20180665 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210218

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20180665 Version* 1
.....................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/18/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal -2/18/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes fJ No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17 Stream r Wetlands r Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Harry Tsomides [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:* 20180665 Version:*1
Existing ll) Existing Version
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Alexander Farm
County: Alexander
Document Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: AlexanderFarm_100048_MY1_2020.pdf 37.4MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

� k
MONITORING YEAR 1 ALEXANDER FARM MITIGATION SITE
Alexander County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT DEQ Contract No. 7416
DMS Project No. 100048
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-00451
FINAL NCDEQ DWR Certification No. 18-0665
RFP#: 16-007277
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050101
Data Collection Period: October 2020—December 2020
Draft Submission Date: February 15, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
r!IM
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street; 3rd Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603

11°1‘411/41111(
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
February 15, 2020
Mr. Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Draft Year 1 Monitoring Report
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site, Alexander County
Yadkin River CU 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100022 / DEQ Contract#007186
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services(DMS) comments
from the Draft Year 1 Monitoring Report for the Alexander Farm Mitigation Site. The report has been
updated to reflect those comments. The Final MY1 Report is included. DMS' comments are listed below
in bold. Wildlands' responses to DMS' comments are noted in italics.
DMS' comment: Section 1.2.5 (Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity) indicates "a few
minor areas of concern" on UT1 reach 2. This reach is listed for crediting at a ratio of 2:1 with E-II as
mitigation type. Wildlands has indicated that stressed areas are likely to restabilize themselves. This
reach has no corresponding visual assessment table,or cross sections,and there are no photos provided
in the Area of Concern Photographs section. Given the conditions observed in 2020, DMS would like
Wildlands to provide photos of the scoured segments of this reach in the MY1 report.
Wildlands'response:As requested, photos of erosional areas for UT1 Reach 2 have been included in the
"Area of Concerns"photolog located in Appendix 2.
DMS'comment: Please submit the monitoring photos as jpegs.
Wildlands response: Monitoring photos are included in the digital support files.
DMS comment:The CVS Table 7 export produces divide by 0 errors. Please revise and resubmit,
ensuring that the CVS data supports the table in the report.
Wildlands response: The CVS database has been updated so that the exported Excel file for Table 7 no
longer produces "divide by 0 errors". The updated database has been resaved with the digital submittal.
As requested, Wildlands has included two (2) hard copies of the final report, a full final .pdf copy of the
report with the response letter, and a full final electronic submittal of the support files. A copy of our
response letter has been included inside the front cover of each report's hard copy. Please let me know
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
s
Kristi
Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
itivi*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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 (DMS).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 DMS
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. Fencing installation was completed in July 2020.
Monitoring Year(MY) 1 assessments and Site visits were completed between October and December
2020 to assess the conditions of the project.
Overall,the Site has met the required stream and hydrology success criteria for MY1 but is not currently
meeting the vegetative success criteria for MY3.The vegetative success criteria for MY3 requires 320
stems per acre, however, currently the overall average planted stem density for the Site is 304 stems
per acre. A plan is in place to conduct supplemental planting across the Site in early 2021 in order to get
the Site back on track and meet the vegetative success criteria in MY2. Geomorphic surveys indicate that
cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments,
and streams are functioning as intended.At least one bankfull event was documented on UT1 Reach 1A
since the completion of construction.The MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern
including one small population of invasives and a few isolated areas of bank scour and aggradation.
Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas, and an adaptive management plan will be implemented
as necessary throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.
. Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL ii

Alexander Farm MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity 1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment 1-4
1.2.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity 1-4
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary 1-5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY Z-1
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 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
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0—3.3 Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a-d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Permanent and Mobile Vegetation Plot Photographs
Area of Concern Photographs
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL iii

APPENDICES Cont.
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11b Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 12 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters -Cross-Section)
Table 13a-d Monitoring Data—Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Recorded Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix 6 Response to IRT Comments
IRT Review Comments: 15-Day Record Drawing Review
Appendix 7 Response to DMS Comments
Task 6—Final As-built Baseline Monitoring Report
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
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)
Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
41, Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL iv

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Alexander Farm Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Alexander County approximately 6 miles west of
Statesville and 15 miles northeast of Hickory (Figure 1).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 1B, Reach 2, Reach 3, Reach 4A, and Reach 4B). 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 Reaches 1 and 2 were severely impacted by
cattle. On both reaches bedform diversity and habitat was very poor, primarily due to sedimentation
and incision. UT1 Reach 3 was wooded and the majority of the reach consisted of low, stable stream
banks with a few scour pockets located near ATV crossings. UT1 Reach 4 was extensively eroded,
incised, and disconnected from its historic floodplain. Pre-construction conditions are outlined in Table 4
of Appendix 1 and Table 6 of Appendix 2.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in June of 2019 and the IRT in October of
2019. Construction activities were completed in April 2020 by Baker Grading & Landscaping Inc.Turner
Mapping and Surveying completed the as-built survey in May 2020. Planting was completed following
construction in April 2020 by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. A conservation easement has been recorded
and is in place on 21.7 acres.The project is providing 4,258.100 stream mitigation units (SMUs)for the
Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101130010(Catawba 01).Annual monitoring will
be conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2027 given the success criteria
are met.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 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 River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report.The project has improved stream functions
WAlexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 1-1

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.
The following project specific goals and objectives outlined in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019)
include:
Goals Objectives
Restore stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and
profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system,the landscape setting,and the watershed conditions.
Improve stream channel stability. 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.
Plant native tree and understory species in riparian zone where
Restore and enhance native floodplain and currently insufficient. Remove invasive species within the
wetland vegetation.
riparian corridor.
Exclude livestock from stream channels. Exclude livestock from stream channels and riparian areas.
Permanently protect the project site from
harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on the Site.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring for MY1 was conducted between October and December 2020, with hydrology data
collected between May and mid-November 2020, to assess the condition of the project.The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Alexander Farm Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation plot monitoring is being conducted in post-construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Permanent plots are 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 the vegetation success.A total of 9 permanent vegetation plots
were established within the project easement area using either a 10-meter by 10-meter square plot or a
5-meter by 20-meter rectangular plot. In addition, 3 mobile vegetation plots were established during
baseline conditions monitoring to be evaluated in MY1 throughout the planted conservation easement
to evaluate the random vegetation performance for the Site.These plots will be subsequently
reestablished in different random locations in monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7. Mobile vegetation plot
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 1-2

assessments will document stems, species, and height using 100-meter2 circular, square, or rectangular
plots.The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the
planted riparian areas at the end of the required seven-year monitoring period.The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
MY3 and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in October 2020, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 304 stems per acre for all monitored permanent and mobile vegetation plots.The Site is
currently failing to meet the interim MY3 requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, however,there is
a plan in place to re-plant bare roots in areas with low stem density.This supplemental planting will
occur early 2021 and will be monitored throughout the year. Results will be reported at the end of MY2.
Out of the 9 permanent vegetation plots six are on track to meet the interim MY3 requirement of 320
planted stems per acre with densities ranging from 324 to 486 planted stems per acre. However, out of
the 3 mobile vegetation plots all of them are failing to meet the MY3 requirements by more than 10%
with stem densities ranging from 162 to 283 stems per acre. In the permanent vegetation plots, the
majority of the surviving stems appear to be thriving with a vigor of 3 or greater indicating a plant health
of good or better. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix 3 for
vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Overall, herbaceous ground cover is well established throughout the site and wetland vegetation has
started to fill in the wet seeps, stabilizing the soil. There is one small bare area located on UT1 Reach 1B
that is starting to fill in on its own but will continue to be monitored. Approximately 10 acres of the site,
as evaluated during the site walk and through the vegetation plots, had a low planted-stem density. A
delayed construction start-date and minor delays from a few storm events pushed the planting date into
early April. Because of the delayed planting, some plant mortality throughout the site was expected and
subsequent planting anticipated. Therefore, these areas will be replanted, monitored, and re-assessed
in the MY2 report. Wildlands does not anticipate any difference in performance among the replanted
areas in comparison to those planted after construction and assumes that the site will meet future
vegetation monitoring success criteria in MY3, MY5, and MY7.
The MY1 visual assessments did indicate that some invasive plant populations are present within the
conservation easement.There is one isolated area of immature Chinese privet along the right easement
line of UT1 Reach 4B, which is not impacting any vegetation growth, was treated in MY1.This area will
continue to be monitored and re-treated if necessary. Bare areas and invasive species will continue to
be monitored in MY2 and adaptive management activities will be implemented as needed.The
vegetation areas of concern that meet the required mapping threshold have been documented on Table
7 and are shown on the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Figures 3.0—3.3 in Appendix 2.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and show little change in bankfull area,
maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. All riffle cross-sections should fall within the
parameters defined for the designated stream type. If any changes do occur,these changes will be
evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability
include a vertically incising thalweg and/or eroding channel banks. Remedial action would not be taken
if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in December 2020. Cross-section survey results indicate
that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration reaches with minimal
adjustments. Minor changes occurring within some cross-sections include slight decreases in cross-
WAlexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 1-3

sectional areas and mean depths, as well as a slight increase in bank height elevations.These minor
changes can be attributed to the establishment of herbaceous vegetation along the tops of banks and
slight bed deposition, as well as point bar development in some pools and bench development in some
riffles.
These occurrences are normal for newly restored streams and are examples of how a channel adjusts to
maintain stability from natural processes, like the multiple large storm events which occurred in MY1
and a lack of woody canopy along a newly constructed channel.The fact that cross-sections have
incurred only minor adjustments shows that the system is functioning as designed. It is able to move
sediment through the system and access its floodplain thereby negating aggradational and
degradational stressors such as an influx of sediment to the system and higher discharges and increased
velocities.
Reachwide pebble counts along all restoration reaches indicate maintenance of coarser materials in
riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability
assessment tables, CCPV Figures 3.0—3.3, and stream photographs, and Appendix 4 for the
morphological tables and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment
An automated pressure transducer was installed to document stream hydrology throughout the seven-
year monitoring period. Henceforth, these devices are referred to as "crest gages (CG)"for those
recording bankfull events. At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four or more bankfull flow
events must have occurred in separate years. At as-built, the pressure transducer was programmed to
record data every 3 hours and captured many high flow events throughout the first year of monitoring
and one bankfull event on 11/12/2020. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and gage
plots.
1.2.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
All streams on the Site remained stable during the multiple large storm events that had occurred during
2020.The Site's visual assessment was conducted on 11/05/2020 after there had been multiple large
storm events in prior weeks; however, all the structures are still functioning as designed, and the
channels have remained stable.The MY1 visual stream assessments did reveal a few minor areas of
concern and include localized instances of bank scour on UT1 Reach 2 and one area of aggradation on
UT1 Reach 4A.These areas are likely to restabilize themselves as woody vegetation matures along the
banks and the channel moves the sediment through the system. Wildlands will continue to monitor
these areas and remedial actions will be implemented if areas of concern begin to threaten the stability
of the project. Please refer to Appendix 2 for stream stability tables, area of concern photos, and CCPV
Figures 3.0—3.3.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
During baseline monitoring, two In-situ Level TROLL® 100 pressure transducers, hereby referenced as
ground water monitoring gages (GWGs), were installed within existing wetlands where Priority 1
restoration was conducted.This was done solely to verify the continuation of hydrologic wetland
functions during the growing season, since no wetland credits are being sought for this project and no
performance criteria have been established.
All GWGs are downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained as needed. Calibration was completed by
manually measuring water levels on all gages which confirmed the downloaded data.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
WAlexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 1-4

which is approximately 13.5 miles from the project site was used.The growing season based on data
compiled from this WETS Station (1980—2020) is from April 4 through November 2 under typical
precipitation conditions.The Site does not contain a rainfall gage; therefore, the daily precipitation data
was collected from closest USGS gage, 354616081085145, located at Oxford RS NR in Claremont, NC.
Results from both GWGs, during MY1, show that riparian wetlands maintained free groundwater within
12 inches of the ground surface throughout the entire of monitored timeframe (May—November) or
88%of the growing season for GWG1 and 75%of the growing season for GWG2. In addition, photos of
the ground water gages exhibit additional wetland indicators such as hydrophytic vegetation, surface
water, saturated soils, water-stained leaves, and drainage patterns.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations on Figures 3.0-3.3 and the groundwater
gage photographs. Please refer to Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Overall,the Site has met the required stream and hydrology success criteria for MY1.The overall
average planted stem density for the Site is 304 stems per acre and is currently failing to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre by less than 10%. Supplemental planting will take place early next
year(2021) in order to improve stem density and get the site back on track to meet the MY3, MY5 and
MY7 vegetative requirements. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and the streams are functioning as
intended. At least one bankfull event was documented on site since the completion of construction. The
MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern including one small, isolated population of
immature Chinese privet, a few isolated areas of bank scour, and one area of aggradation. Wildlands will
continue to monitor these areas, and an adaptive management plan will be implemented as necessary
throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological health of the Site.
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration:A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages and groundwater gages are monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003.
Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, 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. DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water- resources/planning/classification-standards.
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/ML13276A040.pdf.
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.nrcs.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc(Wildlands), 2020. Alexander Farms Mitigation Site As-built Baseline
Monitoring Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands, 2019. Alexander Farms Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
WAlexander Farm Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report- FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

rom +
0: I i
Project Location !Rom s s i / l
r i Y v..,5 %7i ‘ I
j_,j Hydrologic Unit Code(14) �°'ce,� —._0i040102010020
DMS Targeted Local Watershed + sA. 11
lr
_"7 County Boundaries �i7 -��- N
03040102010010 •-,I `''-•S
P.
�' ._4 r _ I -N
03050101120030 -- )
G'� ® 4deniIe j
dodo I . --•\
n 1 1 r
i r, 1
7s 03050101120040 i r 4r f
a
..�•^ , I
AVsp, Pa - Atdkrsr 4.Rd , i ..
F6 / S'�n; Ft, iv \
a r z
r � 1
F � ;'
t 03040102030010
03050101110020 �l'hfpc'R'rcnRd 03050101120050 1 ;03040102040010
1 �- L L Sconec
) �,.�
9„ i.
..� 0305010113110 j
�, -• --�..�-�• 1 tL
tiyerband 1 -c'-
] •�..� Park 1 .. �4� _
030t501010002(• 0,
0 . r3050101 0030 ee,
a 1 Alexander Farm Project Location
L.i}.-• h i j .� ---• i
li:Ir.r., �b /
�� ` •; / (y
\ .f- �� e \,
_r E'�A _ y) '••� ' ry
P ,_.l 9ly� r] ° } 030401I20
u
N U
1 / 005o0�D'11 t
l I
1\err �`,�./ A C r�
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of \ f
G
° /
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) + 0Sc71, '•\
Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is encompassed Ra 1 //
by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered
by land under private ownership.Accessing the site - ` 1 I
- may require traversing areas near or along the easement Directions to Site: 1040
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. •
��
0auoulucp uuKw N.,. "NA ��+'" �`r 3] 1
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
OZWILDLANDS , Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 1 2 Mile
N DMS Project No. 100048
I l I l I Monitoring Year 1-2020
Alexander County, NC

