect to the existing floodplain. In -stream structures such
as rock sills, log sills, constructed riffles, and brush toes were added for stream stability, grade control and
habitat variability. The downstream extent of UT1 Reach 113 was slightly realigned to improve hydraulics and
add additional stability to the channel before reconnecting with an existing 48-in arched CMP just
downstream of the easement break.
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 2 begins downstream of the easement break at the culverted farm road crossing at Station
117+90. Enhancement level II activities were implemented along the reach. Construction activities were
confined mostly to the upper portion of the reach and consisted of areas of bank grading, structure
placement, and stream realignment to improve channel hydraulics and address areas of instability. The
downstream section of Reach 2 flows through a series of abutting riparian wetlands was already mostly
stable. Reach 2 ends at the easement break for the Elk Shoals Church Loop Road crossing at Station 130+46.
UT1 Reach 3
Reach 3 begins just downstream of the Elk Shoals Church Loop Road crossing at Station 131+27. The reach is
currently stable and exhibits mature vegetation; therefore, the channel was left undisturbed as a
preservation reach. Desirable aquatic habitat is present throughout the reach and includes undercut banks,
root mats, leaf packs, and small debris jams. Stabilizing the upstream reaches will allow for this reach to
remain stable and reduce the sediment load.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 1-8

UT1 Reach 4A and 4B
UT1 Reach 4A and 4B were designed as Rosgen C-type channels and improved through a combination of
Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration. Reach 4A begins at Station 138+28. Priority 2 restoration was
implemented along the first 200 linear feet of reach to tie the channel with Reach 3, while Priority 1 was
implemented along the remainder of the reach. Reach 4B begins at Station 152+59 where a step -pool
conveyance best management practice (BMP) joins UT1 from the left floodplain. Priority 1 was also
implemented along the majority of Reach 413; however, the restoration type was changed to Priority 2 along
the last 100 feet of channel to its tie-in with the existing channel at Station 166+66. In -stream structures
such as rock sills, log sills, constructed riffles, log j-hooks, brush toe, and cover logs were added for grade
control, bank stability, and habitat creation.
UT1A
UT1A begins at Station 200+00 as an intermittent channel from a wetland seep. Enhancement II was
implemented along the reach. While the channel will be raised to be connected to the existing floodplain,
the stream alignment will not be changed. In -stream structures such as rock sills and constructed riffles
were added for grade control and a variety of pool depths were incorporated for bedform diversity, energy
dissipation, and aquatic habitat. A rock outlet enters the channel from a vernal pool located in the right
floodplain. UT1A ends at Station 202+03 at its confluence with UT1 Reach 4A. No credit is being sought for
this feature.
Step -pool Conveyance (SPSC) BMP
A step pool stormwater conveyance system was constructed within an ephemeral channel that flows into
UT1 Reach 4B. The step pool system begins at Station 300+00 and conveys runoff from the adjacent pasture
through a series of constructed riffles held by a rock sill and into a downstream pool. The reach acts as a
stable conveyance to treat storm flows and dissipate storm velocities before its outlet into the main channel
at Station 302+62. As with the other stream reaches throughout the Site, the riparian corridor of the BMP
was planted with native vegetation, lies within the conservation easement, and was fenced to exclude cattle.
No credit is being sought for this feature.
1.4 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a Full Delivery contract with DIMS. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the project activity and reporting history, project
contacts, and project baseline information and attributes.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 1-9

Section 2.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan (2019) and is based on the performance criteria
presented in the DIMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (June 2017) and the
NC IRT Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (10/24/2016). Annua
monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project.
Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology, and
vegetation. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven-year postconstruction
monitoring period. The monitoring program designed to verify that performance standards are met is
described in Section 3.
2.1 Streams
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross -sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull
area, bank height ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. All riffle cross -sections should fall within the
parameters defined for the designated stream type. Bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios shall be at least 1.4 for B-type channels and 2.2 for restored C-type channels. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs
of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks.
Remedial action will not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Changes in
the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the
width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
A longitudinal profile was conducted as part of the as -built survey to provide a baseline for comparison
should it become necessary to perform longitudinal profile surveys later during monitoring and to insure
accordance with design plans. Annual longitudinal profile surveys are not required during the seven-year
monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical
and lateral instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as
described in the 2016 USACE Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Restoration reaches must remain vertically stable throughout the monitoring period with little indication
of downcutting or significant aggradation. Deposition of sediments at certain locations (such as the inside
of meander bends) is expected and acceptable. Changes in pool depth are not an indication of vertical
instability. Restoration reaches must remain laterally stable and major changes planform pattern
dimensions and sinuosity should not occur. However, migration of meanders on alluvial channels is not an
indication of instability if cross sectional dimensions continue to meet the requirements.
2.1.3 Substrate
A pebble count was conducted at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement during the baseline
monitoring only. A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach for monitoring
years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Reach -wide counts will be conducted for classification purposes. Restoration
reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and finer particles in the
pool features. Riffles may fine over the course of monitoring due to the stabilization of contributing
watershed sediment sources.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 2-1

2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos
should indicate the absence of persistent mid -channel bars or vertical incision. Grade control structures
should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of
scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented on restoration reaches throughout the monitoring
period. Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The
four bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will continue until performance
standards in the form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented.
2.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridors at the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative
success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 native species stems per acre at the end of the
third monitoring year (MY3) and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5).
In NC piedmont counties, planted trees must average 7 feet in height in each plot at the end of MY5 and 10
feet in height at Year 7. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
2.3 Wetlands
Wetland gages were installed within existing wetlands in areas along priority 1 restoration reaches to
monitor groundwater hydrology, solely to verify the continuation of hydrologic wetland functions during
the growing season. No wetland credits are being sought for this project and no performance criteria
have been established. The NRCS Climate Analysis for Wetlands Tables (WETS) does not list a defined
growing season for Alexander County due to insufficient data; therefore, the nearest WETS Station is
Statesville 2 NNE (USDA, 2020) in Iredell County which is approximately 13.5 miles from the project site.
The growing season based on data compiled from this WETS Station (1980 — 2020) is from April 4 through
November 2 under typical precipitation conditions.
2.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
2.5 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DIMS. Based
on the DIMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (June 2017),
the monitoring reports will include the following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background,
• Project Asset Map of major project elements,
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations,
• CCPV Map with monitoring features and current problem areas noted such as stability and
easement encroachment based on the cross-section surveys and annual visual assessments,
• Assessment of the stability of the stream based on the cross -sections,
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species,
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 2-2

• A description of damage by animals or vandalism,
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented,
and
• Wildlife observations.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 2-3

Section 3.0 MONITORING PLAN & METHODOLOGY
Annual monitoring will consist of collecting morphologic, vegetative, and hydrologic data to assess the
project success based on the restoration goals, as outlined in the Alexander Farm Site Mitigation Plan (2019).
Monitoring requirements will follow guidelines outlined in the DIMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance (June 2017) and the USACE Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance
(October 2016). Installed monitoring device and plot locations closely mimic the locations of those proposed
in the Site's Mitigation Plan. Deviations from these locations were made when professional judgement
deemed them necessary to better represent as -built field conditions or when installation of the device in the
proposed location was not physically feasible.
Project success will be assessed by measuring channel dimension, substrate composition, vegetation, surface
water hydrology, groundwater hydrology and by analyzing photographs and performing visual assessments.
Any high priority problem areas identified, such as unstable stream banks, bed instability,
aggradation/degradation, and/or poor vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
The problem areas will be visually noted and reported to DIMS staff in the annual report. Standard DIMS
monitoring reports will be submitted in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Monitoring activities in years 4 and
6 will be documented in a memorandum to include a project summary update, annual photos, and updated
monitoring plan map. Closeout will occur seven years beyond completion of construction or once
performance standards are met. All survey data will be georeferenced to North Carolina State Plane
coordinates. Refer to Table 5 in Appendix 1 for the monitoring component summary.
3.1 Streams
Geomorphic assessments follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification documents (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Please refer to Figures 3.0 through
3.3 in Appendix 1 for monitoring locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
To assess channel dimension performance, 14 permanent cross -sections were installed along stream
restoration reaches to represent approximately 50% riffles and 50% pools as defined in Table 15 of the
Mitigation Plan. Cross-section locations were chosen in the field to be representative of the typical
dimensions for each project reach. Each cross-section is permanently marked with rebar installed in
concrete and % inch PVC pipes. Cross-section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross-section surveys will be conducted in
monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven. Photographs will be taken of the cross -sections looking
upstream and downstream during the survey assessment.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year post -construction monitoring
period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral
instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in
the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in October 2016 by the NC IRT for the necessary reaches. Stream
pattern and profile will be assessed visually as described below in Section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Substrate
Reach -wide pebble counts will be performed on each restoration reach for classification purposes only
and will be conducted in monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven. Riffle 100-count substrate
sampling was collected in each surveyed riffle cross-section during the baseline monitoring only to
characterize pavement at as -built.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 3-1

3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 20 permanent photograph reference points were established along the stream reaches and
the floodplain area after construction. Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document
stability for the seven-year monitoring period. Permanent markers were established and located with
GPS equipment so that the same locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year.
Photos will be used to monitor all stream reaches.
Longitudinal reference photos were established along the channel by taking a photo looking upstream
and downstream. Cross -sectional photos will be taken of each permanent cross-section looking
upstream and downstream.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the seven-year monitoring period
using pressure transducers, photographs, and visual assessments such as debris lines. Streamflow stage
will be monitored using a continuous stage recorder (pressure transducer), referred to as a "crest gage"
(CG). CGs were set to record bankfull events every three hours. One CG was installed along restoration
reaches. The gage will be downloaded semi-annually to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition observed
during field visits. The transducer data will be plotted and included in the annual monitoring reports.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the seven-
year monitoring period. Areas of concern, such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical
instability and in -stream structure failure, instability, and/or piping), poor vegetation health and/or
establishment (i.e. low stem density, bare areas, high mortality rates, and/or invasive species), easement
encroachment, beaver activity, and/or livestock trespass will be mapped, photographed, and described
in the annual monitoring reports. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual
assessment. Should remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual
monitoring report.
3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring quadrants (9 permanent and 3 mobile) were installed across the Site to measure
the survival of the planted trees. Vegetative plot monitoring will occur between July 15Y and leaf drop
during post -construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Permanent plots will be monitored in
accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2
Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) and the 2016 USACE Stream and Wetland Mitigation Guidance to assess
vegetative success. For both permanent and mobile plots, all woody stems, including exotic and invasive
species, should be counted. Supplemental plantings and volunteer plants must be present for at least two
growing seasons before counting toward performance standards for monitoring years five and seven.
Exotic/invasive species will not count toward success of performance standards
A total of 9 permanent vegetation plots were established within the project easement area. Permanent
vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted stream riparian buffer areas to capture
the heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The locations of permanent vegetation plots
were chosen using the same distribution throughout the planting areas, as shown in the Site's Mitigation
Plan, and to best represent the planted areas within the easement.
All of the permanent vegetative plots were established either as a standard 10-meter by 10-meter square
plot or an optional 5-meter by 20-meter rectangular plot. The vegetation plot corners have been marked
and are recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs
were taken at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner during the MYO in April
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 3-2

2020. Subsequent assessments in monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven following baseline
survey will capture the same reference photograph locations.
Beginning in MY1, individual permanent plot data will include diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if
any), and percent survival. Planted woody stems were marked and mapped in MYO and will be re -marked,
if needed, during subsequent monitoring year assessments using a known origin so they can be found.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the baseline year's living planted stems and the
current year's living planted stems.
To evaluate random vegetation performance for the Site, 3 mobile vegetation plots were established in
MYO, for use in MY1, using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Mobile plots will be re-
established in different and random locations throughout the planted conservation easement in
monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7. These locations will be geographically recorded and depicted in the CCPV
maps for the corresponding monitoring assessment year. Mobile vegetation plot assessments will
document the number of stems, number and type of species, and stem height within the plot.
Please refer to Figures 3.0 through 3.3 in Appendix 1 for the permanent and mobile MYO/1 vegetation
monitoring plot locations.
3.3 Wetlands
To monitor the existing wetlands during post -construction monitoring, two groundwater monitoring
gages were installed in April 2020 per USACE recommended procedures within the wetland areas using
In- situ Level TROLL® 100 pressure transducers. The locations of the installed gages closely mimic those of
the Site's Mitigation Plan. Minor adjustments in these locations were made to best represent wetland
topography as needed. The groundwater gages are set to record the groundwater level four times per day
and will be downloaded during site visits. The locations of the groundwater gages are denoted in Figures
3.0 through 3.3 in Appendix 1.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 3-3