P Y
yi,
i t r .. , .4%
I -
e Gib 9G1 1
I
\ ..//../ j:
i 1
I r
I I ,1- .
� ' '�:
( 1 G3- i 9E3
-,kostoo 1
'1 ,y:' s 4 I
,..... .,... ..-. g �.; " I I Q�
f
I
1
Air)
..
..,...„,,,,„_. ....., t .... ,, _
, . . :
4 lOr1
z L
• r r S ! Elk
— li ').- ' : ' ',/--- I/ i •-.--",,>/ - - i
-.''' '' 41 -'' -7 7-
. '- r l�..
( — .`� -i`.: _'r�- i',- I
: - - . 4, G3u4G1 1
... , -..... '''i
' i((7 - . ,, \\t, .. • 1 .. ' -.:._,..„.. ._ ; - • ' . '•-- 1
r /_/.. ....,, ::._____ ....z.. 2, -,. ,. , .) •.[L ,. „ ., \ , ._ .i- .0. \ ,
. i 1:. ...„ ...: •:,....„,.., ,,, ir . _.!.... ,, ./..,........: ..,,v____.. ,... , i, „, \ .... BMP
I Conservation Easement / �. \`-----,--.. , ...
s•
_ Project Parcels —� — - \` \.
Existing Wetlands -� i /�_ • ; r \ �\ ` ;�"`.$ L \'°
• '
Internal Crossing �� - J ' , ''� ,! + r- -s
{ �� , t • �4B ... �•
Restoration ', ' s
Enhancement II • �' )11111,V.
. !Iry�` ,'
_
Preservation r
Alignment Deviation ) 1 N.
... 4144: ,- ...- ----- 0(
_� •
Not For Credit f �i', >,
Wetland Channel -�— :.--'- -r--- 1 ■ �■
BMP �' --- % r �,
Non Project Streams _-- �__�� r V 44•
\ i'
Topographic Contours (5') r— 1 ; '. _ / " \ . i ( ( 7/ ,..,/
1.
. . ______ _____--....,3) , :,!: •
® Reach Breaks
018 Aerial Photography
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Okiv. Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
WI LD LAN D S 0 400 800 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
ENGINEERING N Monitoring Yearl 2020
I I I I I
Alexander County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Project Components
Existing Mitigation
Project Area Mitigation Restoration Priority Mitigation As-Built
Footage(LF) Plan Footage/ 1 z Project Credit Notes/Comments
/Reach or Acreage Acreage Category Level Level Ratio(X:1) Footage/Acreage
UT1 Reach 1A 770 Warm Restoration P1,P2 2.000 770.000 385.000 Full channel restoration with planted buffer.Livestock excluded,and invasive
species treated.
1,901
UT1 Reach 1B* 969 Warm Restoration P1,P2 2.000 957.000 478.500 Full channel restoration with planted buffer.Livestock excluded,and invasive
species treated.
UT1 Reach 2* 1,324 1260 Warm Enhancement II N/A 2.000 1,253.000 626.500 Channel stabilization with planted buffer.Livestock excluded,and invasive species
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 floodplain and
UT1 Reach 4A 252 Warm Restoration P2 2.500 252.000 100.800 transition preservation reach to Priority 1 restoration.Planted buffer,livestock
exclusion,and invasive species treated.
2,825 Full channel restoration with planted buffer.Livestock excluded,and invasive
UT1 Reach 4A 920 Warm Restoration P1 1.000 920.000 920.000
species treated.
UT1 Reach 4B 1666 Warm Restoration P1,P2 1.000 1,666.000 1,666.000 Full channel restoration with planted buffer.Livestock excluded,and invasive
species treated.
UT1A 158.00 203 Warm Enhancement II N/A - 203.000 0.000 Channel reconnected with floodplain.Livestock excluded,invasive species treated,
and planted buffer.
BMP N/A 262 N/A N/A N/A - 262.000 N/A Step-pool conveyance system implemented to treat pasture stormwater run-off.
Livestock excluded,and invasive species treated.
Notes:
1.No direct credit for BMP or UT1A.
2.Internal culvert crossing and external break excluded from stationing listed.
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian
Restoration Level Coastal Marsh
Warm Cool Cold 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 I - N/A N/A W --=
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 1-2020
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
404 Permit October 2019 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/segments1 April 2020 April 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments April 2020 April 2020
Stream Survey April-May 2020
Baseline Monitoring(Year 0) Collected-April 2020 September 2020
Vegetation Survey
Verified-June 2020
Invasive treatment May-August 2020
Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey December 2020 December 2020
Vegetation Survey October 2020
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
SSeed 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 1-2020
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.
Monitoring,POC Kristi Suggs
[phone] x.110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
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 81°7'14.46"W
Planted Acreage(Acre of Woody Stems Planted) 17.5
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont Physiographic Province
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%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 Reach 1A and 1B UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 3 UT1 Reach 4A and 4B UT1A
Length of reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 1,727 1,253 701 2,838 203
Valley 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 I/II IV III
FEMA classification N/A N/A N/A Zone AE N/A
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? 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 NCG010000
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 1-2020
Quantity/Length by Reach
Parameter Monitoring Feature UT1 Reach UT1 Reach UT1 Reach UT1 Reach UT1 Reach UT1 Reach Wetlands Frequency Notes
1A 1B 2 3 4A 4B UT1A
Riffle Cross-Section 1 warm N/A N/A 2 3 N/A
Dimension i 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
Substrate Reach Wide(RW) 1 RW warm N/A N/A 1 RW 1 RW N/A Year 1,2,3,5,and 7 3
Pebble Count
Hydrology Crest Gage(CG)and 1 CG N/A Semi-Annual 4
or/Transducer(SG)
Wetland Hydrology Groundwater Gages 2GWG 2 Semi-Annual 8
(GWG)
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile 12(9 permanent,3 mobile) Year 1,2,3,5,and 7 5
.lots
Visual Assessment Yes Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation IIII Semi-Annual 6
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference Photos Photographs 24 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.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

ar
{ ' f ) l 1),,'''..
\',,, :
•
r
°' :,r !! .. r l� !
,12 \
i
r• i
" C 1 +
,, ! lx . I/
a+ �
1
/f / 1, AI- l
� .
� �/
1i II �II,';/ ; ,
..
--
t ---'>47
I. '-
i
Seet 3.2
n P o. ti, ,
3
OF
--5 /
1
r k; d
ReachAr
�, O� ,
t
j
l
\ Y : II 1 ,
S
r
rr �/ 1 j` i P
f 0 '"~ .` . it 1 S)' G rch 10OP
R ,^' / ' ! / r 4 ♦ 15 'a', ` . S 1 Elk S °4A
I_ Conservation Easement ) II 1
I
Project Parcels r I 1
Sheet Boundary ,- > tl / s i 1
1 lO`
MExisting Wetlands ¢#f '\, -J i \ ‘0 ix
1 .�.�' i
,
I;' i FX
Reach 4A
Internal Crossing_ * ,' ' AiRestoration ( Q� c�
Enhancement II 11
f' r
1
7
Preservation �,-- ; r 1 II
Alignment Deviation 1 I
Not For Credit (•�,r�Q•N 4 47,
Wetland Channel + '�. '` I
Non-Project Streams g: •�• �0 •'� °' ,`4
---- Bankfull - S.
N
,
x — x Fence Line 1 * �
f
Structures A, \
j
Topographic Contours (5 ) ( 3'f a \ \ S.
Cross Sections I r �! E Vy �._- ,.„ s'',4 `` � -
, \ ` ♦� Q 4B
BarotrollI r ._* .��
��
Groundwater Gage 'y p I iI ,'• I` t
Crest Gage w- J , / � 1 'd
Photo Points w - ' % -- _ - y
OO Reach Breaks (+ o r +, � • f
Vegetation Plot Conditions- MY1 l \� /'��jfi/ f
,r
_ Criteria Met(Permanent) ;r, 0 '' 1 4_ V. , ' ° t
_ Criteria Not Met (Permanent) -- . \ •R— / '"
O Criteria Not Met (Mobile) - -- �j' I, �°�
: 2p18Aeri
,,. /( al Photography
l ,i/i i t , r
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View (Key)
%LI Iv* WI LD LAN D S Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
0 400 800 Feet V DMS Project No. 100048
ENGINEERING N Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
I I I I I Alexander County, NC

i 'i • , ,
I. ;, ; 1
1
i _ii '•• ,. ,
A
I!
_ _ 'ik �. I
1
_ ; 4
i IA
,,
, ;
III in
ii .0'
ii
1 1
i 1� 1-
1�
g " - ' - ; ', I 4
if
' li
, II
iI s'• ‘.,' ' i
% O
I-
:, h
PP4 I' _)
u \.� V
I. , A
' 1 Conservation Easement i.�
Project Parcels i �Y
i
Internal Crossing WII 'i
II
Existing Wetlands v 1
1 n: P 1-
l 'Restoration y
i. l 'Enhancement II I .. 1
i, >
Preservation ;; I!
--• Alignment Deviation -�', _�
Not For Credit ' ',(
,
Wetland Channel 'I ����
7�
- BMP � ' �''
11 ; „
Non-Project Streams �%
---- Bankfull
it
x — x Fence Line
,
1 Ir1rL�. ,
Structures '
Topographic Contours (5') •t
- Cross Sections SN!- % A
1- Barotroll \
• it
Groundwater Gager 14 ,� 1
+ Crest Gage \ i
0 Photo Points 'K_111111 A,% ,XI
I —x p• x I
() Reach Breaks - 1
1
•
Vegetation Plot Conditions- MY1 /-V. PP6B ix
_ Criteria Met(Permanent) .%' //
I. pc
Criteria Not Met (Permanent) s p
• Criteria Not Met (Mobile) P i
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY1B /
///i Low Stem Density \4 ' 4-
Bare/Poor „'
Herbaceous Cover '�
Stream Problem Areas MY1 ;
- Bank Scour/Eroded v. �
17474/ z R _ 2018 Aerial Photography
\_
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View
Pkiiiiiv WILD LAND S Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
0 150 300 Feet V DMS Project No. 100048
ENGINEERING N Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Alexander County, NC

Ki II �
11 ,
!I
-,r
` G Bh9 3
iI
Kv ii
k_x PP6A',
i —x —x 1
j�x p --xi
/ , ii
i i, PP6B vc
/� ilk
1 t 1i i
4
I I 2 IYUtJ i
II
I.
lk
I.I.
- li I
41
1 Conservation Easement �} LF{i
Project Parcels
II
Internal Crossing II O♦♦
�-
�. Existing Wetlands .,
Barotroll � ��
Restoration
Enhancement II k S4\- ,,,its PP9A
Preservation 8
O II
--• Alignment Deviation
Not For Credit ..��.
Wetland Channel 1 `(:)` oi.L' r pat
%— BMP i ..,\
Non-Project Streams ' %,,
i i
---- Bankfull
I I
x — x Fence Line i 1
I 1
Structures I
i !
Topographic Contours (5') I I
i PP100 1
Cross Sections 1
1 I
Barotroll i
I ;
• Groundwater Gage i 1
1 1
Crest Gage 1 I
i !
0 Photo Points I I
i !
® Reach Breaks " �i � ' �a pt ,, 1
�, t i vt ( <' 1 I (AID
Vegetation Plot Conditions- MY1 �� � b �, f �: : ; 1 ,
_ Criteria Met(Permanent) ': `' 3'ir' 1 0,,, i
Criteria Not Met (Permanent) ♦ '
•
• Criteria Not Met (Mobile) aF i ,4 , ♦♦ j
liar ,� <l ♦ lit
Vegetation Problem Areas MY1 _ ; , ,:K ♦1 ', i I
' � I x
I
/Z Low Stem Density ' , I 1 I
• x
���/ Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover � �#`,F :" �y Q:il n
,. ,� ,3r N' ', I ., 1 x
Stream Problem Areas-MY1 •'i A 1
gr
Sediment Deposition "i''', 4; r I - Ix
• 4,/' 0. , I .
a Bank Scour/Eroded 4, 1�
s •
Cat , `p !''G13t II. .
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View
kkiii, WILD LANDS \ Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
ENGINEERING N Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Alexander County, NC

1 I
I I
1 I
1 !
1 ;
1 I
1 I ( B
1 1
o
♦ 1
.♦ 1
\ ,", I x
` r
I II i
Ix
1 .j'i
I : Ix
G
1 ,' 5
1 . !1
I - \ GPM �l
11 ,'
I
', II -
mar, ,
Kt
I , II .x.
1 ' x
.1 '• CP gall -A--•
/ �*
% •: ! # l''*%. .:` r
,�i it =.• '. n° q ,0-.
♦ d ,,�a ',, �, Y t-L
a
., _
ie
�_ Conservation Easement `\ \\.4-
Project Parcels `• _ __
Internal Crossing ,•\♦ PP1681-
♦\
Existing Wetlands ♦
\
��
II
♦ �
Restoration `
Enhancement II A♦ /-
Preservation ♦\ ♦•\
• Alignment Deviation '♦V ♦A�
Not For Credit ♦•\ t
Wetland Channel ♦♦ ',; ♦\�
\♦ N�-
- BMP
Non Project Streams ` �-'- - `.
`. Mica 49
---- Bankfull ♦-♦♦GGr't17 ���
x — x ` ' '
Fence Line .. " `:
Structures ``.• ,�%/ ��
Topographic Contours (5 ) ` 8 ,"' \\�
- Cross Sections \ °
+ Barotroll
• ,
,'\, PP18�-4_
+ Groundwater Gage �•, _ v
+ Crest Gage `> .♦ ',� i i
0 Photo Points le /® Reach Breaks \ 1" ♦\
, 1 , 0. X
Vegetation Plot Conditions- MY1
_ Criteria Met(Permanent) ♦'\ `- v
V ♦.\
Criteria Not Met(Permanent) •`,♦ �.�';`i,� 4
1s � /; \.\
ino Criteria Not Met (Mobile) * �° . ; Y, �'� \♦ `,
Vie.., �r � --p <,. w,a r t•,:. .%`� i Ia1,04400y •\ �`,
Vegetation Problem Areas-MY1 �' 1 a" * y§ 4 " w .: l
Low Stem Density }'
Stream Problem Areas-MY1 �� . � 1 aye . J -
- Sediment Deposition *..A• i , ,♦ ` '" l , T„'` a .)- w. ot` a
.t 2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 3.3 Current Condition Plan View
100kiiiilp Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
WI LD LAN D S 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 100048
ENGINEERING N Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Alexander County, NC