Section 4.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
4.1 Adaptive Management Plan
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed on the mitigation project. A physical inspection of the Site
shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period or
until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features
that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance for stream features should be most often
expected in the first two years following site construction. The need for maintenance will be evaluated
annually during monitoring activities. Maintenance may include the following activities.
Component/
Maintenance through project close-out
Feature
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations
of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel — these shall be conducted
where success criteria are threatened or at the discretion of the Designer. Areas where
Stream
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head -cutting. Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams
on project streams will typically be removed, at the discretion of the Designer, during the
monitoring period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this
type of influence.
BMP
Routine BMP Maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of BMP structures to
prevent piping and securing of loose coir fiber matting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
Vegetation
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species treatment will be conducted
per the Invasive Species Treatment Plan, outlined in Appendix 6 of the Alexander Farms
Mitigation Plan (2019), and in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules
and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site Boundary
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as -needed basis.
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase identifies an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously and will include a work
schedule and updated monitoring criteria. If, during annual monitoring it is determined the Site's ability
to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will notify the members of the DIMS
and work with them to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 4-1

Section 5.0 AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction and planting were completed by April 17, 2020. The as -built survey, which
included developing an as -built topographic surface and locating the channel boundaries, structures,
and cross -sections were completed by May 16, 2020. Installation of monitoring features and the
collection of sediment and vegetative data were completed by April 29t", 2020. However due to the
lack of leaf -out on some of the bare roots within the vegetative plots, it was determined during data
processing that some of the planted species were mis-identified. Therefore, vegetation plots species
were verified on June 8, 2020. Fencing installation was completed and surveyed in July 2020.
5.1 Record Drawings
A sealed half-size record drawing is located in Appendix 4 and includes redlines for any significant field
adjustments made during construction that were different from the design plans. Specific changes by
each project area are detailed below:
5.1.1 All Reaches:
Rock and roll riffle profile surveyed in detail showing intermediate micropool habitat and log sills.
5.1.2 UT1 Reach 1A
Station 100+00: Rock sills and additional rock added to stabilize inlet.
Station 101+00: Rock outlet added to prevent erosion from drainage swale.
• Station 107+00: Swale armored with rock and 2 log sills to prevent erosion.
• Station 107+30: Swale armored with rock to prevent erosion.
5.1.3 UT1 Reach 1113
• Station 109+85: Matting added for stabilization.
• Station 111+60: Wetland outlet added and armored with rock to prevent erosion.
• Station 112+00: Wetland outlet added and armored with rock to prevent erosion.
• Station 113+15: Wetland outlet stabilized with rock to prevent erosion.
• Station 115+05: Wetland outlet shifted due to field conditions.
• Station 115+50: Log sill added at tail of riffle for additional stability.
• Station 116+50—117+44: The channel design was altered and realigned to stabilize banks and
improve hydraulics.
5.1.4 UT1 Reach 2
• Station 118+00: Vegetated geo-lift and rock sill were removed. Stream channel was realigned to
address stability.
• Station 117+80—118+35: The channel design was altered and realigned to stabilize banks and
improve hydraulics.
• Station 120+27—120+84: The channel design was altered and realigned to stabilize banks and
improve hydraulics.
• Station 120+40: Log sill shifted due to stream realignment.
• Station 120+60: Log sill added to stabilize stream realignment.
• Station 120+75: Log sill length was shortened to preserve existing trees on right bank.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 5-1

5.1.5 UT1 Reach 3
• No changes.
5.1.6 UT1 Reach 4A
• Station 143+90: Wetland outlet stabilized with rock to prevent erosion.
• Station 144+30: Wetland outlet stabilized with rock to prevent erosion.
• Station 145+80: Wetland outlet stabilized with rock to prevent erosion.
5.1.7 UT1 Reach 4113
• Station 150+90: Log sill added at tail of riffle for additional stability.
• Station 152+30: Log sill added at tail of riffle for additional stability.
• Station 152+40: Grading and debris removed in right floodplain at engineer's discretion due to field
conditions.
• Station 159+00: Rock outlet added from vernal pool to prevent erosion.
• Station 163+00: Rock Outlet added from vernal pool to prevent erosion.
• Station 164+80: Vernal pool added to collect toe of slope drainage with rock outlet to prevent
erosion.
• Station 166+25: Wetland outlet added and armored with rock to prevent erosion.
• Station 166+60: A rock vane was replaced with a log vane due to local material availability and
similar functionality.
5.1.8 UT1A
• Station 201+70: Vegetated soil lift removed due to onsite conditions.
• Station 201+75: Rock Outlet was added from vernal pool to prevent erosion.
5.1.9 BMP
• No changes
5.1.10 Vegetation Planting Plan
As previously stated, bare root planting was completed by April 17, 2020. Changes to the as -built planting
list were made to account for the species availability at the time of planting. Changes in the location of bare
root plantings were adjusted as needed along the top of bank in the areas where channel realignment was
conducted. Specific changes to the plant species lists are outlined below.
Open/Graded Buffer Planting Zone —
• The following bareroot species were removed from the planting list due to the lack of available
species at the time of planting: Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
• The following species were added to the planting list to increase species diversity at the direction of
the engineer: White Oak (Quercus alba) and Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra).
• The remaining species' "Percent of Stems" were adjusted accordingly.
Shaded Area Buffer Planting Zone —
• The following bareroot species were removed from the planting list due to the lack of available
species at the time of planting: Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana), American strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), and sweetshrub (Calycanthus
floridus).
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 5-2

• The following species were added to the planting list to increase species diversity at the direction of
the engineer: White Oak (Quercus alba).
The remaining species' "Percent of Stems" were adjusted accordingly.
Streambank Planting Zone —
• Percent planting for silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) and silky willow (Salixsericea) were adjusted
from 40% to 36% and from 40% to 44%, respectively.
Vernal Pool and Wetland Planting Zone —
• The following herbaceous species were removed from the planting list due to the lack of available
species at the time of planting: Broadwing sedge (Carex alata) and Bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis
canadensis).
The following species were added to the herbaceous planting list to increase species diversity at the
direction of the engineer: Fringed sedge (Caryx crinata) and bushy beardgrass (Andropogon
glomeratus).
The remaining species' "Percent of Stems" were adjusted accordingly.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
MYO was conducted between April and June 2020. Cross-section and longitudinal profile data collection
were completed by May 16, 2020. The collection of sediment and vegetative data were completed by April
29t" 2020, and vegetative species identification was verified in early June 2020. Locations of the monitoring
features are depicted in Figures 3.0 through 3.3 in Appendix 1. The first annual monitoring assessment
(MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2020. The streams will be monitored for a total of seven years, with the
final monitoring activities scheduled for 2026.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Please refer to Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile
The MYO profiles generally match the profile design parameters. As -built riffle slopes calculated for UT1 RIB
resulted in a greater variation in range than those of design; however, the overall channel slope was similar
to design parameters and on -site as -built reviews showed no visual indicators of vertically instability.
Variations from the design profile often reflect field changes during construction as a result of field
conditions and do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions. Channels profiles will
continue to be assessed visually during the CCPV Site walks.
Dimension
The MYO dimension numbers closely match the design parameters with minor variations. The maximum
bankfull width for UT1 Reach 4A slightly exceeds design parameters; however, channels are likely to narrow
over time as vegetation is established. This narrowing over time would not be an indicator of instability in
and of itself. On -site as -built reviews showed no visual indicators of lateral instability.
Pattern
The MYO pattern metrics fell within acceptable ranges of the design parameters.
Substrate
Reach -wide pebble counts were performed on each restoration reach to establish stream classification at
baseline conditions, and riffle 100-count substrate sampling was collected at each surveyed riffle cross-
section to characterize pavement at as -built. Sediment analysis results were similar to design
parameters; however, some reaches and cross -sections exhibited slightly coarser substrate than
designed. These variations immediately after construction are normal because coarser materials are
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 5-3

used to provide immediate grade control on the newly constructed channel. Over time, the channel will
continue to move gravels and finer sediments into the system creating a mix of coarse substrate in the
riffles and fine sediments in the pools. On -site as -built reviews showed no visual indicators of instability
within riffle or pools.
Bankfull Events
Bankfull events recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the Year 1 monitoring
report.
5.2.2 Vegetation
The overall MYO planted density is 499 stems/acre for permanent vegetation plots and 526 stems/acre for
mobile vegetation plots. The total overall planted Site mean density is 506 stems/acre, which exceeds the
interim measure of vegetative success of at least 320 planted stems per acre required atthe end of the
third monitoring year. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
5.2.3 Wetlands
Groundwater gage data will be reported in the annual MY1 report.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 5-4

Section 6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied
sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some
performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of
the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the
site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to
the criteria described as follows:
Table A: Credit Release Schedule —Stream Credits —Alexander Farms Mitigation Site
Credit
ILF/NCDMS
Release
Release Activity
Interim
Total
Milestone
Release
Released
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2*
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan.
30%
30%
First year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable interim
3
performance standards are being met.
10%
40%
Second year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
4
interim performance standards are being met.
10%
50%
Third year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
5
10%
60%
interim performance standards are being met.
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
65%
6**
5%
interim performance standards are being met.
(75%***)
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable interim
75%
7
performance standards are being met.
10%
(85%***)
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
80%
8**
50�
interim performance standards are being met.
(90%***)
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
9
performance standards have been met and project has received closeout
10%
90%
(100%***)
approval.
*For ILF sites (including all NCDMS projects), no initial release of credits (Milestone 1) is provided because ILF
programs utilized advance credits, so no initial release is necessary to help fund site construction. To account for
this, the 15% credit release associated with the first milestone (bank establishment) is held until the second
milestone, so that the total credits release at the second milestone is 30%. In order for NCDMS to receive the
30% release (shown in the schedules as Milestone 2), they must comply with the credit release requirements
stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS Instrument.
**Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these
monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
***10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 6-1

Section 7.0 REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-2.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2009. Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Raleigh, NC.
NCDMS, June 2017. DIMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Survey,
General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc4.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring
of Potential Wetland Sites. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2,
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1327/ML13276AO40.pd .
USACE, October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation District
(NRCS), 2020. WETS Station, Statesville 2 NNE, Iredell County, NC.
https://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2019. Alexander Farms Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan.
DIMS, Raleigh, NC.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report 7-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures, Tables, and Documentation

l I 1
Project Location �� i.t._
Hydrologic Unit Code (14) ,03040102010020
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
03040102010010
--� L 4U1 _
03050101120030 r ! G`eek dd rnt Q 11u ` �'�.�•
03050101120040 1 /
y 1
r t 03040102030010
030501011100NO%A 03050101120050 03040102040010
)I- ,. - `1
111 I .9 L--, J
0305010113ftIO
)3N50101090t10
/05010110030 :�Alexander Farm Project LocatiLib: / I 1
030401020469.2-
00500ad11
1 �
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of , \
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed j
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 Directions to Site: 0
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not From Charlotte, travel north on 1-77 to exit 51. Keep left at the fork ;
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and for 1-40 W. Continue on 1-40 W for approximately 11.4 miles to exit
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in 141. Turn right onto Sharon School Road. Continue on Sharon
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration School Road as it veers left in Paul Payne Store Road. Continue on
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their Paul Payne Store Road for 1.0 mile, and make a left onto Elk
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by Shoals Church Loop. In approximately 0.75 miles, the project will be
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles on either side of the gravel road.
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
WILDLANDS
kt� E N G I N E E R I N G
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
0 1 2 Mile DMS Project No. 100048
I I I I I Monitoring Year 0- 2020
Alexander County, NC

WILD LAND S
ENGINEERING
Figure 2 Project Component/ Asset Map
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
0 400 800 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
1 i I i I Monitoring Year 0- 2020
Alexander County, NC

Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
SheetBoundary
Existing Wetlands
Internal Crossing
Vegetation Plots (Permanent)
O Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Non -Project Streams
Restoration
Enhancement II
Preservation
Alignment Deviation
Not For Credit
Wetland Channel
BMP
-- -- Bankfull
x — x Fence Line
Structures
Topographic Contours (5')
Cross Sections
Barotroll
Groundwater Gage
Crest Gage
0 Photo Points
O Reach Breaks
BMP
Figure 3.0 As -Built Monitoring Plan View (Key)
WILD LANDS Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 400 800 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
i I i I PA Monitoring Year 0- 2020
Alexander County, NC

4
Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Internal Crossing
E Existing Wetlands
= Vegetation Plots (Permanent)
O Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Restoration
Enhancement II
Preservation
Alignment Deviation
Not For Credit
----
Bankfull
x — x
Fence Line
Structures
Topographic Contours (5')
Cross Sections
Barotroll
Groundwater Gage
Crest Gage
0
Photo Points
OO
Reach Breaks
A
Figure 3.1 As -Built Monitoring Plan View
►` WI LD LAN D S Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Alexander County, NC

w
Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetlands
Vegetation Plots (Permanent)
O Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Restoration
Enhancement II
Preservation
Alignment Deviation
Not For Credit
---- Bankfull
x — x Fence Line
Structures
Topographic Contours (5')
Cross Sections
Barotroll
Groundwater Gage
Crest Gage
0 Photo Points
OO Reach Breaks
tl
Jk
Figure 3.2 As -Built Monitoring Plan View
WILD LANDS Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
%*w I ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
i I i I N Monitoring Year 0- 2020
Alexander County, NC

,!
Conservation Easement
® Existing Wetlands
Vegetation Plots (Permanent)
O Vegetation Plots (Mobile)
Non -Project Streams
Restoration
Enhancement II
Preservation
Alignment Deviation
Not For Credit
Wetland Channel
BMP
---- Bankfull
x — x Fence Line
Structures
Topographic Contours (5')
Cross Sections
Barotroll
Groundwater Gage
Crest Gage
Photo Points
O Reach Breaks
. ' ' I �• 1A13:i311�i
4 ,
I ,
X5
-
5 f
Figure 1.1 As -Built Monitoring Plan View
` WILD LANDS Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
i I i I Monitoring Year 0- 2020
Alexander County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Components
Project Area
Existing
Mitigation
Mitigation
Restoration
Priority
Project
Mitigation
As -Built
Footage
Plan Footage/
,
z
Project Credit
Notes/Comments
/Reach
Category
Level
Level
Ratio(X:1)
Footage/Acreage
orAcrea e a
g
_Acreage
Full channel restoration with planted buffer. Livestock excluded, and invasive
UT1 Reach 1A
770
Warm
Restoration
P1, P2
2.000
770.000
385.000
1,901
species treated.
Full channel restoration with planted buffer. Livestock excluded, and invasive
UT1 Reach 1B*
969
Warm
Restoration
P1, P2
2.000
957.000
478.500
species treated.
Channel stabilization with planted buffer. Livestock excluded, and invasive species
UT1 Reach 2*
1,324
1260
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
2.000
1,253.000
626.500
treated.
UT1 Reach 3*
732
718
Warm
Preservation
N/A
10.000
701.000
70.100
Invasive species treated.
Channel stablized. Floodplain bench cut to reconnect channel with flood plain and
UT1 Reach 4A
252
Warm
Restoration
P2
2.500
252.000
100.800
transition preservation reach to Priority 1 restoration. Planted buffer, livestock
2,825
exclusion, and invasive species treated.
Full channel restoration with planted buffer. Livestock excluded, and invasive
UT1 Reach 4A
920
Warm
Restoration
Pi
1.000
920.000
920.000
species treated.
Full channel restoration with planted buffer. Livestock excluded, and invasive
UT1 Reach 413
1666
Warm
Restoration
P1, P2
1.000
1,666.000
1,666.000
species treated.
Channel reconnected with floodplain. Livestock excluded, invasive species treated,
UT1A
158.00
203
Warm
Enhancement II
N/A
-
203.000
0.000
and planted buffer.
T
Step -pool conveyance system implemented to treat pasture stormwater run-off.
BMP
N/A
262
N/A
I
N/A
I
N/A
262.000
I
N/A
I
I
Livestock excluded, and invasive species treated.
Notes:
* UTl R1B's as -built footage is short by 12 LF, with a restoration credit ratio of 2:1, there is a loss of 6.000 restoration SMUs. UTl 112's as -built footage is short 7 LF, with an Ell credit ratio of 2:1, there is a loss of 3.500 Ell SMUs. UTl 113's as -built footage is short 17
LF, with a preservation credit ratio of 10:1, there is a loss of 1.700 preservation SMUs. This results in net loss of 11.200 SMUs. These numbers are not reflected in the Project Credits table below, in order for the credit totals to match the Site's Mitigation Plan.
1. No direct creditfor BMP or UT1A.
2. Internal culvert crossing and external breakexcluded from stationing listed.
Project
Stream
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold
Cre
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian
Coastal Marsh
Riverine Non-Riv Wetland
Restoration
3,556.300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Re-establishment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rehabilitation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
-
N/A
N/A
Enhancement II
630.000
N/A
N/A
Creation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
71.800
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
4,258.100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
ReportActivity or Mwata
404 Permit
Collection Compmo
October 2019
Completion or Delivery
November 2019
Mitigation Plan
March 2018 - October 2019
October 2019
Final Design - Construction Plans
September 2019
September 2019
Construction
December 2019 - April 2020
April 2020
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
April 2020
April 2020
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
April 2020
April 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
April 2020
April 2020
Baseline Monitoring (Year 0)
Stream Survey
April - May 2020
September 2020
Vegetation Survey
Collected - April 2020
Verified - June 2020
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Designers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Aaron Earley, PE, CFM
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Construction Contractors
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc
970 Bat Cave Road
Old Fort, NC 28762
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
970 Bat Cave Road
Old Fort, NC 28762
Seed Mix Sources
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Wetland Plants Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
[phone] x.110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Project information
Project Name
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Alexander County
Project Area (acres)
21.7
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35' 48' 42.36"N 810 7' 14.46"W
Planted Acreage (Acre of Woody Stems Planted)
Physiographic Province
17.5
Project•
Piedmont Physiographic Province
Summary Information
River Basin
Catawba River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
3050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
3050101130010
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-32
Project Drainage Area (acres)
UT1- 256, UT1A - 7.4
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
1%
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Forest (20%), Cultivated (73%), Grassland (1%), Shrubland (1%), Urban (5%), Open Water (0%)
•
•
Parameters
7Length
UT1 Reach 3A and 113
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 3
UT1 Reach 4A and 46
UT1A
of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,727
1,253
701
2,838
203
ey confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Confined
Unconfined
Moderately Confined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
71
117
141
256
7
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
P
P
I
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
B4
B4
N/A
C4c/G4c N/A
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post -Restoration
B4
B4
N/A
C4 N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III
V
1/11
IV III
FEMA classification
Regulation
N/A
Regulatory•
Applicable?
N/A
• •
N/A
Resolved?
Zone AE N/A
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Action ID #SAW-2018-00451
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR# 18-0665
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCGO1000C
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Alexander County Floodplain Development Permit #01-2019
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Quantity / Length by Reach
UT1 Reach
UT1 Reach
UT1 Reach
UT1 Reach
UT1 Reach
UT1 Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Wetlands
Frequency
Notes
UT1A
1A
1B
2
3
4A
4B
Dimension
Riffle Cross -Section
1
warm
N/A
N/A
2
3
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Pool Cross -Section
1
warm
N/A
N/A
2
3
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
warm
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
warm
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reach Wide (RW)
Substrate
1 RW
warm
N/A
N/A
1 RW
1 RW
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
3
Pebble Count
Crest Gage (CG) and
Hydrology
1 CG
N/A
Semi -Annual
4
or Transducer SG
GroundG�Gr Gages
Wetland Hydrology
2
Semi -Annual
8
CVS Level 2/Mobile
Vegetation
12 (9 permanent, 3 mobile)
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
5
lots
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation
Semi -Annual
6
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
7
Reference Photos
Photographs
20
Annual
Notes:
1. Cross -sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during the as -built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate widespread
lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only. A reach -wide pebble count will be performed on each restoration or enhancement I reach each year for
classification purposes.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually. Evidence of bankfull events such as rack lines or floodplain deposition will be documented with a photo
when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage once every three hours.
5. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems, height, and species using a
circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
8. Wetland gages were installed within existing wetlands located where Priority 1 restoration was conducted to monitor groundwater hydrology. No wetland credits are being sought for this project and no
performance criteria have been established.

k &V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING NOTES
MEETING: Post -Contract IRT Site Walk
ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site
Catawba 03050101; Alexander County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7416
DMS Project No. 100048
Wildlands Project No. 005-02169
DATE: Thursday, March 29, 2018
LOCATION: Elk Shoals Church Loop
Stony Point, NC
Attendees
Steve Kichefski, USACE Harry Tsomides, DMS Mac Haupt, DWR
Olivia Munzer, WRC Kirsten Ullman, DMS Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands
Todd Bowers, EPA Alan Johnson, DWR Christine Blackwelder, Wildlands
Paul Wiesner, DMS Ori Tuvia, DWR
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 9/21/2017 in response to DMS RFP 16-007277
Meeting Notes
The meeting began at 1 pm. Shawn presented an overview of the project at the parking location. From there,
the group walked upstream to the headwaters of UT1, retraced steps and reviewed UT1 downstream of the
road, UT1A, and the potential wetland area in the left floodplain at the downstream site extents. The meeting
concluded at 3:30 PM.
1. Overall project comments
• Bald eagle is listed for Alexander County. No bald eagle nest noticed in vicinity, nor is there a record
adjacent to the site.
• Alexander family house (historical) located near the site.
• Olivia recommends that no trees are cleared during bat maternity roosting period (June/July).
2. Potential Wetland Credit Areas
Steve noted that if wetlands are included in the project, he or William Elliott (USACE) will do a more
thorough review of the site when they return for the jurisdictional determination.

ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site — IRT Meeting Notes
• Upstream of road
o There area few wetland pockets in the right floodplain just upstream of the road, and several
more in the left floodplain upstream of the proposed stream crossing.
o Steve asked that wetland pockets be encompassed by the easement, even if not for credit.
• Downstream of road
o If needed, the area in the left floodplain that is currently ditched has potential for wetland credits.
o Discussion about the need to drop a well into any wetland proposed for restoration credit to begin
pre -construction data collection asap.
3. Stream Restoration
• Upstream of the road
o The group walked up to the head of UT1. Cattle have been rotated out of this pasture and are in
the pasture downstream of the road.
o The start of UT1 is a large cattle wallow area. Shawn discussed that Wildlands may install a BMP
to treat concentrated agricultural runoff above the reach.
o Mac noted the soils at the head of UT1 and that this area may have been a wetland before the
headcut advanced through and formed a stream channel.
o Several members of the group noted that UT1 here has a lot of side seeps and noted areas of
channel recovery from the absence of cattle over the last few months. One area of UT1 here just
upstream of a headcut has very low banks and the group discussed tying design into this area.
Shawn noted the planar bed and lack of habitat but did agree that Wildlands may utilize good
areas of existing channel in the restoration design.
o Continuing downstream, Olivia expressed concern over how close the proposed crossing is to the
existing left floodplain wetland. The valley walls are relatively steep near the proposed crossing,
and Wildlands will likely shift this crossing further downstream to where crossing will be easier for
the farmer, which should also address any wetland concerns.
o The crossing shown in the proposal marks a transition from restoration upstream to enhancement
2 downstream, although the group agreed that there isn't a clearly defined transition point in the
field. The proposed enhancement 2 section will require some areas of restoration or
enhancement I, and some of the restoration area may be fine with a lighter touch.
o Overall, upstream of the road, the group discussed restoration at 1:1 credit from the head of the
channel down to the existing fence line, and enhancement 2 at 2:1 credit from the fence line to
the road. This would shorten the proposed restoration footage in this area by approximately 400
feet.
• Downstream of the road
o Within the woods, the group generally agreed with a preservation approach. At the headcut
which marked the proposed transition from preservation to restoration, the group agreed that a
transitional length of enhancement 2 was appropriate. This transitional length will continue until
the stream enters the active cattle pasture, where the approach will switch to restoration down to
the end of the project.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site — IRT Meeting Notes
o The restoration downstream of the road was presented in the proposal at 1.5:1 credit due to the
amount of floodplain vegetation which had established in absence of the cattle over the last two
years. The group noted the extreme difference in the floodplain vegetation and channel condition
since the cattle have been rotated back into the field, and that the reach is worthy of traditional
1:1 crediting.
o Olivia noted underground flow from the left floodplain near the downstream project extent.
These may be drain tiles from the field. Wildlands will review this more carefully during the
existing conditions assessment.
These meeting minutes were prepared by Christine Blackwelder and reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on April 13, 2018, and
represent the authors' interpretation of events. Olivia Munzer comments (May 7, 2018) were incorporated on May 15,
2018. These minutes are now final.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

k &V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMO
REGARDING: Credit Ratios
ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site
Catawba 03050101; Alexander County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7416
DMS Project No. 100048
Wildlands Project No. 005-02169
DATE: Monday, April 16, 2018
In the September 26, 2017, Technical Proposal for the Alexander Farm Mitigation Site, Wildlands presented
various credit ratios for UT1 upstream and downstream of Elk Shoals Church Loop road based on the channel
conditions at the time of the proposal. This memo reflects changes to the proposed credit ratios in response to
discussion during the IRT field walk of the site on March 29, 2018.
Upstream of the road
The stream crossing shown in the proposal marked the proposed transition from restoration at 1:1 credit to
enhancement 2 at 2.5:1 credit; however, during the IRT field walk, the group agreed that there isn't a clearly
defined transition point in the field. The proposed enhancement 2 section will require some areas of restoration
or enhancement I, and some of the restoration area may be fine with a lighter touch.
The IRT group discussed restoration at 1:1 credit from the head of the channel down to the existing fence line
(which crosses the channel upstream of the stream crossing), and enhancement 2 at 2:1 credit from the fence
line to the road. This would shorten the restoration footage presented in the proposal in this area by
approximately 400 feet.
After the meeting, Wildlands reviewed the contracted credit requirements, and given the large area of transition
from restoration to enhancement 2 upstream of the road, Wildlands will likely propose the entire area upstream
of the road as enhancement 2 at 2:1 credit in the mitigation plan and apply the appropriate level of intervention
needed throughout the reach.
Downstream of the road
Within the woods, the IRT group generally agreed with the preservation approach presented in the proposal. At
the headcut which marked the proposed transition from preservation to restoration, the group agreed that a
transitional length of enhancement 2 was appropriate. This transitional length will continue until the stream
enters the active cattle pasture, where the approach will switch to restoration down to the end of the project.
The Alexander Farm tenant farmer rotates his 175-head herd between the pasture upstream of the road in
spring and summer and the downstream of the road in fall and winter. Wildlands visited the Site several times
between 2010 and 2015 and confirmed this land management practice. Over the 2 years prior to submittal of
the proposal, however, the tenant farmer kept the herd upstream of the road to allow for fencing repair and

ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site —Credit Memo
replacement downstream of the road. During this time, he cut hay downstream of the road, but allowed the
riparian area to grow with annuals. During the proposal process, the farmer told Wildlands that his repairs
would soon be complete and he would then move the herd downstream of the road. Despite incision
throughout the channel length, Wildlands proposed a lower credit ratio of 1.5:1 for restoration downstream of
the road to acknowledge the reach's heavy herbaceous cover due to the absence of recent cattle activity.
The farmer completed his fencing repairs after the proposal was submitted and moved his herd downstream of
the road. During the IRT site walk on March 29, 2018, the IRT group noted that all the riparian vegetation was
gone and impacted by cattle. IRT members, Wildlands, and DMS all felt that the restoration activities proposed
downstream of the road were now creditable at a 1:1 ratio. Wildlands proposes this section of restoration at 1:1
credit.
Please see the attached figure which illustrates the proposed shift in credit ratios. All proposed credit ratios will
be fully justified in the mitigation plan.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
ALEXANDER FARM Mitigation Site
Credit Memo

' WILD LANDS 0 200 400 Feet
%ENGINEERING I I I I I
IRT Credit Memo
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Alexander County, NC

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 6. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Pre -Restoration Condition on
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage UTI RIA UTI RIB UTI R4A UTI R413
UT1 R1A UTI RIB UTI R4A UTI R413
UTI RIA UTI RIB
UTI R4A
UTI R413
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min I Max
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Min Max Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.8
7.2
5.8
7.2
6.0
9.1
8.2
8.6
6.5
8.0
11.5
12.0
6.6
7.9
11.6
12.9
11.4
12.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
7
9
24
54
8
10
9 F 14
11 1 18
25 1 58
26 60
23
25
64
68
75
83
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.6 1 0.7
0.6 1 0.8
1.1 1 1.3
1.1 1.4
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)1
4.0
4.4
4.0
4.4
8.6
8.8
10.1
10.3
3.0
4.3
10.1
11.3
2.7
5.5
10.6
12.0
11.9
12.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8.5
12.0
8.5
12.0
8.0
14.1
6.6
7.2
14.0
15.0
13.0
13.0
16.3
11.4
11.3
15.8
10.3
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio3
1.2
1.2
3.0
9.1
1.0
1.1
1.4
2.2
1.4
2.2
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
3.5
3.2
5.3
5.5
6.0
6.6
Bank Height Ratio
5.9
6.4
5.9
6.4
1.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
13.6
22.6
13.6
1 22.6
17.7
22.6
17.7
22.6
---
---
---
---
49.6
65.3
59.4
71.0
55.6
69.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
0.009 0.052
0.018 0.049
0.002 0.024
0.002 0.026
0.006 0.052
0.002 0.063
0.001 0.037
0.004 0.021
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
2.1
N/A
0.9
1.4
1.1
1.6
1.8
2.6
1.9
2.8
0.9
2.1
1.2
2.4
1.9
2.8
1.8
3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
8 F 24
8 1 24
11 1 19
N/A
7.0
33.0
8.0
40.0
26.0
81.0
28.0
84.0
7.8
49.9
7.8
49.7
28.0
97.5
47.2
115.3
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.0
99.0
9.0
99.0
N/A
N/A
23.0
92.0
24.0
96.0
N/A
N/A
23.0
92.0
24.0
96.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
27.0
65.0
27.0
65.0
N/A
N/A
23.0
35.0
24.0
36.0
N/A
N/A
23.0
35.0
24.0
36.0
Rc/Bankfull Width
N/A
N/A
4.5
7.1
3.3
7.6
N/A
N/A
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
N/A
N/A
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
58.0
201.0
58.0
201.0
N/A
N/A
58.0
161.0
60.0
168.0
N/A
N/A
58.0
161.0
60.0
168.0
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
1.5
10.9
1.1
11.5
N/A
N/A
2.0
8.0
2.0
8.0
N/A
N/A
2.0
8.0
2.0
8.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
D16/D35/D50/DS4/D95/dip/disp
0.4/0.7/1.3/23.6/42.0/90.0
0.3/0.5/0.9/33.7/45.0/90.0
---
0.2/0.8/7.7/102.0/1
56.8/256.0
SC/0.2/2.0/86.5/
128.0/512.0
SC/0.3/1.7/76.7/
128.0/256.0
SC/SC/0.7/75.9/1
28.0/256.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m1
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.05 0.11 0.29 0.40
0.05
0.11 0.29 0.40
0.05 0.11
0.29 0.40
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
C4c
G4c
B4
B4
C4
C4
B4
B4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.5 F 5.8
5.5 1 5.8
3.4
3.8
3.9 F 4.0
4.1
4.5
3.50
3.9
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
23.0
31.0
1 54.6
40.1
12
20
32
40
---
---
---
---
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Max Q-Mannings
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0370
0.0370
0.0130
0.0130
0.0370
0.0370
0.0130
0.0130
0.0370
0.0370
0.0130
0.0130
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,901
2,825
770
969
1,172
1,666
770
957
1,172
1,666
Sinuosity
1.14
1.14
1.13
1.13
1.03
1.03
1.11
1.11
1.02
0.96
1.23
1.15
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)1
0.0340
1 0.0340
0.0080
1 0.0080
1 0.0362
0.0362
0.0093
0.0093
1 0.0370
0.0375
0.0088
0.0085
1. Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7. Reference Reach Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Reference Reach Data
Parameter Gage Agony Acres UT1 UT to Kelly Creek UT to Austin Branch
Timber Trib UT to Lyle Creek UT to Varnals Creek Walker Branch Box Creek
Min I Max Min I Max Min Max
Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
11.1
7.91
6.2
8.9
7.0
9.3
10.5
11.5 12.3
23.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
25
9
27
14
45 1 49
60
100
31
76
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.73
0.7
0.5
0.47
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.6
1.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ftz)
7.4
5.7
4.4
4.6
3.5
4.1
10.3
12.3
8.9
12.2
28.9
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
10.9
8.8
17.0
14.9
18.3
8.1
9.3
12.3
14.4
19.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.3
1.2
4.3
1.5
6.0
6.0
5.7
10.0
2.5
2.7
3.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
1.5
D50 (mm)
50.6
---
59
6.5
0.5
15
27.8
22
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.025 1 0.730
0.020 0.150
0.006 0.060
0.024 0.057
0.000 0.100
0.600
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
---
1.7
---
1.3
2.5
2.6
1.8
2.3
4.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
2.0 5.0
1.0 6.0
2.0 4.0
0.5
5.6
2.3
6.1
1.2
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
18.0
34.0
---
---
21.0
15.0
45.0
102.0
62.0
87.8
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
8
26
---
---
19
32
8
47
23
38
8
38
Rc/Bankfull Width
---
---
---
---
2.7
3.7
0.6
3.2
2.0
3.1
0.3
1.6
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
---
--
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
--
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
2.0/12.9/50.6/168.1/2
048.0/>2048
11.0/42.0/59.0/170.0/2
56.0
0.49/3.5/6.5/48.0/83.0
/128.0
SC/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/
8.0
2.9/9.2/15.0/56.0/88
.0/256.0
0.6/12.2/27.8/74.5
/128.0/>2048
4.1/11.0/22.0/
50.0 /78.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ftz
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.15
0.08
0.12
0.04
0.25
0.41
0.29
2.13
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
---
---
---
--
Rosgen Classification
B3
B4/B4a
B4a/A4
B4
C5
C4/E4
E4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.9
5.9
6.2
3.7
4.7
4.4 5.2
3.8
3.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
37
23
27
17
18
54
40
99
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.050
0.049
0.048
0.041
0.009
0.020
0.030
2.250
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
Sinuosity
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.049
0.030 1 0.065
0.040
0.033
0.004
0.017
0.010
0.840
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 111A
Cross
-Section
1
UT1 111A Cross
-Section
2
UT1 11113
Cross
-Section
3
UT1
11113 Cross
-Section
4
Dimension and Substrate
bankfull elevation
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
I
Dimension and Substrate
UT1 114A
Cross
-Section
5
UT1 114A
Cross
-Section
6
UT1 114A
Cross
-Section
7
UT1
114A Cross
-Section
8
bankfull elevation_______
_______�_______�-------
Floodprone Width (ft)Bankfull
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
UT1 11413
Cross
Section
9
�UT1
1146
Cross
Se
)
�UT1
1146
Cross
-Se
I
UT1
1146 Cross
-Section
12
bankfull elevation_______
_______�_______�-------
Floodprone
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
111413
Cross
Section
Cross
Section
14
bankfull elevation
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment •
RatioBankfull Bank Height
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain.
N/A: Not Applicable

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
LIT1 Reach 1A (STA 100+00 to 105+00)
990
988
986
v
984
c
A
982
y
A A AA
980
AAA
978
9990 10040 10090 10140 10190 10240
Station (feet)
+TW (MYO-5/2020) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) O STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)
♦
Y
.aa
m
♦ •
c
'm
w
m
♦
980
• ♦
1
1
• •
1
1
978 •
• •
1
976
Al
♦ ♦` • !
! 1
1
•
974
1
i • • • • • • •
♦
M
•
0
w
972
1
1
1
1
♦• ♦ •
•
ed
N
• • ♦
970
X
X
1 1
968
1
1
10250
10300
10350
10400 10450 10500
Station (feet)
tTW (MYO-5/2020) ♦
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020)
RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1A/16 (STA 105+00 to 110+00)
970
968
'-- ♦ ♦ !
AL
m
ti !
t
Al
m
966
♦
F
-
♦
c
°1
964
AL A
♦
m
c___
962
- - - ♦ ♦ •
960
958
10500
10550 10600 10650 10700
10750
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-5/2020)------- WSF (MYO-5/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)
962
960
AA A
958
------
------
---
! ti •♦
956
--
•♦ !
w
954
----
0
952
m
-- -
y
♦ ♦77-
.2
w
950
L
u
_
----
--
948
-- --
♦
_
946
c
'oo
m
944
m
10770 10800 10830 10860 10890 10920 10950 10980
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-5/2020) -- WSF (MYO-5/2020) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1B (STA 110+00 to 115+00)
948
946
944 AA 4
v
942
c
A
w940
938
936
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-5/2020)------- WSF (MYO-5/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)
X
X
♦ �
1
1
1
1
938
937
936
935
934
a
933
c
932
.�
931AAA
AA A
930
929
928
11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-5/2020) WSF (MYO-5/2020) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
LIT1 Reach 1B (STA 115+00 to 117+50)
932
930
__-----
--------- •
• •
- • •
Internal
928
----------------- I(• ..
--- __
• ♦
Crossing
w
------------- • --• • • • A'
....
t
i
''Z" 926
• ••
AAA
w
---A
---_
------- -
!
- -------
i-
m
- - -A--A •
w
z
924
-
r _ -_
922
c
C
11500
11550 11600 11650 11700
11750
Station (feet)
+TW (MYO-5/2020)------- WSF (MYO-5/2020)
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) . RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 4A (STA 138+00 to 150+00)
r
1 1
•
_
1 1
•
• •
1 1
-----
------
m
X X
896
894
A
892
c
0
890
W
888
A

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UTl Reach 4B (STA 150+00 to 160+00)
886
884
AAAA•
•
882
--
------`----`---- -----
--".-_`
--------
--------
! :
v
"`
♦
•
m
---------------
__----`-
♦
880
•
'0
s
u
-
_
w
878
¢
j
c
m
876
v
m
15000 15050 15100 15150 15200 15250 15300 15350 15400 15450 15500
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-5/2020)------- WSF (MYO-5/2020) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)
882
♦♦ •

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UTl Reach 4B (STA 160+00 to 167+00)
876
— —
�-----
♦ ♦ •
• !
1
1
874
•
1
----
---------
---------A------
1
1 ! �!
• l ♦ A
872
----- -- ---
-
.
d
1
1
._—''-----
----------------
---------------
•.
t
-------- ------
- ._ AA •
. . .
g
1
1
•
AA
W
1
1
1
d
868
1
1
1
_•
-
r
.Na
ti
v
X
X
X
X
866
16000 16050 16100 16150 16200 16250 16300 16350 16400 16450 16500 16550 16600 16650 16700
Station (feet)
+TW (MYO-5/2020)------- WSF (MYO-5/2020) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-5/2020) . RBKF/RTOB (MYO-5/2020) • STRUCTURE (MYO-5/2020)