Table 6a.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Reach:UT1 Reach 1A
Assessed Length: 770
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 37 37 100%
Depth Sufficient 37 37 100%
1.Bed 3.Pool Condition'
Length Appropriate 37 37 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 6 6 100%
meander bend(Run)
4.Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 6 6 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 47 47 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 39 39 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow
3.Engineered 2a.Piping underneath sills or arms. 39 39 100%
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 47 47 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 47 47 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
1Pool condition includes both types of pools:step pools and meander pools

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Reach:UT1 Reach 1B
Assessed Length: 957
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 43 43 100%
Depth Sufficient 40 40 100%
1.Bed 3.Pool Condition'
Length Appropriate 40 40 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 6 6 100%
meander bend(Run)
4.Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 6 6 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 52 52 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 42 42 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow
3.En ineered 2a.Piping 42 42 100%
g underneath sills or arms.
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 52 52 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 52 52 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
1Pool condition includes both types of pools:step pools and meander pools

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Reach:UT1 Reach 4A
Assessed Length: 1,172
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 2 110 95%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 17 17 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 15 17 88%
1.Bed Condition Length Appropriate 17 17 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 16 16 100%
meander bend(Run)
4.Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 16 16 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 30 30 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 18 18 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow
3.Engineered 2a.Piping underneath sills or arms. 18 18 100%
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 30 30 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat ""Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 27 30 90%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Reach:UT1 Reach 4B
Assessed Length: 1,666
Number Number with Footage with Adjust%for
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Stable, Total Number Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category Performing as in As-Built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Vertical Stability Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 22 22 100%
3.Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 21 21 100%
1.Bed Condition Length Appropriate 21 21 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 21 21 100%
meander bend(Run)
4.Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 21 21 100%
meander bend(Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded simply from poor growth and/or scour 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2.Bank extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Undercut Does NOT include undercuts that are 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no 34 34 100%
dislodged boulders or logs.
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting 22 22 100%
maintenance of grade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow
3.Engineered 2a.Piping underneath sills or arms. 22 22 100%
Structures
Bank erosion within the structures
3.Bank Protection extent of influence does not exceed 34 34 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat —Max Pool Depth:Bankfull Depth>_1.6 34 34 100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Planted Acreage 17.5
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Number of Combined %of Planted
Threshold(acres) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 1 0.10 0.6%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,5,or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas 0.1 11 10.0 57.0%
count criteria.
Total 12 10.1 57.6%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the 0.1 0 0.0 0.0%
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total 12 10.1 57.6%
Easement Acreage 21.7
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Number of Combined %of Easement
Threshold(SF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 0 0.0 0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none 0 0.00 0.0%

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

t,4• rye •. c ) a
> y ate. •
?,F - „- - -
•
s� F
} P .-{ h ''T.
le ,
•
, i`i.
4se4 .1' ,1� - ar4 '.�3' j ,a ..
x' i &syt j 1 c } s y,
PP11I—v•iew upstream—UT1 Reach 1A(11/05/2020) PP1—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1A(11/05/2020)
r
y S -4 y
•
�. - ' ,1 4 Y � ' M F
S awe �- 4,r `� ^ t '�f . e ax .T k it -
x-
•
•
• •7r iu h3 Y max: X -•,. .
' a,}s A _aF 41 t'T`4
r=
r r
r,-� '��'r �� �' 3 d"+8"z'� safe�l�� -1 ,. ..
PP2—view upstream—UT1 Reach 1A(11/05/2020) PP2—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1A(11/05/2020)
r
I
rF 1 x_'1
.`-z a e., . t N:r h�.4esc, ' f - . r n. .:( -
- , - ;h -^ ,
F. _y+..e 1 ` �` j ,'R - �' s J S t r' i .a ire F w ink S 1J?
•
1.
_ 7i 1 f
t
.'.'',.,,,A..-..f-'.-',,,..0.1e.•'.N-..,,-...-7-''7-.U..,:,$•7..-.0.X-,..,r 7„..,?,.-o'..,1,,,..,i,.,.r,,7-.,.,.i4..L..,.,,":',...,1.:'V-.•4,,,;:-.;-...,,..-;;',-,-....,,,,'':-..1..:"4t-.,.i.,,,.t'',,l:'sr,.e.ei.,-r:.'..-•-''.$4-,..r'„..-itrii':.!i'.-'-,".$.-4-:4!,'4.-'"..,...-.4.,-..-,,:.:;*1!.....).,..,-,—...-,.,.,,.,•-,.-,.'.,-.4•'..i'4..',..„.'-.'._.','_,'•-'•'._.,.,._—'
�r p � �a
F r' `$' -c to - Y .. .`�,4, i- '
tee- ' vN.yfk M -r - 6 - " ". .. .
PP3—view upstream—UT1 Reach 1A(11/05/2020) PP3—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1A(11/05/2020)

I .dd j .
s .4" 4
ce 9
5 4 . I. tl- #� cif 2
•
�ar R r�W q„ .731�F Tom t fill,? ` Fa �E3: . `! rr - kr � i* a`I�
SYk $: y�\�A C: � �it
�'k' ^ t ,� ,,. h�4 � � K �W
�1 g. � r. ^ Y i:..'H 7� ��sr t ' r •' � a - � � ,i.
v,..,ii!,..„,.........k,„t. ,,ft.,4„,,
ill
PP4—view upstream- UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020) PP4—,view downstream— UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020)
k 1
e 1 �r { t 1 • 7 f
•
4k M
4 p 1 ��.x'�,+�' s r r •• n g., 4. l �+ y k� ' ris € ,d�'- �,ys 1 _ ..t
k , . , s « 4 h r: y1S, �`1 -,Sid' _ vt'' '} ,,. a:
- -sn f - 3. a�>~� �{�� � "' _ 6 i� `f �`u�� �Apr - - • .�� '$`"
1.
1 - 'Fw ! _ Yvr i"T Y wliti `, 9- - : ' � k0 kR � - Gf : F
� s 4 x,ems#,5�S ➢'".ti 1 r ry,."u _: ' � ,
�ry r
L � ��V.A.
4�j p
{ �% ate x 5,.,- ;y,- — �� `tri:E, �t If^ri5� 'r aka y �t �v sP:
9'
i :� t� $' R':v_d r" 1 � � '�.. s.. . ' ' r W, e� :�➢: �
— w➢• , # J'�.^. i 1 ;x �'l ,1 kl� Y • . il.= 410.i .1. k" rr"� ' �, F
F r ', l / F 1
:'�\ ,! i 1 A y�,F� 'r y� k --� Psi f A <'�;. 1 1- �$j .' r r� B' -
'i r .'rk7 b`P'l Ya-y 1 - °rs .}:
PPS—view upstream-UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020) PPS—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020)
.g h'amA
•
tig n - f- �§ fr .-, , o s�C -1'a kk r ' �4 `11 J s-
41).11
b -
4144)
•
ci,
bA d y ff E,'- d Y 5 ,[ St�e - ' o - � } ir. ' Y Y r # -t A tJ .4., # T - 'T i 4 x' ' k% ^, r ,� S ,i-n4 Pi `� . iK F ` A l ,' ",-- q4 "� A� 1 �s" r444"" t Y 2 . x.# *•St �"� 7�� s � �r r' ..r � .k "A' '•&�i _0� �,y� ° �� � � , A; d i i,�' Yk�ir`i ~Z - ➢, ue fi _ ` la "i ' 4`f' J ,F," i, o- :.: - i"
•
PP6-view upstream—UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020) PP6—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020)

•
t.._r '° err' ' ah<
'Sr
,y 1'k .kya r -_. °Fq.. F3ty1
J:.is
,: ..._:,3._.'e:..' .'.,5•
cR ,. arc' ,:f' :4 : :.b-. ,hr
h
¢rY'rep .. ''.t, ... ..... .•: . .:'� •'.h� 'n!''� ..f� ,:'3 ;.
...,, .... p,:.a'fiCrxi Ra.C. ',U:.ri'k: - .p_. "�. �['p.i.Fh .
.:•�' ? ',i�+-'�. r ` �a�.�'° r. �Y�V �' _ :?S;:-ti rl 3t .",-<'�� • •�f�'
_ _:.sue..��.... ', • .a: •✓'f_" '.'[ ':.;^3� :�1��":: ;��,
..N
4.
.ski � - L� �'�. �r. r=Y: yy��.i;• dikfL--:.:' ''':'•••'-':',.1.; :rie:: "_'L.-- '•': �.
' ,As' Y
�� yyw�
fit' I >, 4,.,�ryi.-.� al:'..N'. - . "T"i'� �h.., {. R �(, :`I
k k
r ,
`r -
:s' :sit" ; 5...
'w!' •
c rfy !j.
-,r$ µ¢
6.
'A 4� u`,"y.
r • 9.%' �f'
A„ 3i _
1
:
.
y n: r _
a rrc
a<�
: M
... i. :."..! ,t 'J. t u: 'c;,! i:li� �" .14,; FTiP _'. ff"v., l�:#+':'�:: ':, A'-:..•3;•_
r
S'
. 7t
,,,,#: .�F'[v L. �` 'fl: }e�%� gg f.r.'`' : �d.'
x W. l:;i:t 1:,1r..rt i' ,..\,ti .are r.'uf, '.'Fe^+ `
:
PP6A-view upstream—UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020) PP6A—view downstream—UT1 Reach 1B(11/05/2020)
immniiii,
r
a.
g -, . .. - "
:: ,r.5^` .. .rc ..� . . -�:^}.n� . •���- .l' rq+i- '.S a,. «�'q,"'..�s xti.3!
..i ,'4 ; n- :n;.gr"'ac: ':.• ,• •�
..�i '.:r. Air.:',,'-. � , . �3 �`� �, � , Y`c e,e2
;t. ,�<;.x 'a., '' sib''. f. ..
,'x„ �',v�i' 1� s:4 ti��.��� ::t^gig:.; '�;s-: ��;r',E ' �'�'�S
k
,:r
;;;;,,fi�xx:� • - ,,1,*''' a s
5Mz .. :.a` '.her .z�&y:..""
_ -•Y •
`��- ram= r -.a' t
. .,. ...Yl. ..... .. .. .y � y .• :s 'tip!` .`�.
P
F. • ..�' t1." 1. fin
;'tfr µ'�
• r,
,:. .._ ,..,:h:... - .a '><...'.,: ram: <�`it�. Ua:
d- 'F".,,�;,:: �T-- .ee: =K �vp"�'F tix`n;'.S'i`i e;� ...�°��—r.S�...ni;!.M,T ?xi. ?ii"y_w
_ r.>r
..!*10 ^.':•'tea": . ,:��'i...ewc
�"'' � 'i r:sy.ten'- f r. .. .', .:.p I`.�,`.' ::, d.,`. - '[i ,.- :' ax',ti`s"'..;v,. ::,:'�r'
!,
e_
y{?r �'•��.,zi .-rr Y_._'F:."-�'.3 t`" `-a,''2c �:�li�..:•. .. �'�,, , I , F "r' --5"-- .7 :-t,:��-'�'w, t•rY• :s.."- '= -
`'� .,f'• � _�n"t;s.'Pi.L.w�:L`4Yy p:'%i. -Y l• ^:i.: ':< < _ ,;.�d�'i- —_
_ _ ,. uLJ ..� s h+ ^s :1.: w5��..t'
•
i',. .�:. •":17:6f` .:' .. en+'"�,a:�'d' [:4,•,. .:."fi
', .y � a �. . re4' �: 4..-"1, '„w....„,--'_ .. "'Y"a'' .i'. .4.:
PP6B-view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (11/05/2020) PP6B—vie:::ownstream—UT1 Reach 2(11/05/2020)
r '.
iler
r� s' i:'. 7i6'a~ F".',, ., ;3 ' _.4 . !fro Vi: ,•�:.,
'�4 �-� '. ,� .r .. �.ta g:.:*9,',ri: 'f ,..?r? �;6`tsa.' 'y'1�;i" ;4?x+ ",9 t. 4.y :6 '.Y a.. %¢ - �'�"'�:u .:a A d<. w.i}, 'ds..w �.'.'-`.4.: ..: .iy
• ',j4<�i�' - - .'�..`..•- 'y� �' =,�5;'•."E�3,s4 af sue: .hoax' g �' '' �',�
f:'.: '.=bm :��� .^w�;. ,: ,;� ,;�.''d xdr "I' j. r ' - :t :;i�,.
:y
.,af '�p`•
-obi_. _:'y ._, ,. �:`;�.
,r ...�. .�.'�"c.:'.:. rF. <- .?+. �-x. ''.,,e•::,. .[ -.Y1;•u,,.- �»' '4T'^� _ ."��a.r;":: �.j: �i,y,.. ; k
-f ,
. ..w ,' '".,a:',' w?cn, 1,....t• .::;, : .. ,, .. .r . - :��'''.ci�:"j,. ''• Y"i- `:�$.'.' '' A ;�r- :)h:b i.F'�r - t
i. .-; i}y ,.,s x.•.:" w. ..,.- , ....:,r f t=•F .:': '.''.`:1',4 - Vy- , — '.�'.:: z
Fes,.. �-:
.r
.:. _-.� �.-. ,4.;;`:.',;,.t,. r.. .;..., fin•. pp�3 'f .f. .•r'..:otV`': :,..: �:.��' ,.�:"
y . 'r. n,�. t -
�^ yr •;.�.`�,,:.,.
r
a{.•-<.°T..rc..�'.', .]i£ .::ik: _,��K}p� .,f,� - .�'4x �! :'-'•,:.3 r,:J.� r'f.!
. .::•,,JY^ �„b' .': 1 i..i °5:^Y`•:. _ 6' _K sa
w • �
�,'�,.r4.^.�J�:-,.Y-::i' ^aR ..,. `. �Ak :a'::. aA:Z'a �[�.1.kp- lFl�' >k' ._ . .. I
S';`,,:.5,c. -a.'• ':. «.y.: �'i'C:is a .i'. _:. - _ t{, 7..j. __
_., . L.::„.:.:...::,1L;.if,.' ,,.., ,_•r
�'' `ice":1=-.:.r::F,:.;'":': :,1 wi`::+.� ,�,�+". - ���.al..,:c - ,ik`- .Y t __
�a � sue. .,Wiz•...,.. .'y.x. ,,, i .��.:,�'"� ' .� :,< f f '1' - '0 — -
•
r.,
,y,
1-
•
•
a'
PP7—view upstream—UT1 Reach 2(11/05/2020) PP7—view downstream-UT1 Reach 2 (11/05/2020)