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 1-UT1 Reach 1A
103+29 Riffle
979
c
0
977
v
975
0 10 20 30
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.6
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.3
width -depth ratio
23.3
W flood prone area (ft)
3.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 2-UT1 Reach 1A
103+37 Pool
978
c
976
w
974
0 10
20 30
Width (ft)
tMYO (05/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.0 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
v,
8.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
6.0 width -depth ratio
r
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
— y
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 3-UT1 Reach 1B
110+52 Pool
951
949
$ 947
0
w
w 945
943
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
—4—MYO (05/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions A.
11.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) I
8.3 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
9.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
5.9 width -depth ratio -
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Section 4-UT1 Reach 1B
110+67 Riffle
948
$ 946
c
0
w
w
944
0 10 20 30
Width (ft)
+MYO(05/2020) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
25.2
W flood prone area (ft)
3.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 5-UT1 Reach 4A
142+68 Pool
894
892
c
0
890
a'
888
10 20
30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
v
12.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
I
8.9 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
9.8 wetted perimeter (ft)'
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
6.2 width -depth ratio
INfit Fes,
Survey Date: 05/2020
p4
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
¢
>+4?
i
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
6-UT1 Reach 4A
142+88 Riffle
894
c
892
0
w
w
890
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
--*--MYO(05/2020) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
10.6
x-section area (ftsq.)
12.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
-.
1.3
max depth (ft)
13.3
wetted perimeter (ft)-
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
..�.
f `
15.8
width -depth ratio
68.0
W flood prone area (ft)-
�
5.3
1.0
entrenchment ratio
low bank height ratio
41 k -
-�
Survey Date: 05/2020
/ y
Field Crew:
Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 7-UT1 Reach 4A
149+02 Pool
888
886
c
0
w
884
w
882
20 30
40
50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020)
— Ban kfu I I
Bankfull Dimensions
15.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
'
16.2 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
17.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
`
16.7 width -depth ratio
_ P3-
Survey Date: 05/2020:
_s,w,
ra
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying'
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 8-UT1 Reach 4A
149+38 Riffle
887
c
885
w
w
883
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (05/2020) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.6 width (ft) "
1.0 mean depth (ft)'"
1.4 max depth (ft)
12.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3 width -depth ratio
64.2 W flood prone area (ft)
5.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
� stir
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
s-Section 9-UT1 Reach 4B
155+48 Riffle
882
$ 880
c
0
w
w
878
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—4—MYO (05/2020) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
11.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
12.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
82.5
W flood prone area (ft)
6.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 10-UT1 Reach 4B
155+85 Pool
882
880
878
a
v
w 876
874
20 30
40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
32.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.3 width (ft)
2.5 mean depth (ft)
3.7 max depth (ft)
15.9 wetted perimeter ft
2.1 hydraulic radius (ft)�
5.4 width -depth ratio
)
f
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
ction 11-UT1 Reach 4B
160+04 Pool
878
876
x
c
0
w 874
w
872
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
21.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.2
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
15.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
12-UT1 Reach 4B
160+50 Riffle
877
875
0
w
w
873
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
13.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
74.7
W flood prone area (ft)
6.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Cross -Section 13-UT1 Reach 4B
163+27 Pool
876
874
x
c
0
w 872
w
870
10 20
30 40
50 60
Width (ft)
--*--MYO (05/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
18.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.0 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.6 max depth (ft)
F
14.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
_
r=-
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying�hi_
+�
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
ion 14-UT1 Reach 4B
875
c
873
0
w
w
871 4-
20
163+60 Riffle
30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2020) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.4 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
M:.:....
11.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.3 width -depth ratio
75.2 W flood prone area (ft)
6.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio--�-,�
Survey Date: 05/2020
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
;f
View Downstream
60

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1A, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
11
11
11
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
10
10
32
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
37
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
2
7
7
44
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
44
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
44
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
3
5
5
50
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
56
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
3
7
7
66
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
67
VeryCoarse
32
45
67
VeryCoarse
45
64
2
2
2
69
Small
64
90
12
12
12
81
Small
90
128
8
8
8
89
�N�
coy
Large
128
180
10
10
10
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1
100
Total 1
50
1 51
101
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dr6 =
0.2
D35 =
0.8
D50 =
7.7
D. =
102.0
1395 =
156.8
D100 =
256.0
UT1 Reach 1A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
Sp
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 1A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1A, Cross -Section 1
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
6
P�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
11
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
12
12
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
23
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
27
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
31
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
33
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
41
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
48
Very Coarse
32
45
48
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
56
Small
64
90
14
14
70
Small
90
128
18
18
88
LOQ'
Large
128
180
10
10
98
"V
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048 1
1100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048 1
i
100
Totall
101
1 100
1 100
Cross -Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.3
D35 =
13.7
D50 =
49.6
D80. =
118.0
D95 =
162.2
Dioo =
256.0
UT1 Reach 1A, Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 1A, Cross -Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yL5 O tih O5
O O
1 L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW "p 'o ��ti ytiti'e �Obb "0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 113, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
23
26
26
26
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
5
6
6
32
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
9
9
41
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
6
47
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
50
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
50
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
53
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
54
VeryCoarse
32
45
8
8
8
62
VeryCoarse
45
64
5
2
7
7
69
Small
64
90
16
1
17
17
86
Small
90
128
9
9
9
95
�v�
coy
Large
128
180
4
4
4
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
NOEDRO!C6K
Medium
512
1024
100
IM
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
113edrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 _
0.2
D50 =
2.0
D. =
86.5
1395 =
128.0
DIO, =
512.0
UT1 Reach 1113, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silticlay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
gp
er
Bedrock
70
e
00
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
u
w 20
Q.
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 1113, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
.L5 ti� o' h
O o1 0
g0 5� �ti yti .LDS a0
ti' S' titi' 1 1 'L '3 5 ,y0 ,tio b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 113, Cross -Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
13
13
13
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
P�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
17
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
17
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
18
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
25
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
32
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
48
Small
64
90
33
33
81
Small
90
128
10
10
91
���
1,0
Large
128
180
8
8
99
"V
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
9.9
D35 =
48.1
D50 =
65.3
D80. =
100.0
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
UT1 Reach 1113, Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
IL
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 1113, Cross -Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo �L b5 �b CO yLW e 'o ��ti yyti ye Cobb "0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 4A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
22
28
28
28
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
32
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
10
10
44
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
47
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
51
Very Fine
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
51
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
53
;cott
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
4
4
57
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
58
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
59
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
60
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
63
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
3
3
66
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
67
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
75
Small
64
90
17
17
17
92
Small
18
Large
180
4
4
4
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
50
1 50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.3
D5o =
1.7
D84 =
76.7
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
256.0
UT1 Reach 4A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
m 50
E 40
u
c 30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 4A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
60
a
50
m
40
u
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 4A, Cross -Section 6
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
P�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
11
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
11
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
16
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
28
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
35
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
54
Small
64
90
24
24
78
Small
90
128
13
13
91
LOQ'
Large
128
180
8
8
99
"V
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048 1
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.0
D35 =
45.0
D50 =
59.4
D80. =
105.9
D95 =
151.8
Dioo =
256.0
UT1 Reach 4A, Cross -Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 4A, Cross -Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo �L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o ��ti yyti'e Cobb "0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 4A, Cross -Section 8
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
3
P�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
11
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
21
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
24
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
25
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
26
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
29
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
42
Small
64
90
28
28
69
Small
90
128
21
21
90
LOQ'
Large
128
180
8
8
98
"V
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048 1
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
101
1 100
100
Cross -Section 8
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.8
D35 =
53.4
D50 =
71.0
D80. =
115.4
D95 =
158.1
Dioo =
256.0
UT1 Reach 4A, Cross -Section 8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 4A, Cross -Section 8
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo �L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o ��ti yyti y�Lb Cobb b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 413, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
38
39
39
39
Very fine
0.062
0.125
39
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
41
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
49
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
51
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
51
Very Fine
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
51
2.8
4.0
51
;coto,
Fine
4.0
5.6
51
Fine
5.6
8.0
51
Medium
8.0
11.0
51
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
55
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
8
63
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
64
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
14
78
Small
64
90
12
12
12
90
Small
1
Large
8
180
4
4
4
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
Dso =
0.7
D80. =
75.9
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
256.0
UT1 Reach 4113, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
m 50
E 40
u
c 30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 4113, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
a
70
v
60
a
50
m
40
u
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
h
0 oy o o'
ti ti °� A [o 'b y1 N11 C� .�'L p5 rak �o .L0 p 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 413, Cross -Section 9
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
P�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
9
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
11
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
17
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
31
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
40
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
55
Small
64 1
90
18
18
73
Small
90
128
14
14
87
���
1,0
Large
128
180
11
11
98
"V
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048 1
1
1 100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048 1
1
1 100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross -Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
21.3
D35 =
37.2
D50 =
56.9
D80. =
118.7
D95 =
164.0
Dioo =
256.0
UT1 Reach 4113, Cross -Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiltIClay
Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 4113, Cross -Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo �L b5 �b CO yLW "p 'o ��ti yyti'e Cobb "0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 413, Cross -Section 12
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
P�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
6
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
15
Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
31
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
41
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
56
Small
64
90
27
27
83
Small
90
128
10
10
93
LOQ'
Large
128
180 1
7
7
100
"V
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
23.1
D35 =
36.7
D50 =
55.6
D80. =
93.2
D95 =
141.1
D100 =
180.0
UT1 Reach 413, Cross -Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 413, Cross -Section 12
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o 'g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
UT1 Reach 413, Cross -Section 14
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
P�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
5
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
9
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
19
Very Coarse
45
64
24
24
43
Small
64
90
31
31
74
Small
90
128
19
19
93
LOQ'
Large
128
180 1
6
6
99
"V
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross -Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
40.6
D35 =
56.9
D50 =
69.1
D80. =
108.3
D95 =
143.4
Dioo =
256.0
UT1 Reach 4113, Cross -Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2020
UT1 Reach 4113, Cross -Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O�
0 0
1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo �L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o 'g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2020

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 0

PP1— view upstream—UT1 Reach 1A (04/22/2020) 1 PP1—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1A (04/22/2020) 1
PP2 — view upstream—UT1 Reach 1A (04/22/2020) PP2 — view downstream—UT1 Reach 1A (04/22/2020)
PP3 — view upstream—UT1 Reach 1A (04/22/2020) 1 PP3 — view downstream—UT1 Reach 1A (04/22/2020)

PP4—view upstream- UT1 Reach 1B (04/22/2020) 1 PP4—view downstream— UT1 Reach 1B (04/22/2020) 1
PPS —view upstream- UT1 Reach 1B (04/22/2020) 1 PPS —view downstream—UT1 Reach 1B (04/22/2020) 1
PP6- view upstream—UT1 Reach 1B (04/22/2020) 1 PP6 — view downstream—UT1 Reach 1B (04/22/2020)

PP7 —view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (04/22/2020) 1 PP7 —view downstream-UT1 Reach 2 (04/22/2020) 1
PP8 —view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (04/22/2020) 1 PP8 — view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (04/22/2020) 1
PP9 — view upstream --- UT1 Reach 2 (04/22/2020) PP9 — view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (04/22/2020)

PP10 —view upstream—UT1 Reach 3 (04/22/2020) 1 PP10 — view downstream—UT1 Reach 3 (04/22/2020) 1
PP11— view upstream—UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1 PP11—view downstream—UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1
PP12 —view upstream— UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1 PP12 —view downstream—UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020)

Ps
1
y '
All
.R- . .. ..1M
PP13 —view upstream—UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1 PP13 — view downstream— UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1
PP14 — view upstream— UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1 PP14 — view downstream— UT1 Reach 4A (04/22/2020) 1
PP15 —view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1 PP15 —view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020)

PP16 —view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1 PP16 —view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1
PP17 —view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1 PP17 —view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1
PP18 —view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1 PP18 —view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020)

PP19 —view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1 PP19 —view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B (04/22/2020) 1
PP20 —view upstream— UT1A (04/22/2020) 1 PP20 — view downstream— UT1A (04/22/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 9. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Permanent Vegetation Plot
MYO Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean (MYO - 2020)
1
Y
100%
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
Mobile Vegetation Plot
MYO Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1
Y
100%
2
y
3
Y

Table 10. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Report Prepared By
Henry Reed
Date Prepared
6/26/2020 13:23
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02169 Alexander Farm\Monitoring\Baseline Monitoring\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
HENRY
File Size
173809920
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
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
1A 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
100048
Project Name
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Description
The Alexander Farm Mitigation Site (Site) is in Alexander County approximately 6 miles west of Statesville and 15 miles northeast of Hickory.
Sampled Plots
12

Table Ila. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Current Permanent Vegetation
Permanent Plot 1
Plot Data (MYO 2020)
Permanent Plot 2 Permanent Plot 3
Permanent Plot 4
Permanent Plot 5
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box elder
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus sp. (unknown)
Oak species (unknown)
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
Northern Red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
10
10
10
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
11
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
Stems per ACREJ
405
405
405
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
526
445
445
445
Ow
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Current Permanent Vegetation
Permanent Plot 6
Plot Data (MYO 2020)
Permanent Plot 7 Permanent Plot 8
Permanent Plot 9
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box elder
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
15
15
15
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
17
17
17
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
9
9
9
Quercussp. (unknown)
Oak species (unknown)
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
33
33
33
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
28
28
28
Quercus rubra
Northern Red oak
Tree
2
2
2
Stem count
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
111
111
111
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
9
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.22
Species count
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
Stems per ACREJ
486
1 486
1 486
486
486
486
486
486
486
607
607
607
499
499
499
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 11b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Scientific Name
MobileCurrent D. i2020)
Common Name Species Type
MP1
MP2
MP3
Annual Mean
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
PnoLS
PnoLS
PnoLS
Acer negundo
Box elder
Tree
1
3
2
6
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
7
1
4
12
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
1
4
Quercus sp. (unknown)
Oak species (unknown)
Tree
3
1
4
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Tree
1
4
3
8
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
2
3
Quercus rubra
Northern Red oak
Tree
1
1
2
Stem count
12
14
13
39
size (ares)
1
1
1
3
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.07
Species counti
4
1 7
1 6
1 7
Stems per ACREI
486
1 567
1 526
1 526
Scientific Name
Overall
Common Name
Species Type
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
Acer negundo
Box elder
Tree
21
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
29
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
13
Quercus sp. (unknown)
Oak species (unknown)
Tree
11
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
Tree
41
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
31
Quercus rubra
Northern Red oak
I Tree
4
Stem count
150
size (ares)
12
size (ACRES)
0.30
Species counti
7
Stems per ACREI
506
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

Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 0

Permanent Vegetation Plot 1(412712020) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 (412712020) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 (412712020) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 6 (412712020) 1

Permanent Vegetation Plot 7 (412712020) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 8 (412712020) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 9 (412712020) 1 Mobile Vegetation Plot 1(412712020) 1
Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 (412712020) 1 Mobile Vegetation Plot 3 (412712020)

APPENDIX 4. Record Drawings

Alexander Farm Mitigation Site -
Record Drawings
Alexander County, North Carolina
mpe j'hd
sae
hidden;te Tumer
Stony Point %
SITE — •
•Y� -'Tway
t
IeAA.
StatES i te
Patti
Kyles Crossroads ,'rt
Claremont
Catavcba
��uirnan
Others oon I
Vicinity Map i
Not to Scale j
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY
I, --ELISABETH G. TURNERS CERTIFY THAT THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PORTION
OF THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL
SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION; THAT THE RECORD DRAWINGS WERE
PREPARED BY WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC. FROM DIGITAL FILES PROVIDED BY TURNER
LAND SURVEYING, PPLC AS SHOWN ON AN AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR "WILDLANDS
T
ENGINEERING, INC.", JOB # 18-023 DATED MAY 19, 2020; THATTHIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED ATHE 95%CONFIDENCE LEVELTO MEETTHE FEDERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA
COMMITTEE STANDARDSAND TO MEETTHE REQUIREMENTS OF ATOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TO THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A HORIZONTAL AND CLASS C VERTICAL WHERE APPLICABLE;
THAT THE ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED BETWEEN THE DATES OF MAY a16, 2020
THATTHE CONTOURS SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES MAY NOT MEET THE STATED STANDARD
AND ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE
BASED ON NAVD 88 AND COORDINATE VALUES WERE TAKEN FROM AN EXISYING
CONDITIONS TOPOGRAPHICSURVEY PREPARED BYTURNER LAND SURVEYING, SIGNED,
SEALED AND DATED ON 9/23/2020 BYELISABETHG.TURNER, NCPLSLICENSE#4440;
THAT THIS MAP MEETSTH E SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOPOG RAPH ICSURVEYS AS STATED IN
TITLE 21, CHAPTER 56, SECTION .1606.
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND
SEALTHIS 24th DAYOF SEPTEMBER 202o A.D.
.``stc11 tt�R,9r; f.,
,Wdl , .
t- SEAL
L-4440
�,yA A
ELISABETH G. TURNER, PLS L-4440%�'/e
Catawba River Basin 03050101
for
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Environmental
Quality
RECORD DRAWINGS ISSUED
AUGUST 21, 2020
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
Project Overview
General Notes and Symbols
Stream Plan and Profile
UT1
UT1A
BMP
Planting Plan
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Aaron Earley, PE
704-332-7754
Pre -Construction Conditions and
As -Built Surveying:
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Lissa Turner, PLS
919-827-0745
0.2
0.3
1.1.1.-1.1.15
1.2.1
1.3.1
2.0-2.6
Owner:
NC DEQ - Division of
Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr, Ste. 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Harry Tsomides
828-545-7057
NC DEQ Contract No. 7416
DMS Project No. 100048
USACE ID No. SAW-2018-00451
n
tr
i-I
O
C) 5-4
�U
t �
4-1
O
z
O
ct ::J
hA C)
U
>H �
x
a)
rj
X
(1)
v
a,
a,
1:1

STA: 100+00
BEGIN UT1 REACH IA
35.82° N, 81.12° W
STA: 107+70
END UTl REACH 1A
BEGIN UT1 REACH 1B
P&C FARM LLC & ALEXANDER
FAMILY LEGACY FM LLC
PIN:0010480
DB: 0622 PG: 1375
STA: 200+00
BEGIN UT1A
STA:202+03
END UT1A
STA 149+85
UT1 REACH 4A
CONFLUENCE STA: 300+00
BEGIN BMP
Sheet
STA:302+62
END BMP
STA.152+59
STA: 150+00
END UT1 REACH 4A
BEGIN UT1 REACH 4B
0l 200' 400' 600'
(HO-O—)
END UTl REACH 4B
.31
1

As -Built Features
—CE CE CE—
AS -Built Conservation Easement
— CEAS — CE-zS — CEAS
— As -Built Stream Crossing
—
As -Built Thalweg Alignment
— — — — —
As -Built Bankfull
As -Built Major Contour
As -Built Minor Contour
> >
As -Built Cross Section
VP#
Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plots
GWG#
Groundwater Gage
AS -BUILT DRAWINGS:
Deviations from the design will be shown in red.
K-JkCG#
Crest Gauge
�PP#
Photo Point
ASurvey
Control Point
❑BT#
°
Barotroll
Pre -Construction Features
Pre -Construction Property Line
X — Pre -Construction Fence
a:,ia. pp — FUTA t:I: .____ Pre -Construction FEMA Floodplain
Pre -Construction Storm Pipe
Pre -Construction Bridge
0 Pre -Construction Wetland
!. ';,%"• �`. , Pre -Construction Road
Pre -Construction Treeline
Project Notes:
Topographic survey was completed by Turner Land Surveying in October 2018.
Parcel boundary survey was completed by Turner Land Surveying in January 2019.
Record Drawing survey was completed by Turner Land Surveying in May 2020.
Topographic data outside Designed conservation easement supplemented with Uclar data
from 2016.
As -Built Structures
As -Built Various Constructed Rifles
Design Features
10+00
Designed Centerline Alignment
— — — — — Designed Bankfull
Designed Major Contour (5' Interval)
Designed Minor Contour
As -Built Structures
® As -Built Log Sill
As -Built Brush Toe ® As -Built Lunker Log
a°
As -Built Vernal Pool Q� As -Built Log J-Hook
As -Built Vegetated Soil Lift As -Built Log Vane
As -Built Rock Sill
As -Built Armored Rock Stabilization/Permanent Crossing CDdCtD
As -Built Permanent Crossing
As -Built Coarse Woody Debris
As -Built Culvert
Design Structures
Design Structures
Designed Various Constructed Riffles
® Designed Angled Log Sill
Designed Brush Toe
® Designed Lunker Log
a°
Designed Vernal Pool
a Designed Log J-Hook
Designed Vegetated Soil Lift
U Designed Log Vane
Designed Rock Sill
Designed Permanent Crossing
Designed Coarse Woody Debris
AztNN m
�ydUNNO
11 wZN Z pi+f W
~"°'ooc
aZo��LLE
w� LL
,,,\\\O\\Ilrrrllllr�,,i
u

990
985
DESIGN GRADE
980
975
970 4-
100+00
AND ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE
Y,
AS -BUILT GRADE
100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00
995
ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE I
990
985
0' 2' 4' 6'
rvcaMny � �
A� o
0' 20' 40' 60' H �� . N o
ZaNnaM"
(HOPIZOMTL) U N m 0
Nzmmy
a ZMuHLLE
,,pO�unu4�q,,
rA
980
C0�
Q
(0
C)
N
U
975
,
v
O
C 4
O
�1
O
M
_q
970
104+50
p *Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
Cu
Ln profiles.
tKt
�
I�
x
ILn
LUv - v -
Lz`J� Sheet Index
I=/
�u�
Q� 1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5 oQ
',°
1.1.6
_
— 1.1.7 Cr
6
0a\
1.1.9
mwm X
`9 `° U
0 u
N N
1.1.10 1.2.1
8
13.1
1.1.12
1.1.13
E m a
1.1.14
z'
o a o t
1.1.15

975
970
AS -BUILT GRADE
965
DESIGN
960
955 E 954
104+50
105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50
STA:107+70
C` END UTl REACH IA- RESTORATION
BEGIN UTl REACH 1B -RESTORATION
s UTIREACHIA
80 SWALE ARMORED
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
Z� y TO PREVENT EROSION
VP1
�1� / � r�—v
ROCK AND ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE
0' 2' 4' 6'
MPiI )
0' 20' 40' 60'
975
�HOPROMAL�
� \J
970
A�
ZV'yLNLp(f04
Z�r00inmL`
K y V N N 0
Z m M v
wC
a ZL—i
M wm� S
Q PVJ
�U
;y "o
965
U]
F-4
Q �
960 i-I
O
� O
Cn Z,
955 M
954 ram' U
108+00 108+50
7.a
�
I
w X
Cu
I *Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
profiles.
UT1 REACHIB
- 960 _
965 p0�
----- — ----PP _ SWALE ARMORED 965 I \
- AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
TO PREVENT EROSION
l�
Sheet Index
7
11.1.1
1.1.2
1 1.1.3
o
u
C/]
O
U
oMS
s
IS
Mfl

960
955
ROCK AND
RIFFLE PRi
950
945
940
935
108+50
955
TOLL
FILE
/
\
\
ROCK AND ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE
950
\/
\
,
\
ROCK AND
ROLL
RIFFLE
PROFILE
94E
ly
AS -BUILT GRADE
/
DESIGN GRADE
\
sac
f
93f
109+00 109+50
o�
MATTING ADDED FOR STABILIZATION
Q AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
110+00 110+50 111+00
------------------------- --- --
j—
UT1 C
111+50
112+00 112+50
113+00
O
/CPS
'
II�`$,
r a
a
'
Wu
----------
_
a4 a4 .4
,4 aia' J A
-----------------
-- 940 9q0 . m . ,
00h
WETLAND OUTLET ADDED AT -
ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO
PREVENT EROSION
0' 2' 4' 6'
0' 20' 40' 60'
�HORQOMN�
Cn
A o
N
'z U'N rv�oo
Z mnmLL
��11_«rvnm
-y&E!U,4n .z°
a .u;
Z��nna
_x
a Zo-V2 E
w� LL
.�2
`V
v
O
0
' °
U
J.
�
O
Z
t
U
Q�
�
X
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
profiles.
N
Sheet Index
1.1.15
f

940
935
930
925
920
113+00 113+50 114+00 114+50 115+00 115+50
I SHIFTED DUE TO
FIELD CONDITIONS
,4 ♦•e +4 ilc Ja Ja Je .4 Ja a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 ,4 J.. a4 ,L. Je +4 a4 - - - ♦4 - - •4. GWGlY
• •I WETLAND OUTLET STABILIZED • • ` " • 930'
4 4 AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO PREVENT EROSION
REACH 1B
_ --
------------------------
O
O
\Q \
\W�
CI
I
Sm
PP6
\
STREAM ALIGNMENT SHIFTED
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO STABILIZE
BANKS AND IMPROVE HYDRAULICS
DESIGN
GRADEor
i
_
\
AS -BUILT GRAD
116+00 116+50 117+00
935
STA. 116+50 T0117+44
�- 82 LF DEVIATION OF ALIGNMENT
SHIFTED AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO
STABILIZE BANKS AND IMPROVE HYDRAULICS
930
116+0 - . -----------
STA:117+39
END UT1 REACH 1B - RESTORATION
BEGIN EASEMENT BREAK
LOG SILL INSTALLED
TO STABILIZE RIFFLE
48" ARCH CMP
I N V = 923.56'
0' 2' 4' 6'
rvEm�u [n v
Ao
0' 20' 40' 60' z°N noo
940 Z.%r°pi n
IHOMOMPII. - �� W W z M
« M m N V R
A�a �oov
a Zo u IT'i E
~ Wti
935
Auun%
930
W
�Q
925
u
m
U
�
O
�z
E
920
(�
r
117+50
O
U
*Rocl<and
Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
''1:j
profiles.
;-,
�
iGd
X
N
Sheet Index
1 1.1.1
1.1.2
1 1.1.3
qnl®=
E i a