. ..,•.„,„... tit: .,.,
Y,Y� -•!:•?-•-•-'•-•""-- "7. ,:.,.,:,:i....•.
,. .• ,
Cam• L'^ 5 kS
lr-sF ': _ spy. s� m _ �, • � ,..r• At •
,a ,. M ,��4 ?" ' r xv'� '� yk Y3 r .". `k, I'q r ,. ; *• 'tl�' ' tt' '
��" r' r aYz � ' ';;" �§,,..y .� Y.a ''�Y � 'ale T'� �_�yy d_j. a'�6 ',y '6•; / - 1 �_
'� y ` = { ;4 v =l ,' "=w-�' � f {.-i. '.$M ux4 -u'_ "ice '' k 4, +I.�"i +e �' ,rp=.
,."• 4,,p. ,-t -f it _ -!'T,•ck tftrae �,.s. • a 1 :,} 4i. 3' ':-;;.r z ,c; k+ % t�r yen s•
qliik -z ��,• c Ridr �5 � a • `. „ a e e ° r., . .-n',3�', .
by r �a`� • n "wY;"T -_-_ s - ri .t .
( h 5 x
1 i_'k,e e� � ,to'pig .�<,. 1.s+e- ' •�'S{. Tt= - '-v ..r.
`. r!� ,; n '3'' 44- § 9!e -- r, Yc -4!, "`
t- " .?2. „^3r;'. ,•
PP8—view upstream—UT1 Reach 2(11/05/2020) PP8—view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (11/05/2020)
37
' -�,: 5 - mr of
•
3 4 x. -.,,�Y-w" ,. --r yAti �_i,, 7 ff 6 .t"k[ s�v.,G�. 1._
ply u t�S y-^p".'r gt ` Y,µ`° •. 1' ,- i -T x
:,,,,,,, ,...0„.47,?,. .,,..,:.:1664.
#t r. r s R n, , _ y '•„ y Ayrr.: {. .,;x . `+Frs' -
•
-•�4 �„ r' '„ 'rsk'r 0 : # : ya s E r - 7
yt y sr'L. J� * sl fi•� , • ter," -
5 • 4
^ . r � • <.ag 6 l / jv"a .`re . j Tad E,,... = ' .
.r •
PP9—view upstream—UT1 Reach 2(11/05/2020) PP9—view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (11/05/2020)
tl A
' 'RyY 1'6f- .�J
xf b h 'i 4F r
•
4
•
PP9A—view upstream—UT1 Reach 2 (11/05/2020) PP9A—view downstream—UT1 Reach 2 (11/05/2020)

) F
- ram.
w •
tJ r sth
y
;
„..,....,..,., '..:;';'711v:.-',..\''''..-.-:-1-:-,--,-.......-.1.--.",.:::F..:'-i._.. 4_. c.- .g,'. . -.-7: .. - -;:17-7'
}' ` i z' ice. - .,
ift‘t-..i'...• ,,,:----•"--- --
1i
PP9B—view upstream- 1 Reach 3 (11/05/2020)
UT PP96—view downstream—UT1 Rec 3 (11/05/2020)
_51 "�. .`'°wry�. i'T' �.vii.,,„.:: h
$
•
� .. a r ,. •
..V..:' r• �l �• ea»a...a.d+..�.�1 4 , ay µ
Y, .:d'' _,y ' .•tee' ,sc. ,
. tip •
{ , a ra r- sJi,+ FY ��.
PP10—view upstream—UT1 Reach 3 (11/05/2020) PP10—view downstream—UT1 Reach 3 (11/05/21, •....... ..: ,, ...,,,,,, , ,.•;., :.-=.:_'.'LL',:4' ': 020)
L
tip .
n ,o-
141!
�l ,§§s��
� x
,
PP11—view upstream—UT1 Reach 4A (11/05/2020) PP11—view downstream—UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020)

. i ...'.,..,-,: ,' .'-r.",;;:',..7r•:r' 1';Y.e :`,• ''' 'I: . ',.'0" . . ''. ' • •:' , .
YV < -r d ?<14µ �k+ .
z
F
r`
Y �t t
PP12—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020) PP12—view downstream—UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020)
•
'hIli a i o, . t'yr k - - x ,asp ,eF
ft
E w �+'fY '{ V"" `� 7T1•yy���*M i{ ''S h • F`k'ky, L `4 , . ---
_ _ Y�,
•
let
'21
it
° s ' x :� psilt ` ', t -c -_ f `�' �> -
�� r� -�� ,1w f,-• ��7 h5� ,_ �-1, ..za iti'' r _ '� \ .•.Jl -
PP13—view upstream—UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020) PP13—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020)
:iptftW �7 fit. !-. t•lr� L'to _ -1; ::: ,
s 'fit ,h t' �.
,, - t' �" : !' ' w , t w' "'
1 to y a R ya i4. z'1• 7"',aS. i r ` s `` ,... • ' '
r dy ` d ,+{�'9,.yi . 4 t d` �Z R ,'a
b're. �}� si t".. fir, �°",�'s .� 's 3 7 y r .,„. ik F ?, ' • :' _ .'.-;.-
Yy � ��ti, � --t<.' �,tit,�� �� �. �\.� �i � � +�� � �+. �y --fib .r-
``�5.• . r .\ " 3 "�' '4 11t � ' _`� -
i i t .-
.c'r` sty S1.,;', 4i a r..� y
, r'tiAf x r " ,,7/F,,, '1F "k: )1�;.' y
r 3 .ems `wy,` fiery 7 'r 's ,'. 1, s !r t' ,
� t. -.%—;.. o fa r ", 4 ,:fir .w A S+`.j` w.t f
LLyyLLy -y f F sue. sX s4 ..
d ~ y"', �„ .Wsr+ .r' rM - 1' : & - �(V � LS'h R D r
4
PP14—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020) PP14—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4A(11/05/2020)

•
h .i`it. K• '1L " F� i;' i "" ' Fy j ; r # +*a c X-�' i i � . fi;1 $ h� w :i` � ry 4 3 se 5,5y'P xa a � + :I 4/ r yts6: � d ay :a 57.yc# ,. ce
•
ii
1-� • 1i'a J .e Ala �, I f
t
•
•
?� '��
g.
}
rs
•
PP15—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020) PP15—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020)
aj-•
i
4
a
:c , 3>'-'u'!'' ' w e a fix "R4 __- na,-=
1 ; 4 T -• -- 2 -,P -
.
.
I ,
jrr , ,a
•
s
y Y b L �v Y q,ri
•
J' .tiv 4ai `'y/rf aka `:'�YK t�xi .r n��k"e.... .. .' _ '� `�r�-ifr'` is
.... .� may.- ,/ z-r.: 3 - g4`:.x
PP16—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020) PP16—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020)
i
y
.. '. ' b y
-441111*
Ry. t„� � �" fi . :c•�.
PP17—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020) PP17—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020)

II h _
y x I � Ni
v.; 1 ,M ,' Lp Y r �hl
�r.� n ?'BAR-� l 7L
•
.^ 'i f ail
•
PP18—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020) PP18—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020)
•
,
x
p
p I1 ,
�. -,•i-"_r-k''�MY .8P, .,TE �H A2(zr 1 f ., 7•4t'l."1'*.•.:..„.:-.;',:$2.--,,:_,'„....1.&.:-.._:,-
:::::__:1,.-1....4:':-:,',--:...-2.--1---"•-...2'-:•:..,
-'
�
rk s.� •r
`x
a
•
4 • %y
PP19—view upstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020) PP19—view downstream— UT1 Reach 4B(11/05/2020)
ate,. .. _ • &
-�
•
` ` yet ,• _i it j
i1 � q -•k 'Yeu•�,y'yx'17 I J4
S' 4TiT
'?..,
r•l
7 _^:J.:, y . S. '0{h .;.�x t, r 5' t .; `t Y io�sa} R` Y - 1 ri¢h -t.S'� y - A - T g bc - g' , \ ' F 0, °v Y ue ' a i t rL y4_,, S -.�,' ° . £ 'ra -a- - y q � zR -
Lrf
i jA'�- s c »•.• . t i T S-iS t1 . -S -S_
PP20—view upstream— UT1A(11/05/2020) PP20—view downstream—UT1A(11/05/2020)

Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

`- 4 j :. 'g 'i° ": :_; :ate:
'.; �1 1 "4.." ._•: i �;fi.����sv .`�s ;.....'�: . ..'. j;.ry ram;,
r '
'7''''.1,*,N111,*"5''''••' ,:,,«:•:,t,,t7.:.'t:;•-.4•,••••" ..; - ' '.' i, ,1''I ,....
s�: - ., j `�x .:..E�+' '°i:«:....'. .,gym 1 '::'�,`.t� ;'s": d�: ,?., ., �•�8`f3 ,.'';'` '�7
�1
,
y t�^'
..t-:x" �-kr, �� "k.i.-i fn:�i,�,`. ' > . ..:3. .F.y� v$.'"�"'::': '3.%§• - _gg },S ,�. ,Sk:.,'`'i�''h;.. t': '�. 'i!:''Y :.1,,:: a. �..; 7" 'i ''m:.,�4v- '
K.L�r ;;,,y�p��F"'"i',R rw":\rs: '�` - ,:A?r'' ..` . �:T'S,a . I,
l'V'� ru5'-aa„ok, '�. ,�,"F..? 'S::i.Y, - .;�, .6' .F. _ <i o�n yv".. �ge_'"...,F�
•
..�..� .�� :>ti <-+s ,-s44
;�bra�,. :'iF gg'�.,»" `'• w& r.. r;�,..�°m :"T `- ��, ���,.�* '.;;:.s r,"{,• .�3r�"�"�`,�Y.r' ;?�.
z,.
{:=:,;;%':_ -'. -a. t..: Hs;!' iv.rt- ':,. ",Y...$a :. 9... F •'r ;'' S:. a'` I' ::� - -
,,..•.;s--s --' ,.: ,:.:, e0-- rcz:ac•7. .fig, :;',7-r, ,. '� >s '`6.r, "' .
s a;. . .,. ,; . .. , :1 :yes.,, . ':
ry "�3�.- ?v ..�w�'-a it''¢, b !�c'. :�.E'.`h'.. C 1R.,, __•�4'.- -,'} 4.�. �.-�. ',�i �� "� %e'?''
s 'tA4( .,�`*41 '11 .g,:,e..,.^�: J ISM•::,. ,,ems; R' cti r4" t..'ic..l``t';'.:, �M'.:. 'L .ln�'".:. "d."+1
.,`"v'-��' _' � :G'k�3.:'t-r" 'fin, y '°;�� �'�'Y. ��i:r- ...`@�- ��. ,�'cri, •�,...a,.g` _ .�. :�g�.. ,
•.;�rtA M 5 . .w i. y_ e,1:k15:'�'.. 9 :k.; �fi'• .i _ :.E-':iS..; W�:- .4, •f..., 4:1,(a. "IS:'.1 •' ,�.{
�•': "*� �:'�i,`-,�s'."�,�,. y, - � :•+i, 'S>a;4,,, - _ ..f_w i, 'e,.�: ,' :,,j,y ��iC'3'F.`",
%
�'..��ww..rr.. ":i'A�+',• '7`' "fi ."k;Y"x.r'�',, .a+' ,: d -.�Y:A .Yy.+ _ - _ •+&�'.i"' -�:5,.tt tF., ,,,. :7,ST, .,,.... „
:;ry""3,7 .1. _ _ ,�.. � ,ryr• ,,.., "'W .s-.�.x. -�.a, -..."w.^.;'. a :;. •': ''L v.:. 4 .. r,Ar.,:`
�..'k. ..... y. ','' . ..,Yv�`"" '�`�� :�_�' .. 'flb,,,�Ty.�'<w"�`�;:'`'' -r•.4 =n �;gM:.::.1�^^ 4. ..s;, a � ro:.�t
k.
k,.?.: '. .'. `3" '+�" £;. .,+ sP'„ .A M4'.'.'d.'. x,3>''h:.W. t '. '�'3 ��J :';sf�.'.`t ,.'n- " ' ?".,k - _r"
6'''''Al,(,' ' ','"40.' ....,:, y
}� 'g.t. ,t. # + ( tR ;yy.kC 'C... •., /.` .Z',,;. F _ ,S�dl.
Itk;•- •,.;"'4., -_;e.:-' ' - "'''','.4,-. :.!•!bt4,4,1*;-.:..-17 6• _. .;-1:;,.
.b%�,V�V: �..1 �+1�,.` ," '.Q?�. :\��it A''f,`':j• y'gx .;.%'.{yt ' X'�`_V," � ;�.'•Y�t'a•
;y(�y "� � ,i
lii4%.-:;. �"IrJ"l:' .'..+Kam.^u. ., L�..' h:-.' .z .�:.,^ �.,. � _: �� .,-..'3 _ w'✓3€i"a'. _ t
Permanent Vegetation Plot 1 (10/27/2020) Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 (10/27/2020)
yy
, �'':,..• `i•� ._cam .,.� -.,„-* A Y ..; ' + 'fJ -
ks
a
- ;Ts:', an.*rrc.,r �,c:,c� .;2 - Via,;..°' � :F.1. ��`� ,.ti•:
���"< }lam • "':..���a' � �'� :z<`- k-c.r„t.2,r„ - - ''%t�,` - 'M. _3. • ,'R'v ''�'..' �.": "':y �d:.N Tr',.'`;,.. ^<�. -:' -
z.
hi:��. .k. :C. ,'ram"• v 1.1., fz- t:, g :. i'...... 2 sb✓ ,:9 y P"l,..z
y�
011:
>i,.;• .ti,....- f'S:•-7.-' i:.t-F;..' ; ._" t " `;r: ,.,.. -':ec °- `'4': %. -t._•c_":,-z.s„r.' ," '°�W= - ;'3.
:�: Viz` :,�_'+�' `
¢� 'S:hr:' „fz . .�'�• .� A. spa'': x,.
.,'�i. �r �.k^'� •.s::.r"', ,�i'a - .a':r �:..ki-'�1�.-x.'a S.s 2x$� R'raz`.
'.,# i^,;<5.. .:;ys `., r _, rj a_�s (i��.�8yy - ..y .'-wr'..,:.:: .i@:' g:t '';�.
lxi •
- _ .i?'€ : Y .:&.•' �. - _ a,a:f_..,'g:.fit, - "T�,." ,•< '.�'., ': ' eG..^;� ',-:�..:._, ,M`r
.;'>. •
'.':�d: '1":F.."r:;• _ : ,'^'': 'r,1,`.,,,t•:••;7 _ -. ,Yis t,.!Y,.. � . r:�. ,,:Y`.' e 9 6.
.,.". - "f.`1x. -.:;3"i;. •.R'.^ ..A� �? - y,..:, .':. •°,, ,�: a.s». s.ss.; .';: i ti ti.. -...y,
.,^'»._.. �, R`t rSkn y,�'+"�^: '1.,� � � �.K ."tit .�.� _ ",3
f19',. .23::a , ++nn T S4. - i9Y`d.'" `, •`"'+.
�
.< �,;�
'':ram p,,e. ti:.t =fi'.: .. . �h"°^4; :� w�. - .m.; • .'• -..
•
•
;4.'a r n'a.,r,. P a . :' °Ili ': :. .
•
s,,
fA' .'•'• r, $"r', .'� ..aa:� �':?!.'Y'. z.44 iit - _ _ ,=::�� .Ax �;a., .. :.:4',.a.,'_ ,A�.,•:�
ar,
Permanent Vegetation Plot 3 (10/27/2020)• Permanent Vegetation Plot 4 7(10/27/2020)
3: rlyY„_ ..a:`f- '. iQ.'r:?:'•.�e1a,'.n""aA_, a' �':r.:= _ '. '1"S` i ::J` _ r
l.
•
•
-'i: " _,.�: ''1 ��.H,''",k�-.n..:_''1'.v;J»y4'. s i• Sv r' .++�y r_"`'
, ;' ; ` 3 :d: 1 ,
r ,a' 4
t _ �,_ �le':fir' 7-• -
,.
`>tr' 4v .1.:.f.',;cSa',i4. °•: f,f�t,'r`.`'"r'',Is.�'� .'. .'.7,�.M�:u - ': ��
�x
�� i`.�'i .' z`�., 'z'�t..'"�,. . •xa,.`=5�"'`i: `�•-�"-.iaK: <..:rzn � :, �" �� :`�~"� '3�;r.�
� ,�- .� �isy, -':��'`�
t'r,.°a+, .. ..:.. r.,..� �, <. "`: ::a,.; ,,, a, - .r. - s.br�::F• -; , '{-e -- i'E�ar:� s',�''':�'w•„
- ..a,. x . ..Mti'•:.cV'6 sty.,,..... '. ,''.A ''/.6' - d Er.'1p.:.a�.;= ;: '� ;., -
. :,.vi :>x' Fst a%-:..r.. �!W,.,•�s r.....,:..: 8 :;i ' �f ;jtd:" v:.. i .;a- - ,•'' `%;,'", ,,�,. .4-1--L
a :��eg� •''_..t�k. ': ... .•r: . :S`:";`,;t.f . �C,&"• :`1: . 'ti:._ :'s' -✓� - :,i.'• ��' ..f:''% ':i.''=i't:i ,;: „'.,:li:+
.. ,_'; ,ti, .Aiw .:A� ,as....: .'. 'E •a:i. ey -`.' *;,. z ,,° n--
'^��,."y,; r:�.,}4�•? �_ dab a' �•ii�..,.,a�' SYe, i �x5 :,r:
- �• emu. '� 1 :�',
ti_` car > A, ,j `yy�
-.�"�� - s;� 'gym �.,�. � ::�
s
;�y i
a;; '�
Y! {1 r ,,"�.::'s,.,'p:y.' �us �C'4:'• ..:�',: �S'i.V''r-.:�.'� }•'ii, ,ti":'d" _
K .,,"tiu :'°i .�a'.Tu.r�,h5',i.: S�v v-'{• ti :` ,.S^'`e ��* p- ..Y S:.'�.��'��'•.y::eyi:� .:._::.�`�Y-f:G.'s' Y-3F,
e e.,R.'>: ye�x�-t ,vt,..'A.w,Y. ���-.:.�k': . 'I �Y d,n yY.p- y u�.�'C.• �:r�� l r�.
-:6` 1y. f+ y[S Xr ' ..S,,e it;;n ';.'? i`{'..',t `1.�. ik
�i.s.-.. . :3".•: '. e .' 3:.•al.,.:.i,. -^x i:,:.-?,:i �y.. _=�.. .�+� t-J.M.-`..: - n.5' rck•, .:)
Z'' { . "..M.. '. ' .. ' . - \: 5:'V-k'•i s ',.f0 - - .r.: '4 ':r., °1's�
�.-.c: y �'s:-.�'` ,:::,.-rs. £ da:. . _. . y.4,: c:A,��?:;^ �' :i'�x,-� ,w: ^: :...:�� �`.:���' `'
•
_,, .#+.a3+:d'''' '��"."•: x"•s Rom,';1r ,a'`- ?.` .'zw#�' �.1',' . " _*.:,.' :. rr y t
-- �tt�' ':t mo .d,'- ,'.c-+p-''w ,�Y! ..� $, ''Q f V ti'c.
rl 4 ,, yr. s. _ - `--i`.M1t'aik$,. .: t,rr .» •t A . • -_ ...L ,p'1:6, '
a Ig e -
Y i»
II ••
r
Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 (10/27/2020) Permanent Vegetation Plot 6(10/27/2020)

' i.l R'.. '.. '.. : ti•c:., .�.:. �� �!•:.-"
.Y '. .. .: r..a... g?. / g c ..-. ` , ,(, •w�ai��3N3 � t'ar^R r�,,: It .- .. E
:
-'fit.,' 'iit
r
mil ..�`i:: I ..n �y' 1 ' 7,,,-
h'
. F
,.':.i ..�.'-.•a"� :., .,.-:..r`�V, .a,' t.i: .• ,'•.. .�- L .r< lv.i�;.f • ,r:v „
'f_4:ya.
ya.
xs = 71 ` { pt „"" #Uri ,' �t / y1 lr1 ! �aS:.�� �.. e 1 6 �' : 1-„eP� :s.: t e0,*., $ r .4.v. .y1 , r ' -' I , j."3 4 :^ may4nk1• '°', :14 , _Y; 1 ` aY-
;
•..la ! µ• ,.. n + ' .f" v ni.ri.
Y•;,..yI�DOPP ,
.`:ZI�'s'. .,,A_ a..:J'ri? r•,. _: ,kSd2v , 1- . J ,:, :. a xi 'q . e 'e � ,, .'.
5:2
e'l
-,''� "' 3i ; °'�!�'?r =y*g3t rk( ' 'a:+ : � y . . " v" -' ,y1�r '. , � ma Yf� 'J r? L :' '.Z i. ' :�/ � �i.. . [; Y <{ .tea„ TX
•5 �. . : ".. _ , ' 5 ! ' `I _. } '1 4
. -
may.. 1I 4f
h• p vvu
• by I,
Permanent Vegetation Plot 7(10/27/2020) Permanent Vegetation Plot 8:..,1.,0/02,7,./4.2.4,0‘.2.0,)
". '..'
,,, s(;i ' :ar y.,.T ar -9`j- :,Fan. ,a?. . "r .,4ty¢�.
-
„.,.....
d .V Ii , ",:'!' .�^ n.M1.�`. I. ��v ,�. 'M1:'G?' XE �.. 1. .;.:: k--.1,
o-: �.. IA.i' '": -,t 5'` '-~ y:un'l v f
,,,,,., __,„ ,, ,,
, , _. „...„
,,. ,,
, , , , .,...„4„.„
e ' �. 4 3 �a ',,,,,, y�p� a r ""', q tee, c ha
_ vii '�.ro
r
r,A:'' •`.:pry'
1u �
L 5 J
�
x' ) •'{, ;''rt.'
Alta.-�� ��`,•x�� `'sa�.:'4
tr`. 3.`r �zfir' r : z�.„
_.,.—.�, ~ .•s� tip.,. _ � $
I�' l ",'st "'�,:.. ..✓'` „R;`"lit " j7 ' ''R .i.•:"`' - •
Ll- ''?F!!ry :T. '• _ k. : { 1'`E?'y:1''Jfl
.. .;.
, r
,j...
A j .5 y `� Y� _ j :n i , . , Sld_ i 4 i.d: ». , i - . I : • F : <7 er ea>}
*, 4,„,r..,4
,„ .
,,z,...,,,:ir, ... ot,,,,,.4..,„,.
, ,,,..i
Permanent Vegetation Plot 9(10/27/2020) Mobile Vegetation Plot 1(10/27/2020)
,,,,,,,*,,7,,,,Iri, �" 4 ,�•-I?�;:, �yy'•�4 f i,. „q.. �;'�; Pam'
.,.Jrrti'imi -J1,. 'F.'`
,'9., .„V.' -z.E",.� 3k. - Y s.."' ./ v`kr4' :�5;.:„'::`' b:k.:+s
"
v
r
'�w,_ ..-i- . .T: :.,..x ,' . 1,.. t', ate- q" t ,l a �,'kF
.: � �� to, �} a_.
AL
risM ,:�;r.=: "°�"�' ;�;a-;'" « : P'r5=:� ice. ,.�.x: - .a>.. .tea=,:•. . ;;' ',: '�'1:_'
o_
�; .`' •,r, . '•:.5d.: ,�`: •,g:'' =_ r$v `#hid• "c F���-*�'.n:'-
lt
`4' i" ;p. ,� `ry,' ',�+. 'Fa.iltt �.,iP.. ;•� • �,y$`�, .°!s� '�: �' c' .r. ty
: �4 a,'� �:�e ,yvFyT ...�M✓i'�i _ 1 ;�T' >?»'"b t<.'•l k."'
5
- {� , T3 yN(��. y� rv:fir: / r(:.
,
r.i�' .L f �.. :-Y 'urt; -.,h��`3 "twl'xSi" �.,
_
•
. ' _r 5.. � .,.. . .I_,. ��'�"' . _ �� ,.Y:F�:�r:..�r,�!"': �i ' � .`:. . .J( `':,r
>t
v... ,. :.:.- g,. .,x: ...,, ,"i�.'4:. ay, `1'.rw _6rw.�",� 1'n`:.::Y _
3, i ..'L cY.i h- f :`T.t .Y .'-'7 t 4y..,..-L` ,, wy A=m „.?..:, i':t-K :' .:;Y•.
,.:" '� 's'z '' i . - "r'. :aa;':%te r :,��''�^h-!� �p ,
Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 (10/27/2020) Mobile Vegetation Plot 3(10/27/2020)

Area of Concern Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

1 �} � r 7 't a �`+, a y z a y
.1.10-...',,,,.. ,A. ,O. •`.4P3',..k:"- ": - - i' 41„",, 5.. 14714,54,5.-,Yi,'':•'' '4.44'''' , ",,....-> ',.. " rrr.,... ti:
•
lif.,'-':yiii:`_' ,, •-. .,:k.-' '',',.,-'''-;- ,
r
• 'i u,, l' i. 9 i., - �' - -' crrc �-4-i w)5[ • ,,€ _
f
a x 1. , :, tti 5 _ram ;
�a : 3 s . is b r
�� _ � -� � �a+'a� . ,�:.
f ":.r -''A- t- n� .v ",r tea{ 'a .', s J'.2
1
•
n �
C
-r -:.. s 3,3ec � , r t Fha� F.�- i.r ` '�" _ ' 3,� � r r �_
UT1 R2 Right Bank Erosion(STA 120+00-120+20)—view UT1 R2 Right Bank Erosion(STA 121+00 121+15)—view
downstream (2/9/2021) downstream(2/9/2021)
n d k A�.7 y"` R'�'#F!'r s '�6a •3.r*,u P i3; q ,,
titab
sky , y'' . a. a
n
rl
.�P�t i ^L � � "' � w rr 'fit s` of�- � a �'$ �`
44**11.,--..,,,,,-,':',4,-;:tv:.,14t.-', .4 .- - oop.,,,,...,-„Iv- -,,,;.,,,,,,,,,,..,„;:' --:-,:-.,,,,..- -
4.7t,-., !_nt:iiitk.-4, -,:.--.,-• - '
a64,fri r ,I'' :-t -' 4-'''.. .- -'— '•..,"7:7:',. .,,I4';'. '''''-'!"..' ,., '-,i.° :-..'''': ..
g , � to
sat.' £'� 8 -� �*" "tMc :
* 'r :\.'.
UT1 R2 Right Bank Erosion(STA 126+00-126+20)—view UT1 R4A Aggradation (STA 139+00 139+75)—view downstream
downstream (2/9/2021) (11/05/2020)