930
925
920
915 4-
117+50
STREAM ALIGNMENT SHIFTED
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO STABILIZE
BANKS AND IMPROVE HYDRAULICS
DESIGN GRADE
GRADE
GRADE
STREAM ALIGNMENT SHIFTED
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO STABILIZE
BANKS AND IMPROVE HYDRAULICS
118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50
48" ARCH CMP
INV = 923.39' \
STA:117+90
END EASEMENT BREAK
BEGIN UT1 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT II
_ 925
VEGETATED GEOLIFT AND ROCK SILL
REMOVED. STREAM REALIGNMENT
ADDRESSED STABILITY /
30
9 UT1 REACH 2
ds •\
• •1 aYe ile Li. L. '� •
�.... ` 119+ 1 / .....�20+0 _ : �.., 920'..
STA. 117+80 TO 118+35
50 LF DEVIATION OF ALIGNMENT LOG SILL SHIFTED DUE TO
SHIFTED AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO STREAM REALIGNMENT
STABILIZE BANKS AND IMPROVE HYDRAULICS / y
LOG SILLADDEDTO STABILIZE STREAM REALIGNMENT `?
STA. 120+27 TO 120+84
59 LF DEVIATION OF ALIGNMENT \ Q
i� SHIFTED AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO STABILIZE DRAULICS \C
NKS AD IMPROVE
BA LOG SILLL SHORTENED ENEDTO PRESERVE / \
EXISTING TREES ON RIGHT BANK
°' 2' 4' 6'
MRr�cn4 In v
A o
ti
930 0' 20' 40' 6a' Z 0ix- N o 0
Z«nnm
1HOR20MAu � Qy W `I U � M �
�«zmmN
�Z.eggw
Ao o
a Z"2iT E
W~ LL
z
925
920
—+ 915
122+00
3
Q
(t
o
°
0t
u
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
(D
;-q
profiles.
C)
N
Cd
�
cd
i<
F�
N
Sheet Index
1
/ 1.1.1
1.1.2
1 1.1.3
Al
O
N P-4
V
ns
U]
a
N
m ym m y
x
•
W
8
_
J�
r
E
a` o u
Si

920
915
910
905 i-
122+00
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GRADE
122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50 125+00 125+50
0' 2' 4' V
(VERT—) d,
920 Q7
0' 20' 40' 60' F--i �N ry vai o 0
(RoaaoxraTl �� rcN ri ri o
z
«mmv
aZo«nn `w
Q o
F..�Zout-LLE
W •. LL
Z
915
910
—F 905
126+00
cyt
N I o
"If
N
Q PP8 a••I
Ll � a
If V)
W'
_If UT1 REACH 2
125+00 •• _
1 • ..-� ... r. ,n
'PP7' d + W - m m - - m m - .
VEG
.1. de ,� ... ,e. m ... .� "�. ,,. ,o. .�. ,� ... ,.. �.. m ,.. m ,� .sl •.. w,. ,.. ... .a. m ... r,
(D VP3
If
I 93A
If 30
��-�Z�_�_ ,� ...
Sheetlndex
N
O
N R,
Jl�,hlll I

915
910
905
900 +__
126+00
PRE -CONSTRUCTION GRADE
126+50 127+00 127+50 126+00 126+50 129+00 129+50
130+00
/ �!£� STA:130+46 '
111 END UTl REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT II I ��
w
BEGIN EASEMENT BREAK
UT1 REACH 2 r
x�
.._.... j?,.` PP9 VP4 ,�. m ,e. m
/ xo • \
,m/ u. m m .,n m W. .4 Jc J. %...�,
LLJ
,fi J
Z��� m m r. m m ,e. m ,n .�. ,� ,� m •�128� *0
Iw. �L. i4 Ji. J. .4 .Y. r. Ja ". T\O a�)
/BT1LLJ
Zc
15
0' 2' 4' 6'
ryPanuy Vi
915 Q7 ti
0' 20' 40' 60' H oix- ry N o 0
Z�NnMLL
�uaarzaxray �� W v u m m .
t 4;;
~Ztgnw
910
;ell
Y'lt ,
P.
905
—F 900
130+50
Sheet Index

D' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
/t,/o
CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CE-CECE-CECECE-CE
o
/ m
CDf
rn
w
/a I z
133+00 CP21 IU
UT1 REACH 3 I I
134+00
D /
131+00
PP10
STA:131+27
END EASEMENT BREAK
BEGIN UTl REACH 3 - PRESERVATION
1 I
3J-37-3J-3J-3J---3J-3J-3J--3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J--3J- I
1 3J 3J - 3J I
-� 3J
I� 31 _
0' 20' 40' 60'
�HOPIZOMAL�
Sheet Index
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
oQ
lo
1.1.6
1.1.7
r
O
1.1.8
1.1.9
L.1.10
1.2.1
1.1.11
1.3.1
1.1.12
1.1.13
1.1.14
1.1.15
Q
zZ'w-oo
Z. ,nm
�wwu^'mz
Z nnw
�ZO u 12E
� w _
w
0
co G
00

905
900
895
AS -BUILT GRADE /
DESIGN GRADE
890
135+00
135+50 136+00 136+50 137+00
137+50
138+00
138+50
-LF
---_CF_
CIA,
BEGIN UT1 REACH 4A`—RESTORATION I U
F—
/SO / 12
139+00
0' 2' 4' 6'
905
0' 20' 40' 60' z '0N ry
lV0 4
Z�NnmLL
�NOpQON�AL) �� W O
YZmmv
0
Zc�a�v
�Zo uNiE
I -I W ma S
900
895
890
139+50
J
W
3
Q
�
O
Y-=1
U
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
N
profiles.
r��
O
U
i-�
w
a)
a,
x
v
Sheet Index
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5 °Q
�o
1.1.6
1.1.7 r
ZG
r°
1.1.8 ��•t-S
1.1.9
1.1.10 1.2.1
1.1.11 1.3.1
1.1.12
1.1.13
1.1.14
1.1.15
Cu
w
C)
P.
IN

900
895
890
885
DESIGN GRADE ROCK AND ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE
/
AS -BUILT GRADE
139+50 140+00 140+50 141+00 141+50 142+00 142+50 143+00 143+50
U1"1REACH 4A �.�L�«,ENT� OSILV-
� I �-3J PREVENT EROSION Z
L �j—31,37-3J 11 I
— 33— 37 �30 37 �33 3A
HI 3J,3J�_3J� 3J-- 3J--37�37--37— 1 Q
3J --
S 3J�3J-- 1�
L I 1
I �
0' 2' 4' 6'
MRTKA4 ai v
0
900 7 voamm
0' 20' 40' 60' F-� OvL ry Ln o 0
N 6 Zdrvnm
ll ?mmN
a Zo uL-LiE
H wa S
895
890
3
ct
i-�
Q
�
885
144+00 144+15
O
U
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
CU
�4
profiles.
L JO
F1
O
(U
w
X
a)
1~
aU
X
a�
Sheet Index
1 1.1.1
1.1.2
1 1.1.3
o g
�
C �
o a o

895
890
885
17, �i
DESIGN GRADE AS -BUILT GRADE
880
144+15
144+50 145+00
145+50 146+00 146+50 147+00
Q' WETLAND OUTLET STABILIZED - - -------
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO
I PREVENTEROSION
W
� WETLAND OUTLET STABILIZED
3j AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO
\3j�\ PREVENT EROSION �� `"
3'
3,
' 31 �f.
' --- 33-33
I
33-33-33-33-33-3333-333033
147+50 148+00
148+50
0' 2' 4' 6'
�vExricai�
(n �
A�
0' 20' 40' 60'
'Z 06'i X m o 0
(xox¢arrtn4
Z=W,m,L
.« 2 m m Z
~Zcnna
a=mot LLLL
890
885
880
148+80
3
Q
O C)
U
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
(U s0'
profiles.
41
Cd
U
a �
x
a�
Sheet Index
1.1.1
1.1.2
11.1.3
cu
0

890
885
880
875 i 1 I
148+80 149+00
DESIGN GRADE
—i+._
AS-BUILTGR
149+50 150+00
150+50
151+00 151+50 152+00
M9
0' 2' 4' 6'
A7
890 0' 20' 40' 60, H �y ry N °a m
o
ZJN n m LL
(HONI20MAl)
Zmmv
aZc�o^^ w
aZa��LLE
�Wa LL
885
880
V1
3
Q
�
875
152+50 153+00
153+35
;-,
O
u
O;-4
ct
U,�
F11
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
.
i-+
profiles.
v '
�E X
1 +
O
U
STA:152+59
UTIREACH4BCONFLUENCE
STA:302+62
END BMP
CONFLUENCE
Cd
X
'
w
a�
x
xS et ex
0
—O '- 885 ag5
J �___
I STA:150+00 i 1.1.3
�I END UTIREACH 4A-RESTORATION _ --.___ UT1 REACH 4B t ( '
BEGIN UT1 REACH 46 -RESTORATION -__ _
-- ' 1.1.4
H I _ \'` ------ '_ — I 1.1.5 Q
1.0
_zl UTZ REACH 4A GRADING AND DEBRIS REMOVED AT ENGINEER'S / 1.1.7 a\Lr
DISCRETION DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS / 1.1.8 ro
J
-�1I I 1.1.9 x V
—30 3J-3D-3D3D-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J-3J� 1.1.10 1.2.1 S
'3J \ 1.1.11 1.3.1 �...{
I 1.1.12
1.1.13 E IS m
1.1.14 a o i
1.1.15 V

885
880
875
870
153+35 153+50
\ _ —
DESIGN GRADE
AS -BUILT GRADE
154+00 154+50 155+00 155+50 156+00 156+50 157+00 157+50
I 1 J1
I 3
3��33� 37�D�373:)
�3D--;Z
I
I37�33�33---3D�3�—�30--33— _ 33 33 11�
0' 2' 4' 6'
ry[xnrny
885 0' 20' 40' 60'
1 (NOPrzOMAL�
880
875
870
158+00
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
profiles.
Sheet Index
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
o&
v
1.1.6
Jar
1.1.7
Cr
oa\y
r
1.1.8\�S
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.2.1
1.1.11
3.1
1.
U7
A�g��oo
7N NnmLL
�KWUNM2
�w 2mm
m
�C T;rr m
a ZouFLLE
M wm �r
v7
Q m
� O
U
O
�z
bjD
U
Cu
Cu
>� 03
C
x
a�
0
P,

1 885
1 880
1 875
870 -�--
158+00
rr
l r/
I j
ROCK AND ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE
AS -BUILT GRADE
158+50 159+00
159+50 160+00
DESIGN
160+50 161+00 161+50 162+00
Lu
r
i
IUI 3D-3J--30-3J---30-3D-30-30-30-33-30—
33-3:)-37-3�-3�-3�
�1
1
I
0' 2' 4' 6'
885 0' 20' 40' 60'
Z d N n M LL
Irvoa1ZouTa4 WN Z m m Z
N
Z«wo�c
co
a ZouF� E
W~ LL
880
875
U0
WD
n�
Q
�
870
162+50
U �
U
�
1
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
CU ;-4
1
CD
profiles.
Z
IQ
�
lU
Cd
w �
IZ
C
1
�
1
x
I
�
I
_
Sheetlndex
1.1.1
1
1.1.2
1
1.1.3
1
1.1.4
1.1.5 0
01.1.6
J�Zc
c
a
1
1.1.7 <r
s
1
oa\
r
1.1.9
aim
1.1.10 1 2 1
8
%
1.1.11 1.3.1
1.1.13
E m
m
1.1.14
c"
a
c u
1.1.15

0' 2' 4' 6'
wean-)
880 880
ROCK AND ROLL RIFFLE PROFILE
875 875
DESIGN GRADE
870 - / / 870
-1
AS -BUILT GRADE
865 865
162+50 163+00 163+50 164+00 164+50 165+00 165+50 166+00 166+50 166+70
s�
Q0
ZE �_ cNE �eE—� LEA-eE-�-eE - —eE� = C E eE—X e�-CE--�—eE- --cE X— C� �� xc� r���-eE-- -eE- —eE x- eLx e x
J1\\ a LOG VANE REPLACED DESIGN ROCK
VANE DUE TO ONS TE MATERIALSm
ROCK OUTLET ADDED AT \
Z\ 4 y ENGINEER'S DISCRETION m
l) i9 TO PREVENT EROSION
girl
UT1 REACH 46 vP91
ml
V
i
� v�G
- - m
- - ----- STA: 166+66 \
END UT1 REACH 4B- RESTORATION
ROCK OUTLET ADDED FOR VERNAL POOL 3
AT ENGINEER'S DISCRETION TO PREVENT 3D — 3, 33 _ 3D 3D 3D
EROSION
37�
�3�_�3_
VERNAL POOL ADDED TO COLLECT
TOE OF SLOPE DRAINAGE
0' 20' 40' 60'
�IIORrzOrnnll
*Rock and Roll Riffles contain log sills as shown in
profiles.
Sheet Index
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
aaQ
1.1.6
Jar
1.1.7
Lr
oa\`'
r
1.1.9
1.1.10
1.2.1
1.1.11
1.3.1
1.1.12
1.1.13
1.1.14
1.1.15
�6woa�cm
�nnmo
w
�y_N�ZMMza
a Zouf iE
I -I wma LL
J
Q
W
N