Groundwater Gage Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

. .2.,;7,-,,..., ,,,,,,,,.,4:4....
•
fi: a '' A ft ?� 1 i > � § � � d
r
'14-
5� i� 'yam
•
44'
Sao �,•: � $ s - rP f,,� * +'n `' �� n r i+ , !+
w §� " � � a •h h i _# � �x?„4__ ,y r,,. , � M,,.. r e ' ; z _
1 .4..k-.,......` '-..'..:' ''''..r ',....'''''''', --•-';,..-1.. .1 -'-''f:'--- -.---. -.''•.. - ' ,,, 'i.' .,7'4*;''' 43%, C.t'''..,-,--`,. -;Ir.'.,.— ;:':'..".....,47'7 I k.V.1 -
' rt7'I-V.:,'','4',.-',-1,•.--Aj.1 -.1„,i14 ' .”,,\ - -., :',,/,H .;..,.,. .„ ).,,-1', '.. _ ,...-',.,,'s',,,',:. ; ,..,:, / .,;. I',,, 7.)."':,,'.--,--:..-‘iii„7,',. ;,, , ,.Y,-''''. -.,..-..:-'4';`;'-' ,...7...g".!!1,....2-'-'
f ,:''''.1:1'''!.:,.,'1, •••-•--;17-;'7•P''',71,. '1 '''-''',-,''4'' ' - '\,.A ,,,:lik. --, - '-'0.?!--,':11.1: ,V i
i;"..�..d". �..r..'.4e, . I� Iz5. 6.Ysti �;�va ,Y ,I. �1. �i -.4 ,;.B?�' '��-, e~� J �C Yam.. �:..�r�i�te
Groundwater Gage 1-(12/18/2020) Groundwater Gage 2- (12/18/2020)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Permanent Vegetation Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met(Y/N) Tract Mean(MY1-2020)
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y 67%
6 N
7 N 50%
8 Y
9 N
Mobile Vegetation Plot MY1 Success Criteria Met(Y/N)
1 N
2 N 0%
3 N

Table 9. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Report Prepared By Sara Thompson
Date Prepared 10/30/2020 14:00
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0_Deep Meadow(MYO).mdb
Database Location \\192.168.3.7\projects\ActiveProjects\005-02169 Alexander Farm\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1(2020)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name SARA2020
File Size 75223040
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 A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species(planted and natural volunteers combined)for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 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 10a.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
anent Vegetation Plot Data(MY1 2020,
Species
Scientific Name Common Name Permanent Plot 1 Permanent Plot 2 Permanent Plot 3 Permanent Plot 4 Permanent Plot 5
Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box elder Tree 2 2 3 2 2 2
Acer rubrum Red maple Tree 35
Betula nigra River birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus alba 1 White oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak Tree 5 5 5 6 6 6 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus phellos Willow oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Salix nigra Black willow Tree
Ulmus alata Winged elm Tree 1
Stem count 9 9 13 11 11 11 12 12 49 8 8 8 8 8 8
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
4 4 6 5 5 5 5 5 7 4 4 4 5 5 5
Stems per ACRE 364 364 526 445 445 445 486 486 1983 324 324 324 324 324 324
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data(MY1 2020)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Permanent Plot 6 Permanent Plot 7 Permanent Plot 8 Permanent Plot 9 MY1(2020)
Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box elder Tree 2 2 2 6 6 7
Acer rubrum Red maple Tree 35
Betula nigra River birch Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 15 15 15
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 8 8 10
Quercus alba 1 White oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 22 22
Quercus phellos Willow oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 17 17 17
Quercus rubra Northern Red oak Tree 2 2 2
Salix nigra Black willow Tree 20 20
Ulmus alata Winged elm Tree 1
Stem count 2 2 2 4 4 24 12 12 12 7 7 7 73 73 134
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 9
size(ACRES) 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.2224
Species count 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 7 7 12
Stems per ACRE 81 81 162 971 486 486 486 I283 283 283 328 328 603
'Prior to leaf out in MVO,the species were identified as Quercus sp. (unkown).
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS:Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10% P-all:Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T:Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

Table 10b.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Current M• - -•- • Plot( . '. . 0, 0. nual
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MP1 MP2 MP3 MY1(2020) MYO(2020)
PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Box elder Tree 1 1 2 6
Betula nigra River birch Tree 2 2 4 12
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 4
Quercus sp.(unkown)1 Oak species(unkown) Tree 4
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak Tree 3 1 3 7 8
Quercus phellos Willow oak Tree 1 1 1 3
Quercus rubra Northern Red oak Tree 2
Stem count 7 7 4 17 39
size(ares) 1 1 1 3 3
size(ACRES) 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0741 0.0741
Species count 4 4 2 5 7
Stems per ACRE 283 283 162 526
•vera i e•nnua v-
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY1(2020) MYO(2020)
PnoLS PnoLS
Acer negundo Box elder Tree 8 21
Acer rubrum Red maple Tree
Betula nigra River birch Tree 19 29
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 11 13
Quercus sp.(unkown)1 Oak species(unkown) Tree 11
Quercus alba 1 White oak Tree 3
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak Tree 29 41
Quercus phellos Willow oak Tree 18 31
Quercus rubra Northern Red oak Tree 2 4
Salix nigra Black willow Tree
Ulmus alata Winged elm Tree
Stem count 90 150
size(ares) 12 12
size(ACRES) 0.2965 0.2965
Species count 7 y7,.
Stems per ACRE 304 -AL
—
'Prior to leaf out in MYO,the species were identified as Quercus sp. (unkown).
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS:Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10% 111P-all:Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T:Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Pre-Restoration Condition Design M As-Built/Baseline -
Parameter Gage UT1 R1A UT1 RIB UT1 R4A UT1 R4B UT1 R1A UT1 RIB UT1 R4A UT1 R4B UT1 R1A UT1 RIB UT1 R4A UT1 R4B
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 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 14 11 18 25 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 0.7 0.6 0.8 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 N/A 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 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)
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) N/A 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 24 8 24 11 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(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 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 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%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
DaD35/D50/DS4/D95/dip/disp N/A 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/ SC/0.2/2.0/86.5/ SC/0.3/1.7/76.7/ SC/SC/0.7/75.9/
156.8/256.0 128.0/512.0 128.0/256.0 128.0/256.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft1
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Max part size(mm) mobilized at bankfull --- --- --
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m1
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 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 5.8 5.5 5.8 3.4 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.5 3.50 3.9
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- 23.0 31.0 54.6 40.1 12 20 32 40
Q-NFF regression(2-yr) N/A
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) 0.0340 0.0340 0.0080 0.0080 0.0362 0.0362 0.0093 0.0093 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 11b.Reference Reach Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
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 Walker Branch Box Creek
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft) 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 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(ft2) N/A 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)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- 0.025 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) N/A 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) --- 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 N/A --- --- --- --- 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%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 2.0/12.9/50.6/168.1 11.0/42.0/59.0/170.0 0.49/3.5/6.5/48.0/83.0 SC/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/ 2.9/9.2/15.0/56.0/ 0.6/12.2/27.8/74.5 4.1/11.0/22.0/
N/A /2048.0/>2048 /256.0 /128.0 8.0 88.0/256.0 /128.0/>2048 50.0/78.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM) 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) N/A
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 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 12. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R1A Cross-Section 1(Riffle) UT1 R1A Cross-Section 2(Pool) UT1 RIB Cross-Section 3(Pool) UT1 RIB Cross-Section 4(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Elevation) 976.6 976.6 976.2 976.3 945.7 945.5 945.3 945.6
Low Bank Elevation 976.6 976.6 976.2 976.3 945.7 945.5 945.3 945.2
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.6 6.6 7.0 8.0 8.3 7.1 7.9 6.4
Floodprone Width(ft)2 23.3 21.5 - - - - 25.2 18.8
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.9 0.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.9 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 2.7 2.8 8.2 8.5 11.7 8.4 5.5 2.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 15.6 6.0 7.6 5.9 6.1 11.4 14.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 3.5 3.2 - - - - 3.2 2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 - - - - 1.0 0.7
UT1 R4A Cross-Section 5(Pool) 1.11"-UT1 R4A Cross-Section 6(Riffle) T UT1 R4A Cross-Section 7(Pool illM UT1 R4A Cross-Section 8(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Elevation) 891.5 891.6 891.8 892.0 885.5 885.6 885.1 885.4
Low Bank Elevation 891.5 891.6 891.8 891.9 885.5 885.6 885.1 885.4
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.9 7.8 12.9 13.5 16.2 16.2 11.6 12.7
Floodprone Width(ft)2 - - 68.0 66.5 - - 64.2 62.6
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.2 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 12.9 8.6 10.6 8.4 15.7 14.2 12.0 11.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.2 7.1 15.8 21.5 16.7 18.5 11.3 13.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 - - 5.3 4.9 - - 5.5 4.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio - - 1.0 0.9 - - 1.0 1.0
I R4B Cross Section 9(Riff111.1. UT1 R4B Cross Section 10(Pool Ti R4B Cross-Section 11(Poo UT1 R4B Cross-Section
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation1 879.8 880.2 879.5 879.7 875.5 875.4 875.1 875.4
Low Bank Elevation 879.8 880.0 879.5 879.7 875.5 875.4 875.1 875.3
Bankfull Width(ft) 12.5 12.8 13.3 15.0 13.2 10.9 12.5 12.3
Floodprone Width(ft)2 82.5 80.9 - - - - 74.7 74.6
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.0 0.7 2.5 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.0 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.3 1.3 3.7 3.5 3.0 2.7 1.6 1.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 11.9 9.0 32.7 26.5 21.0 17.7 12.5 10.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.1 18.2 5.4 8.5 8.3 6.8 12.5 14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 6.6 6.3 - - - - 6.0 6.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 - - - - 1.0 0.9
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation) 873.3 873.6 873.2 873.6
Low Bank Elevation 873.3 873.6 873.2 873.5
Bankfull Width(ft) 13.0 16.6 11.4 12.6
Floodprone Width(ft)2 - - 75.2 74.0
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.6 2.7 1.5 1.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 18.0 18.4 12.6 11.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.4 15.0 10.3 13.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio3 - - 6.6 5.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio - - 1.0 1.0
1MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MVO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
2Floodprone width is calculated from the width of cross-section but valley width may extend further.
3ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters is based on the width of the cross-section,in lieu of assuming the width across the flood plain.

Table 13a.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R1A
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle'
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.6 6.6
Floodprone Width(ft) 23 22
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ftZ) 2.7 2.8
Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 15.6
Entrenchment Ratio 3.5 3.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 49.6
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.006 I 0.052
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 0.9 2.1
Pool Spacing(ft) 7.8 49.9
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A'
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A'
Rc/Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A'
Meander Length(ft) N/A'
Meander Width Ratio N/A'
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Daa/Dss/Dion 0.2/0.8/7.7/102.0/156.8/0.2/0.9/19.6/77.0/119.7/
256.0 256.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)lb/ft' ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.05
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 1%
Rosgen Classification B4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) ---
Bankfull Discharge(cfs)
Valley Slope(ft/ft) 0.0370
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 770
Sinuosity 1.02
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0370
'Pattern data is not applicable for A-type and B-type channels
ZMY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MVO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were
calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A:Not Applicable

Table 13b.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R1B
Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle`
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.9 6.4
Floodprone Width(ft) 25 19
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft) 5.5 2.8
Width/Depth Ratio 11.4 14.6
Entrenchment Ratio 3.2 2.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.7
Dso(mm) 65.3
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.002 I 0.063
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.2 2.4
Pool Spacing(ft) 7.8 49.7
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) N/A
Radius of Curvature(ft) N/A
Rc/Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A
Meander Length(ft) N/A
Meander Width Ratio N/A
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Die/Des/Dso/Daa/Dss/Dion SC/0.2/2.0/86.5/128.0/ 0.5/0.9/18.6/57.2/105.0
512.0 /128.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.11
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 0
Rosgen Classification B4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) ---
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) ---
Valley Slope(ft/ft) 0.0370
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 957
Sinuosity 0.96
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0375
'MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MVO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13c.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R4A
-1111
Min I Max Min I Max Min Max Min I Max Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle`
Bankfull Width(ft) 11.6 12.9 12.7 13.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 64 68 63 67
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(fe) 10.6 12.0 8.4 11.6
Width/Depth Ratio 11.3 15.8 13.9 21.5
Entrenchment Ratio 5.3 5.5 4.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 I 1.0
Dsu(mm) 59.4 71.0
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.001 I 0.037
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.9 2.8
Pool Spacing(ft) 28.0 97.5
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 23.0 92.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) 23.0 35.0
Rc/Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 2.0 3.0
Meander Length(ft) 58.0 161.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.0 8.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dir✓D35/D50/Daa/Dvs/D100 SC/0.3/1.7/76.7/128.0/ SC/0.3/1.0/93.2/146.7/
256.0 256.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.29
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 1%
Rosgen Classification C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) ---
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) ---
Valley Slope(ft/ft) 0.0130
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1,172
Sinuosity 1.23
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0088
"MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13d.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 R4B
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) 11.4 12.5 12.3 12.8
Floodprone Width(ft) 75 83 74 81
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ftz) 11.9 12.6 9.0 11.3
Width/Depth Ratio 10.3 13.1 13.9 18.2
Entrenchment Ratio 6.0 6.6 5.9 6.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 0.9 1.0
Dso(mm) 55.6 69.1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft)
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.004 I 0.021
Pool Length(ft)
Pool Max Depth(ft) 1.8 3.9
Pool Spacing(ft) 47.2 115.3
Pool Volume(ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 24.0 96.0
Radius of Curvature(ft) 24.0 36.0
Rc/Bankfull Width(ft/ft) 2.0 3.0
Meander Length(ft) 60.0 168.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.0 8.0
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dir✓D3s/D50/Daa/Dss/D100 SC/SC/0.7/75.9/128.0/SC/0.2/0.9/67.5/87.9/2
256.0 56.0
Reach Shear Stress(Competency)Ib/ftz ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull ---
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.40
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) 1%
Rosgen Classification C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) ---
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) ---
Valley Slope(ft/ft) 0.0130
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 1,666
Sinuosity 1.15
Bankfull/Channel Slope(ft/ft) 0.0085
rMY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC:Silt/Clay<0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 1-UT1 Reach 1A
103+29 Riffle
979 —
_....7
977
. ________ _.............Nsisbo,, 4,-
o �/
m
w
975
0 10 20 30
Width(ft)
MYO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions •
4,.., , a
2.8 x section area(ft.sq.) ,' ,, t x ., .:
6.6 width (ft) a ,., � xt .
0.4 mean depth(ft) �, c� .
0.9 max depth (ft) � d :w� � ° ' `_ .
7.0 wetted perimeter(ft) - n / r '� ,
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) � "� �~ ` , � ;
15.6 width-depth ratio ; , �'
21.5 W flood prone area(ft) � =j� ��
3.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio � "
d 'w v b°" •'i %''4'1*-1• • -�
Survey Date: 12/2020y � +x 4� � t
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering ,:.r! � ��
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 2-UT1 Reach 1A
103+37 Pool
978
c
0
> 976
v
w
974I
0 10 20 30
Width(ft)
— MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions 4,,,,," �� sus
8.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) a z fr � :
8.0 width(ft) ' 4 `'.
1.1 mean depth (ft) -, x # t.e x y a t
2.0 max depth(ft) �M} t+�?+ ."�z`'-1t�`-v a�'* r '� �� ky. a� E �.
9.8 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft) '` '� ., '`� ~" �' '
7.6 width-depth ratio ter. _
c;r s ail,
p/
Survey Date: 12/2020 r' }E y „' 1�{ A�r 'i
_ �l •' .-A,it:- .R, •',,: -
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering d i ',
,: tir. "t
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 3-UT1 Reach 1B
201+41 Pool
949 1
,ram
947
v
"' 945
943
0 10 20 30
Width(ft)
— MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) k �•�?�
7.1 width(ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth(ft)
8.4 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft) .... .j r
6.1 width-depth ratio
1 Y
Survey Date: 12/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 4-UT1 Reach 1B
201+61 Riffle
948 —
c 946 —
0
io
v
w
944
0 10 20 30
Width(ft)
MY0(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MVO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions -� F� '4,: 'r
2.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) a4 �`t +'
6.4 width(ft) ��` 4u „Ifr k," 4'
0.4 mean depth (ft) o4. 0 ,ni,i 1� �"` 3+ �'cx F M a it ,� � �° e`� l% .fir+ dt'
.a r �r
0.8 max depth(ft) 0 '.� � � * � - "fie�" 4'� " � � ��Y
6.7 wetted perimeter(ft) ' -` ��' ••s,` . "� . x .
0.4 hydraulic radius(ft) � � � " � � '�
14.6 width-depth ratio = "*, -- k l t�? f
18.8 W flood prone area(ft) i rh r£
2.9 entrenchment ratio ' "• ��-
0.7 low bank height ratio -a., �x` `, ' 4 "` h 5
Survey Date: 12/2020 ry -1 t � i l + 1
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering "� m �j
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
A Farm lexanderect No.100048 Mitigation Site
DMS Proj
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 5-UT1 Reach 4A
201+41 Pool •
894
892 —-
c
0
ci.) 890 -
888
10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
- MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions � z � � ,' ' d� x
8.6 x section area (ft.sq.) -
7.8 width(ft) , ,
1.1 mean depth (ft) 1� a„� �,,..-
2.0 max depth(ft)
9.4 wetted perimeter(ft) $
0.9 hydraulic radius.(ft) ' ' „ - ',
7.1 width depth rato �� es„
�� w +
ix r d {4,, r ? '
f'� ` ,, _-
SurveyDate: 12/2020 ���i`" �'(`j�R, 'a` ,
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering a' .f,q.,. ' j � ;
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 6-UT1 Reach 4A
201+61 Riffle
894 —
s -•........• • • 7
c 892
0
03
v
w
890
20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
MYO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull — — —Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.5 width(ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth(ft)
13.9 wetted perimeter(ft) i
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft) . ,
21.5 width-depth ratio
•
66.5 W flood prone area(ft) �
4.9 entrenchment ratio" t '�: ��
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020 f'�
v,
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 7-UT1 Reach 4A
201+41 Pool
888
886
w 884
882
20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
— MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions . 1,,4 ' ) _ f ' j3s-
14.2 x-section area (ft.sq.) ;
16.2 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth(ft)
17.7 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) t
18.5 width-depth ratio d '
-
Survey Date: 12/2020 V:
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering •
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 8-UT1 Reach 4A
201+61 Riffle
887 —
0
885 -
v
w
883
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
MYO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
11.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.7 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth(ft)
13.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.9 width-depth ratio
62.6 W flood prone area(ft)
4.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
1 c
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 9-UT1 Reach 4B
201+61 Riffle
882
c 880 - - - - - - — — — — — - - - -
0
v
w
878
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
MYO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull — — —Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) '
12.8 width(ft) f � "
0.7 mean depth (ft) �' .4,
1.3 max depth(ft) ,:
13.1 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius ft
18.2 width-depth ratio
80.9 W flood prone area(ft)
6.3 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020 ,
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 10-UT1 Reach 4B
201+41 Pool
882
880 - • _•• J�
c 878 -
0
876 -
874
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
g
26.5 x-section area(ft.sq.)
15.0 width(ft)
1.8 mean depth (ft)
3.5 max depth(ft)
17.5 wetted perimeter(ft) .
1.5 hydraulic radius(ft) :.
8.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 11-UT1 Reach 4B
201+41 Pool
878
•
876
>
a' 874
872
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
— MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions "
4\ ;
17.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9 width(ft) °
1.6 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth(ft) .
14.1 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius(ft)
6.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 12-UT1 Reach 4B
201+61 Riffle
877 -
875 /o
873 -,
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
MVO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MVO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2 x section area (ft.sq.) 4,-.-4n,e;r ,.`* . . .', y.
12.3 width(ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft) "' 6 G ¢�'' ,67
if
1.5 max depth(ft) ha Y`rM �P� ys�t ^ -.- � � z ; x
13.0 wetted perimeter(ft) t�� 5,f�,, 1 ' �'
39 ` `
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) fiS �, y
14.8 width depth ratio “- t r; ,�� �1 r
74.6 W flood prone area(ft) p
6.1 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratiof rit
Survey Date: 12/2020 n
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 13-UT1 Reach 4B
201+41 Pool
876
874 -
l''' '
0
co
w 872
870 �
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
MYO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions �1 � � �•°•� , - " ��f'
1,'ice ,'" h z : ''r
18.4 x section area (ft.sq.) i�. �� �'
16.6 width(ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft) _
2.7 max depth(ft)
18.0 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft)
15.0 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Cross-Section 14-UT1 Reach 4B
201+61 Riffle
877
875
w 873
871
20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
MYO(05/2020) MY1(12/2020) Bankfull Bankfull(Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
11.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) �)
12.6 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft) 4 � ass Ms f � yts ex
1.6 max depth(ft)
13.2 wetted perimeter(ft) "'` ','
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
13.9 width-depth ratio
74.0 W flood prone area(ft)
5.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2020 ='`'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 1A,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1 Reach 1A,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 8 8 8 8 100 * I I I • ~s • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 4 4 12 90 Silt/Clay Sard
Gravel �l
Fine 0.125 0.250 6 6 6 18 80Cobblel Boulder n Bedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 12 12 12 30 )4
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 6 6 6 36 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 36 (;) 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 36 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 36 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 37 /
Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 4 41 w 30 /�
1.2
Jp Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 4 45 a 20
e Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 1 46 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 6 6 53 0
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7 7 60 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 9 9 69 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 7 7 7 76 -MY0-04/2020 MY1-12/2020
Small 64 90 15 15 15 91
0,, Small 90 128 5 5 5 96
e Large 128 180 3 3 3 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100 UT1 Reach 1A,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100
100
90
Medium 5125 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 50 49 99 100 100 w 60
0
r, 50
Reachwide f0
V 40
Channel materials(mm)
m 30
D16= 0.2 v
D35= 0.9 c 20
D50= 19.6 10
D95= 119.7 �co'L 4-,o.LS ,5 '. '1, ,ti4 b 49 W ,y1 ,,,(0 1,,L<9 ,b1, by (4? 0O 41, ��O 156 ,,,(,,'1,4,,,,,1O,LD�0�,bo�6
o. o
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-04/2020 MY1-12/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 1B,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1 Reach 1B,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3 3 100 E ^T� N ••-• • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 90 Silt/Clay k Sand }4( �<„
Gravel y�
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 4 80 Cobble Boulder n Bedrock�
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 13 13 13 17
Coarse 0.5 1.0 20 20 20 37 -..-9,
70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 2 39 (;) 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 39 g 50 C
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 40 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 41 f
30 /
Fine 5.6 8.0 41 u
Jp Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 1 42 a 20
e Medium 11.0 16.0 4 1 5 5 47 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 6 2 8 8 54 0 •—• I
Coarse 22.6 32 6 3 9 9 63 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 3 12 12 75 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 12 1 13 13 88 —MY0-04/2020 MY1-12/2020
Small 64 90 3 3 3 91
0,, Small 90 128 9 9 9 100
Lob Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 100 UT1 Reach 1B,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100
100
90
Medium 5125 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 50 51 101 100 100 w 60
a
r, 50
Reachwide f0
V 40
Channel materials(mm)
m 30
D16= 0.5 v
D3s= 0.9 B 20 I
Dso= 18.6 10 I L 11 I _ _ I il L 1 ■
D84= 57.2 0
D95= 105.0 <0ti yti5 oy5 O'7 '. '1, ,tib b 49 cb ,yy ,y<o 1,,L<9 ,,'L by (4? cO 1.L'b ��O 156 ,�'L 4,,y'L1O,LD�0�,bo�6
O, O
D1oo= 128.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-04/2020 MY1-12/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 4A,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1 Reach 4A,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 17 19 19 19 100 ..,(— —),Le^ -.• •• �• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 2 2 2 21 90 Silt/Clay ffard
i
vel /
Fine 0.125 0.250 13 13 13 34 80 Cobble ���Icer n Bedrock
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 13 13 13 47
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 3 3 50 e 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 2 52 i 60
.........7"... .id ........
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 52 3 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 52 L 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 52
Fine 5.6 8.0 52
w 30
Jp Medium 8.0 11.0 52 a 20 .---
e Medium 11.0 16.0 1 1 1 53 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 1 1 1 54 0
Coarse 22.6 32 54 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 3 3 3 57 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 10 10 10 67 —MYO-04/2020 —6—MY1-12/2020
Small 64 90 16 16 16 83
0' Small 90 128 10 10 10 93
Lob Large 128 180 5 5 5 98
Large 180 256 2 2 2 100 UT1 Reach 4A,Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Small 256 362 100 100
Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
50
Reachwide f0
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 0.3 c 20
I
D5,= 1.0 10
Dsa= 93.2 0 • J . . • _ ._ • 1 ' •
D95= 146.7 �co'L 4-,o.LS ,5 '. '1, ,ti4 b hcp W ,y1 ,y(o,,L� ,bl, by ,ob 0O 1,L'b ��O 156 ��ti 4,y'L 1O,Lb�Ob,bo�6
o. o
D1ao= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-04/2020 •MY1-12/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
UT1 Reach 4B,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1 Reach 4B,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 18 20 20 20 100 I I I • • •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 10 10 10 30 90 Silt/Clay * yard �
Gravel y.
Fine 0.125 0.250 10 10 10 40 80 Cobble Boulder Bedrock_
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 1 5 6 6 46
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 4 4 4 51 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 1 3 3 54 (;) 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 54 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 54 m 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 1 55 u
w 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 2 57 u
Jp Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 59 a 20
e Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2 2 61 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 4 4 65 0
Coarse 22.6 32 4 4 4 69 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 6 1 7 7 76 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 6 82 —MY0-04/2020 MY1-12/2020
Small 64 90 14 14 14 96
0,' Small 90 128 2 2 2 98
e Large 128 180 98
Large 180 256 2 2 2 100 UT1 Reach 4B,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
Small 362 512 100
100
90
Medium 5125 1024 100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 50 49 99 100 100 w 60
0
50
Reachwide f0
V 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 0.2 c 20
D50= 0.9 10
Dsa= 67.5 0 • ' • ., _ .. L J,I ILL,.
D95= 87.9 �co'L yti5 o.LS ,5 '. '1, ,ti4 b 49 W ,y1 ,y(o 1,,L<9 ,b1, by ,ob cO 1,L'b ��O 156 ��ti 4,,,L1O.Lb�Ob,bo�6
o. o
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO-04/2020 MY1-12/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14.Verification of Bankfull Events
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Reach MY Date of Occurrence Date of Data Collection Method
UT1-1A MY1 11/12/2020 11/12/2020 Crest Gage

Recorded Bankfull Events
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Alexander Farm:Crest Gage#1
Monitoring Year 1-2020
978 4.0
- 3.5
977 3.0
I A c
a 976 I1 I. .I. I 1 t'l 2.0 m
ii c
- 1.s IX
975 1.0
11
974 I I I I • I -1• +I • 1.1 .411I ILI "1- JI III - I 0.0
c n a c toa +-' >
u Q S ¢ va O Z p
Rainfall —Crest Gage fi1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • •Bankfull

Groundwater Gage Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Wetland E on UT1 RIB
Alexander Farm Groundwater Gage#1 0
o Monitoring Year 1-2020 0
a
QJ RI
Installation Date m N
20 3 0 - 05/01/20 186 days .3 4 6.0
ZI
o . • ° i
C7 -1
10 0 v — o
w
o v 5.0
c
w
111
0 - Vn
4.0
-10
3 -20 3.0 0
m c
.,
m s
-30
- 2.0
40
1.0
50
-60 I I I I I I I . el .1l . III I. I►I I i all 1 1 1 �I I 0.0
C _a i T C tl0 C. +' > U
rtili Q ' -n n QJ
[) 0Q V7 Z
Rainfall Gage#1 — — Criteria Level 0 Manual Water Level Measurement

Groundwater Gage Plots
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Wetland N on UT1 R4A
Alexander Farm Groundwater Gage#2 0
o Monitoring Year 1-2020 v
U V, O
VI Installation Date c o
20 - 3 0 05/28/20 159 days o \ 6.0
o — • • 0
vI
10 - c7 � o
0
5.0
wd'�M�'17.44
0 n
4.0
s -10
w -
3 -20 3.0 m
c
m U
m s
-30
- 2.0
-40 -
- 1.0
-50 I
-60 I I I I J I I . .I .1 I ,II III. ii I L ' .J, I III 0.0
C _. i T C be C. > U
U U O- N 7 Ul U O N
w a a 0 O Z 0
Rainfall Gage#2 — — Criteria Level 0 Manual Water Level Measurment