0' 2' 4' 6'
ry[rtnrny
895
890
885
880
200+00
89(
AS
-BUILT
GRADE
\
/
—
88:
_
DESIGN GRADE
88
STA:J0+00
is BEGINUTIA- ENHANCEMENT II
II
200+50 201+00 201+50
0
202+00 202+15
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZO—(
Armi�oo
�1Z«nnm"
w1 KNU Mm2
zmmv
ZV'nn w
a Z-i 2.2 E
,,,,��pnuurrr♦♦♦♦
♦ Q
O Q' ♦♦♦i IV
Q �
A
0
C)
U
I
W
19
O
/
cz
R-,
{ PIP /
(
ao
PT,
S i m
,
�
i
X
i
Sheet
Index
STA:150+00
END UT1 REACH 4A - RESTORATION
1.1.1
BEGIN UT1 REACH 4B - RESTORATION
/
1.1.2
n
1.1.3
/
1.1.4
1.1.5
/
1.1.6
ooQ
J\r
=
1.1.7
`�Sro��SCr
1.1.9
/
1.1.10
1.2.1
1.1.11
1.3.1
1.1.12
d
Ede

895
890
885
880
oa;
891
\
88!
DESIGN GRADE
AS -BUILT GRADE
88i
875
300+00
300+50 301+00
301+50 302+00
875
302+50 302+70
m
m
I \
m
UT1 REACH 4B \
m
it
�I
l
I�
l
I
0' 2' 4' 6'
�veP,Knu
0' 20' 40' 60,
�IIOPROMAI) _
'V
Sheet Index
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.1.5
°Q
V�
1.1.6
1.1.7
r
a�
r°
1.1.8
��t`'
1.1.9
1.1.10 1.2.1
1.1.11
1.3.1
1.1.12
1.1.13
z�Y��oo
7'NNnmLL
�W`ZmmZ
W
az��oo�
a Zo u�S°.E
FI w� u
0

�-� \ \ \1 \ �\, \� \� \:, \ 1\ \ W +L—i \ �\ \� \�, 1\1 1\ \�
R R
%\
X 1\
%\ — — — — - -
%\
X
\ x Z-
03­
X, \1 X 1\1
1\ X, \R
llltl
%\
+ + + + . . . . . . . . . T,*-T �,5 Nil
+ + + + kk
X�
+ + + + + ++++ + + + + + + N108+00, Am
+ + + + 1 4 + + + + + + + + + X 1\
++++++++ . . . . . \ % :2\
+ + %\
+ + + + + ,
+ +
+ + + 1\ N
llllllillilllill
In l\k
1\ R� 1\1
X %\ X
%\ X 0 +00!
+ + + 1\ \,:, %\
+ + + X 1\
%\ %
+ + vpl
+ + + + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+++++ + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
++++
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++ ++ + ++++++++ + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Sheet Index
40' 80' 120'
o
�wvu r4 6
f; z ml I z
z.t6op�2 44 �
6-
Z"' E
IN
w
co

a S
,�� \ \o
%\ oo���
"%\%%\
N \
'Q l�
%
\�N,����
\N� unnn
.. \ �. \ ,iiii,l 111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IO
%N I+
IC14
01
01
c�
0' 40' 80, 120'
(NOPIZOWIL)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Sheet Index
a
C
Q o
z�Y��oo
y zM Ml Z°
�w v
Zcnnw
Q�� o
�ZOi ~2E
w _
.31
w o:��z'•'dW • N
Ct)S&

1
I
I
I
I
►
I
OI
"'I
-I-
N►
N
lo
N`\� \`\\� Cn'\ \�\` \`\\ �\ \\\\\ \�\
Ch\\\\�\\`@\\`�\z�\\\�`\�\\�`�;`\`�`�� \\fib\ \`\\`\��
�\�\� ��\`\ \, �\ \ \fib` \ \ \\ \\``\ \ `S%\\`
�\ \ U` \` \ `�� \\\\ �\ , \` \ ` \ V IV
N \\ \ ` \\ `\�\
\`\`k N�\\\\`\\\ \\\\ \`\@\\ \ \\`�\�� \r
0' 40' SO' 120'
1XOPoZ -i
Sheet Index
2
Q�
zo
Z. ,. LL
.1u No
z
�__��_
�Z i E
.31
:P �puuurq ,
xN

�j
/ ZCE—CE—CE i CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE�CE
___ CE
61
� I
OI
1!1
rn l 1,36*00
133+00 rn—�_.���
Q o +
I � 4+00UJ
ti +
i.
J 135�0
4I \
I38
fx00�
-3J--3J-33--3J--3JI I—D 33 +
—_3J_3J� ++-
3J +
I 30+++
�3J ++
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0' 40' 80' 120'
�eawmxrny
0 \ ,
\ \ \ N \
Sheet Index
G

lit
/ F lit , ,F , , ,I, I
4' lit lit I lit
' p ,p 4' 'F 1 'P 1 'P I 1 I,'''
,p ,,, ,,, q, ,p 1 14,' ,p' F it
'F lit 4. ,F 'P 'I'
Ill
i' ' ' o i' II 'I' 4i' 1',,, 1 I'I' ' ,1'lit
lit
Ill till,
Ill
I,, 1,1 ,, 1, ,,, 1,, ' 1,1 ,,, 4, I,,
lit lit 11, litI 1'
'I' 11' I' 'p 'p 'p 4' ,P p 1' ''1 .p 'I' 1ill lit lit
'F p
4, 4' 4'
' ,F p ,F 4, ,p p 4 'F 1
It'll.
1 'I' 'I' , 'I' , 'I' 'l' '1' 'I'
,F 4' �p �F,p ,F 'I' I I � � ,,,
4' p p 4 I I I
-F 4, I p O/ p ,F 4 ,F p ' t ,p ,p 4' 'F 'F P 11,
p p ,p ,p I �p p 4� I I I , I I
P 4, ,p .I' X. p ,F ,i, d� I I o p p ,p q, , ,F -,-
lit 4' 'F 'F 'I' 4 I I I
,, ,, p 1 I 1 \ 1 ,p ,p 4, 4, ,p 'F 'I' 'I' 'I' '1',,'1 ,,''P' 4',p,p I,p 14' l'h
„' „ ,p p'i' I 'I' I p ,p q, 4' 'P ,, „ ,p p 4' 'U 'h 'F 'F 'P 'I, I i„ „ „ 1, 4, I I 1 „ „ „
p ,p 4, 4' 'I' '� I' 4, 'U 4, ,p ,p „'P 4, ,p„ „ „ ,p I I I
I ,' ' I' 'I' 'F 'F �t h I I' „ I „' q,' ,I' I 'I' 'U '1' 'I' „'1' ,p I I ,, I I „ „ , p ' 1 4, 1,p 4, 'P 'I' ,' „ ,, I „
„ ,p 4, p �4, „ „ p ,p 4, p I F ,p ,p ,F 'I' '1' „ I I „ „ I 1 I „ , 4, ,p 'I 4' 4, ,p '1' 'I' „ 4, p I I,I
,,, ,,, , , , I I , , , , 4, � , , Ill ,,, ,,, ,,, ,,, 'I I , , 1
„ „ ,,, I „ ,F 'P 'F ,' ,' 4'„' „' ,p ,p 1 I „ „ „ ,p 4, I I „ „ „ •I' 'F 'I' I „ „ 'I' 'I' ,wvli I ' ' ' „' q, „ „ „ „ 1,,, 14, 14, 4 „ „ O I I 11,
'F I I „ I' I „ ,p 'F I I „ 4' '1' 'P 'F 'I' ' „' ,U I 'P l 'I' 'I' p 'U „' „ I I I I , I ,,, I 1 I 1 1 I - „ ,,, ,,, ,p I I „ I „ „ „ ,p 'I' I 'I' 'I' „ 1 „' ,F' ,p ,p " + I
,,, I ,I I I „ „
� I „ I ,I I I ,,, ,p „ „ „ „ „ „ , „ ,� „ , 1 1 I I I I I I 4rrry r44rr4rr44`
111 „ ,F , I I „ „ ,F ,F I I � „ „ q, ,p ,p ,,, ,l, , I I I I I „ I , 1 I i' I' „�'�,,,' 4,' gyp' 4�' „ „ „ �, „ ,p I I I „ „ „ „ ,p I� il' r 4r4rr 4 r r r 4 rr 4 4
„ „ ,,, 4,I ,F 'F I I „ „ „ " '1' „' „' „' „' „ „ ,p' ,p' ,p I ' ,p 4' l ,,, ,F ,,,
I' 'F 'I' „ „ ,p ,l, ,p q, ,p ,p ,,, I I I I I q 4 4 4 r rrrrrrr rqr
I I II I p 'h I I , „ I I I
„ „ „ , „ � , , i 'I I I I ,,, ,,, „ „ „ i
� t!) i rrrr rrrrr r r
I I I r I I I „„ �, 4' 'I I I \ , i 4, ,p
„ „ I �4 I r rr4r ,, ,F , I I I ,p 4, I F���, ,p ,F ,p p I, 4, I'I' I'I 1 Or rr rr rpf 4 h r
4, 4, I ,, rrrr r r rf'/ 4 ri
, , ,p 4, ,F F I I I r r r r �p ,p 4, 4' 4, ,F ,p 4, I I I I I � 1 ' �'� 4, �'� ,p' q, 4' q, , ,p , , ,p �-i rrrr 4
p 'I' " , , , h 1 l ,p ,,, ,,, p ,F s,p ,p
I „ „rrr4 r I I „ „ „ ,p ,p ,F A'
VP6 ip ,p I I I
i, q, ,p rrr 4 r q 4 q 4 I , ,p I I I I
i'1' rOrrrr4r r rrrrrrr 4,r,," it rrrrrrrrr r,' „' „ ,p ,p , p ,p ,p p ,p 'F „ ,p ,, „ ,p 4, 4, " q, ,p p 'I'
r r rrrr rr rrrrr I I 1, ,p ,p 4' 'I' 'U , ,p 4,' ,p 4, 4' 'I'� ,, q, q, ,p p 4, p „ ,,, ,p
I'„ „r „ „ „ ,F ,,, 4, a, 4, 4, ,F ,F ti ,p 'I' 'i' ,, ,p 'P '1, 4, ,p ,p 155+00� p 4' 'I ,p ,I' 1 ,,, ,p q, ,b
,,, ,F I I ��� 4. 'p„' „ „ 4, ,p ,l, ,p ,p I I I _ ,, „ q, ,,, q, , ,p ,p q, 4' ,p „ „ w 4' l'I' I p
I I „ „ ,p ,p ,p „ , „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ ,p' 4,
4, 4, I 1 4, ,p 'F 'I' , _
I 'I' 'I' r „ I „ U 14,' ,p' ,' 4,' 4,' ,p l I , , ,,, ,p 4, ,p j ZI 1 1 „
4,' I , 1 , p q, ,p 4, ,p 'I' '1' 'I' '1' , ,�
I '' ,p' 4' 1 'F I ' ,p ,p ,I' i, ,F 'P
„ F p ,'''„' ,' ,' „', F,P 1 ' I 1 I I I ,p l „ 4, ,p
, , , , ' 'I I I I I , , , �' .. "'' , " I'I ,p ,p q, ,p �
I I ��� „ „ „ q, ,F ,p ,U 'I' „ p ,p ,p
'I' l ,' , F 1'P 1,'U I I q, „ I i p 4, ,p „ , I , ,p 1 , I ,,, 4, ,p ,p ,,, ,p I „ " " " . " " " <' „ ,, I I 1
4' 'F +00 ,p '1' ''' ,p ,p ,p '1' ;'1;' I " " . ' „ " , I , „ 1 I „ ,p L,, IWI 1 i, l 4,11
"�.. I I ,, ,,, ,,, ,p ,P �� ,,, """".""""". Ip ,F'I F +�""
rrrrrrr q, I I ,F
„
'I' 'I' 4, I I I I
�I�'F''I',1,'UI'I',1,'I'„'I'„�'�,��1�4,',p""".""" """"
""." ......"_"
I, .....
"x
/ " I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sheet Index
z�
0' 40' 80' 120'
,xanaaMnu
z�N��oa
1 ..Zmm v
~Z.5
a ZouF-LLE
� w _
-31
G

II'III III II1111 III i'1 ,�, ,', II _ I
III III'II III III III III 'I, ,', II, iI, '''III IIIII IIII I III 1I
III III 'III'I'1IIII III ,II III II' III III III IIlO11I1, III'
III III III II I IIII III ql ,I, III II '�' III III
III III III III III III III III III III ^ III III
1 III III III III III IIII III III III III III III III 1II III ,I,'�' 'I III II'I ��
III
�� ,I, III III III III L
�. � ,II III III III III r'I,II III IIII' I
II' IIII i III III ,I, III III III V) I 1 1 1
,I, III III III I i I
I, ,I, ,II III III I \ III III IIII 'w III III III III III III
III III 11 11 III
III �\ II 11
III III ,II III III �/J III I III
11 III III III III I, ,I, III
III II ,I, II III III III III ZII II 11
Ip ,I, ,II III III 1 "U III III II III
11 III II' 'II III II1 III III III ' Q I. III Ip Ip III Ip III , IP I 'I' LI,'II 1 1
0' 40' 80' 120'
,HONIZOI—LI
Sheet Index
Q
z�Y�<oo
Z
�w2�-0
�A MMv
Zc�nn `a
I�ZowuFu�.E
u R-
u
N