Monthly Rainfall Data
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100048
Monitoring Year 1-2020
Alexander Farm 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
10
9
8
7
c 6
m 5
A:
4
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
USGS 354616081085145 RAINGAGE AT OXFORD RS NR CLAREMONT,NC -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
Annual Rainfall collected by USGS 354616081085145 RAINGAGE AT OXFORD RS NR CLAREMONT,NC
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Statesville 2 NNE,NC

APPENDIX 6. Response to IRT Comments

‘‘/
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
November 12, 2020
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
[e-mail]
Subject: IRT Review Comments: 15-Day Record Drawing Review
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site, Alexander County
Yadkin River Basin—HUC 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100048/ DEQ Contract#007416
Dear Ms. Browning:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the 15-Day Record Drawing review comments from
the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) and subsequent email from Paul Wiesner at the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) in regard to the Alexander Farm Mitigation Site. The first set of comments
outlined below have been paraphrased from an email that Wildlands received on 10/22/2020 from Paul
Wiesner at DMS and references a brief discussion with Kim Browning at the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) about the 15-day Record Drawing review comments, which were received earlier in the day on
10/22/2020. The next set of comments are the actual 15-day Record Drawing review comments received
from the IRT. All comments are noted below in Bold. Wildlands' responses to all comments are noted
below in italics.
Email received from NCDMS on 10/22/2020
NCDMS, PAUL WIESNER
DMS Comment: Do not reduce the mitigation credit in future monitoring reports or in the DMS credit
ledger for Alexander Farm. However, please provide a better detailed explanation of the difference in
length(36 feet).
Wildlands response:As requested, Wildlands will not adjust the mitigation credit table in future Alexander
Farm monitoring reports to address the loss of 36 linear feet(LF) of stream at baseline conditions versus
the proposed design lengths that were specified in the mitigation plan. In addition, Wildlands'has included
a better detailed explanation for the difference in length and is outlined below.
• UT1 Reach 1B:
o An alignment change from Station 116+50—117+44, which softened the meander pattern
just upstream of the culverted crossing, was conducted to improve bank stability and
reduce hydraulic stress on the channel. This resulted in a loss of 12 linear feet(LF) in as-
built length from the design length.
• UT1 Reach 2:
o An alignment change from Station 117+80 to 118+35, which softened the meander
pattern just downstream of the culverted crossing, was conducted to improve bank
stability and reduce hydraulic stress on the channel. This resulted in a loss of 5 LF in as-
built length from the design length.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
o An alignment change from Station 120+27 to 120+84, which softened the meander
pattern and shifted the channel alignment away from the existing right top of bank, was
conducted to improve bank stability, reduce hydraulic stress on the channel, and save
existing mature trees at the right top of bank. This resulted in a gain of 2 LF in as-built
length from the design length.
o The mitigation planset listed the end stationing on the reach at 130+50;however, this was
incorrect. The end stationing should have been noted at the easement break which was
Station 130+46. This accounted for a loss of 4 LF.
o The total net loss on UT1 Reach 2 at as-built was 7 LF.
• UT1 Reach 3
o The mitigation planset listed the begin stationing on the reach at 131+10; however, this
was incorrect. The begin stationing should have been noted at the easement break, which
was Station 131+27. This accounted for a loss of 17 LF in as-built length from the design
length.
DMS Comment: Please make sure to that all future MYO reports have a detailed explanation when
mitigation plan lengths do not match as-built lengths. Project credits established in the IRT approved
mitigation plan are the project credits at MYO unless there are significant deviations during
construction. Any upward or downward credit changes requires a mitigation plan addendum.
Wildlands response: Wildlands acknowledges this comment and will heed this request to provide a more
detailed explanation when there are differences between mitigation plan lengths and as-built record
drawing lengths. In addition, we understand that significant changes made during construction will
require credit changes and a mitigation plan addendum.
DMS Comment: Please do not provide any mitigation credit assessments as footnotes of the MYO asset
table. Please remove that from the Alexander MY1 report. Again, the project credits are established
at the IRT approved mitigation plan stage.
Wildlands response: The mitigation credit assessment footnote will not be included as part of the MY1
asset report table, nor any subsequent monitoring reports.
15-Day Record Drawing Review Comments (10/22/2020)
USACE, KIM BROWNING
USACE comment: The proposed and As-Built mitigation plan assets are consistent (4,258.100 SMUs),
but the approved mitigation plan length and the As-Built lengths differ (6,555 LF vs 6,519 LF). The As-
Built credits should be adjusted to reflect the actual amount built unless the difference is from areas
that were not for credit. Please verify.
Wildlands response:Per the email received from Paul Wiesner at DMS on 10/22/2020, this comment is no
longer an issue. Please see the first two comment responses listed under the "Email received from NC DMS
10/22/2020"for the updated comment request.
NC DWR, ERIN DAVIS
DWR comment: Rock was added at 13 locations within the project. A few questions:
a) Were other stabilization options considered prior to deciding to harden these areas?
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
b) Was placement of rock within existing wetlands accounted for as permanent impacts in the
submitted PCN? Rock placed near stations 112+00, 113+00, 115+00, 144+50, and 166+50 appear
to overlap the wetland polygons on the redline drawings.
Wildlands response:
a) Each of the areas where rock was added exhibited significant potential for erosion due to
concentrated overland flow. Wildlands considered three options at these and other locations: do
nothing, regrade a new swale connection, or add stone protection. Several locations were left alone
due to low risk. Regrading was not an option for most locations due to topography and impact to trees.
b) Most of the rock placement that overlapped into the wetland areas were included in the permanent
wetland impacts for the project, but not all. Approximately 0.005 acres were only permitted as
temporary impacts, while 0.0003 acres were inadvertently omitted in the permitted wetland acreage.
This error was oversight and was not done intentionally. The placement of stone protection within the
wetland outlet boundaries were conducted as field calls by the engineer because field conditions during
construction determined that the areas were at high risk for erosion and assumed that the areas were
included as part of the permitted allowances since they were within the limits of disturbance. Wildlands
acknowledges to do a better job in the future at assessing these type of site condition issues during the
design phase and communicating the potential for field changes, so that these areas are included as
part of the permanent impacts, in case there is a need for additional stability measures and/or design
changes during construction.
DWR comment: DWR requests an additional photo point near Station 118+00 focusing on the culvert
crossing connection.
Wildlands response:A photo point will be added upstream and downstream of the internal culvert crossing
near Station 118+00. The photo point will collect both an upstream and a downstream viewpoint and will
be included in the MY1 and subsequent monitoring reports.
DWR comment: DWR appreciates the bulleted descriptions of field changes included in the baseline
report. We would request that a few more words be added to changes"due to site/field conditions"
in order to provide context.
Wildlands response:As requested, Wildlands'will provide additional context to field change descriptions
in future baseline reports.
DWR comment: In future baseline reports, please note if monitoring locations have changed from
locations shown in the approved mitigation plan monitoring figure (this isn't meant to include shift of
a few feet in the field).The IRT regularly comment on gauge and plot locations during the draft
mitigation plan review and need to be aware of changes in order to compare documents.
Wildlands response: As requested, Wildlands'will note changes in monitoring locations in future
baseline reports when their established locations differ significantly from those in the approved
mitigation plan.
EPA, TODD BOWERS
EPA comment: Excellent spread of photos highlighting stream structures,veg plots and gauges. I would
recommend adding photos of culverts at the cattle crossing easement break and at the road.
Wildlands response: Thank you for the kind remark. As requested, Wildlands' has added a photo point
upstream and downstream of the internal cattle crossing near Station 118+00 and upstream and
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
downstream of the Elk Shoals Church Road crossing. These photos will capture both an upstream and a
downstream viewpoint and will be included in the MY1 and subsequent monitoring reports.
EPA comment: Recommend identifying the unknown oak species as Quercus alba as it is the only
other oak species that was planted especially since they were just planted. I hope this gets rectified in
the MY1 report.
Wildlands response: Wildlands'acknowledges that the unknown oak species is likely Quercus alba and
will make sure to correctly identify the planted stem in the MY1 report.
EPA comment: Recommend adding a beaver contingency to the Adaptive Management plan in Section
4.1.
Wildlands response: The monitoring of nuisance beaver activity and the potential removal of beavers
and their dams is included through project close-out as part of Wildlands'adaptive management
measures listed in Section 4.1 for the stream maintenance component.
EPA comment: Late planting date (April 17, 2020) is noted and that the earliest date of MY1
monitoring will be October 17, 2020. (approximately 180-days post planting)
Wildlands response: Wildlands acknowledges that the 180-day post planting requirement for monitoring
did not expire until October 17, 2020 and made sure to wait until after that date to collect data for MY1.
EPA comment: Species change noted in planting plan. No concerns with substitutions.
Wildlands response: Thank you for confirming that the planted species substitutions are acceptable.
EPA comment: Recommend adding wetland indicator status to planting plans for vernal pools planting
zone.
Wildlands response: Wildlands acknowledges this request and will include the wetland indicator status
for planted vernal pool species in the record drawings of future baseline monitoring reports.
EPA comment: 2.0 credit ratio for restoration work on Reaches 1A and 18 noted; due to contracted
credit requirement.
Wildlands response: Wildlands'acknowledges the comment. No response is needed.
As requested, Wildlands has responded in this attached letter to the IRT's comments via email. In
addition, Wildlands would like to thank the IRT with taking the time to provide these thoughtful
comments, which will help us to continue to improve the quality of our mitigation deliverables.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

APPENDIX 7. Response to DMS Comments

°IliPi*
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
September 24, 2020
Mr. Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Task 6—Final As-built Baseline Monitoring Report
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site, Alexander County
Yadkin River Basin—HUC 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100048/ DEQ Contract#007416
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft As-built Baseline Monitoring report for the Alexander Farm Mitigation Site. The report has
been updated to reflect those comments. The Final As-built Baseline Monitoring Document and Record
Drawings are included. Wildlands' responses to DMS' report comments are noted below in italics.
DMS comment: Please list the DWR#on the report cover page.
Wildlands response: The DWR#is now included on the report cover page.
DMS comment: Section 5.0 (As-Built Condition) indicates site construction and as built surveys were
completed in April and May 2020. What dates were stream morphology data collected, and when was
the site planted? Please be aware that at least 180 days must separate MYO/Baseline versus MY1 data.
Wildlands response:As requested, specific dates for site planting and morphological and vegetative data
collection were included in Section 5.0. Wildlands acknowledges that 180 days must separate MY0 versus
MY1 data; therefore, MY1 data collection will commence in mid- to late-fall, and delivery of the MY1
report will be delayed until December 31st to account for this requirement.
DMS comment: Spelling typo- page 1-8 (Reach 3"beings"should be"begins").
Wildlands response: The spelling typo found on page 1-8 has now been corrected.
DMS comment:Table 1 (Assets)
• Mitigation Category entries (non-BMP) should be"warm", not"SMU";
• Please add a credits column to the right of the As-Built Footage/Acreage column.Credits should
be calculated out to three decimals;
• Delete footnotes 4 and 5;credit ratio proposals are not needed here since they were established
in the approved mitigation plan and have not changed.
Wildlands response: Table 1 (Assets)
• Mitigation Category entries found in Table 1 have now been changed to "Warm"for all non-BMP
areas.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

bUE11441°11/.
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
• The Project Credits column has now been added to Table 1, and the credits are calculated out to
the third decimal per request.
• As directed,footnotes related to approved credit ratios that were established in the mitigation
plan have been removed from Table 1 (Assets).
DMS comment:Table 2(Project Activity)
• Please break out baseline data collection dates into stream and vegetation (related to
previous comment).
Wildlands response: Table 2(Project Activity)
• As requested, the baseline data collection dates have been broken out into stream and vegetation
collection activities.
DMS comment: Some of the long-pro graph dates indicate April 2018 as the collection date. Please
correct this apparent error or clarify.
Wildlands response: The long-pro graph dates have been corrected to May 2020, the month the data was
collected.
DMS comment: Please provide a PLS-sealed as-built survey for the project. DMS and the IRT require 3
separate deliverables. Deliverable 1 is the as-built survey of the constructed channel/wetland sealed
by a PLS; deliverable 2 is the'redline' record drawings sealed by a PE, and deliverable 3 is the baseline
or MVO data used for monitoring. You have submitted deliverables 2 and 3 but not#1.
Wildlands response: As directed, the PLS has signed and sealed the as-built survey certification block on
the title sheet of the record drawings as required for Deliverable 1.
DMS comment:The following features have feature lengths that do not match the lengths reported in
the asset table outlined below as reported length vs.feature length. Please resubmit these features
ensuring that the feature lengths match the reported lengths.
• UT1 R1B: 981 ft vs. 968 ft
• UT1 R3: 701 ft vs. 713 ft
Wildlands response: As requested, the conflicting lengths between the GIS features and the asset table
have been reviewed and corrected. Modifications and/or corrections made are described below as it
relates to the reach referenced.
• UT1 R18:981 ft vs. 968 ft—Neither length is correct. The actual as-built length is 957-ft. The GIS
features did correctly reflect this footage;however, the naming convention used for the
"ReachName"attribute field was ill-defined and the feature class included additional line
features that should not have been included as part of the as-built deliverable. The as-built
geodatabase has been updated so that the "ReachName"attribute for UT1 R18 is listed as "UT1
R18"and the extraneous line features have been removed from the database. As for the asset
table, the referenced 981 ft was incorrectly recorded. The alignment deviation length was
incorrectly calculated and led to this inaccuracy. The asset table and the corresponding notation
have been corrected.
• UT1 R3: 701 ft vs. 713 ft—As stated in the asset table, the correct length is 701 ft. The GIS
features did correctly reflect this footage;however, as stated above, the naming convention used
for the "ReachName"attribute field was ill-defined and the feature class included additional line
features that should not have been included as part of the as-built deliverable. The as-built
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

bU41111/41111Pf
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
geodatabase has been updated so that the "ReachName"attribute for UT1 R3 is listed as "UT1
R3"and the extraneous line features have been removed from the database.
As requested, Wildlands has included two hard copies of the Final Alexander Farm Mitigation Site As-
built Baseline Monitoring Report, as well as a CD with a PDF of the report, a PDF of our written
responses to comments, and all digital support files in the correct file structure. Additionally, a copy of
our response letter has been included inside the front cover of each hard copy report.
Sincerely,
lG �ys
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203