20180786 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2021_20210429

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20180786 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 04/29/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal -4/29/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream 17 Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180786 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
County: Chatham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation As-Built Plans
File Upload: SandyBranch_100060_MY0_2021.pdf 9.61 MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

V n
is, a
BASELINE MONITORING SANDY BRANCH MITIGATION SITE
Chatham County, NC
DOCUMENT AND AS-BUILT NCDEQ Contract No. 7527
BASELINE REPORT DMS Project Number 100060
FINAL USACE Action ID Number SAW-2018-01167
NCDWR Project Number 2018-0786
Data Collection Period: September 2020 -January
2021
Draft Submission Date: March 22, 2021
Final Submission Date: April 27, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
1 °
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

W 1LDLANDS
Ll
April 27, 2021
Jeremiah Dow
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
RE: As-Built Baseline Report Sandy Branch Mitigation Site, DMS ID# 100060
Cape Fear River Basin—CU#03030003
Chatham County, North Carolina
Contract No. 7527
Dear Mr. Dow,
We have reviewed the comments on the As-Built Baseline Report for the above referenced project
dated April 5, 2021 and have revised the report based on these comments.The revised documents are
submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your convenience,the
comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
As-built Baseline Report
1.Appendix 4: Morphological Summary Data and Plots
a. Please verify data in Table 7a (i.e., W/D ratio for MYO is listed as 1.0).
The W/D ratio for MYO in Table 7a was corrected to 13.9.
2. Appendix 5: Record Drawings
a. Please add DWR number and DMS Contract number to Title Sheet.
DWR number and DMS contract number were added to Title Sheet.
b. Sheet 0.3: Under the As-Built features, the As-Built 5' Major Contour has 1' intervals in the
plan sheets. Recommend removing 5' or 1' contour line from drawings, or fixing the 5' contour
lines.
Contour lines were updated in the drawings.
c. Sheet 1.08: Please consistently label features. For example, MW5 & MW6 on Sheet 1.08
should be GWGS and GWG6.
Feature names were changed to be consistent throughout all plan sheets.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

1111*
WILDLANDS
LNGINEERING
d. Please depict the Limits of Disturbance on all Plan and Profile sheets.
Limits of Disturbance were added to all Plan and Profile sheets.
e. It is very difficult to discern between design top of bank and as-built top of bank. Please
change the graphic depiction or color of these to make them more visible or provide higher
resolution as-built/record drawing sheets.
The graphic depiction was altered to create more contrast between the design top of bank and
the as-built top of bank.
3. Digital Files
a. Please submit structure features as points.
All structure features have been submitted as points.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone], or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

PREPARED BY:
te/
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Sandy Branch
Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS)to restore a stream and wetland complex within Chatham County, NC.The Sandy Branch
Mitigation site utilizes stream restoration, wetland re-establishment, and wetland rehabilitation
approaches.The project streams total 3,286 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams. Wetland re-
establishment and rehabilitation total 8.540 acres.The Site will generate 3,286.000 stream credits and
7.267 wetland credits. All stream lengths were measured along the stream centerline for stream credit
calculations.
The Site is located approximately seven miles southeast of Siler City, NC (Figure 1) in the Cape Fear River
Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003.The Site is located within the DMS Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW)for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)03030003070050 (Bear
Creek TLW) and the NC DWR Subbasin 03-06-12.The Sandy Branch Mitigation Site is one of the projects
identified in the Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan as a priority for stream and wetland
restoration. Sandy Branch and two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) are located on the Site.The
downstream drainage area of the Site is 463 acres.The Site contains tributaries to Bear Creek,which
flows into the Rocky River and eventually the Deep River.The 18.10-acre Site is protected with a
permanent conservation easement.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019)were completed with
consideration of goals and objectives described in the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) plan.The project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands;
• Restore wetland hydrology, soils, and plant communities;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful land uses.
The project will contribute to achieving the goals for the watershed listed in the Cape Fear RBRP and
provide ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While benefits such as habitat
improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, others, such as reduced pollutant and
sediment loading, have farther reaching effects.
Site construction was completed in September 2020, and planting was completed in January 2021. As-
built surveys were conducted between September 2020 and January 2021. No major adjustments were
made during construction. Baseline (MVO) profiles and cross-section dimensions closely match the
design parameters. Cross-section widths and pool depths occasionally deviate from the design
parameters but fall within a normal range of variability for natural streams.The Site has been built as
designed and is expected to meet the upcoming monitoring year's performance criteria.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL

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

Table 1: Mitigation Goals and Objectives—Sandy Branch Mitigation Site 1-1
Table 2: Restoration Type and Approach Per Reach —Sandy Branch Mitigation Site 1-3
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Monitoring Plan View
Stream Photographs
Groundwater Well Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6a Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 6b Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 7a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 8 Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters—Cross-Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross-Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 As-Built and Record Drawings
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL iii

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Sandy Branch Mitigation Site (Site) is located in central Chatham County, approximately seven miles
southeast of Siler City, NC (Figure 1). From Raleigh, NC, take 1-40 W then take US-1 S towards Sanford. In
31.5 miles take exit 70B from US-421 N toward Siler City/Greensboro. Follow US-421 for 14.5 miles and
then turn left onto Elmer Moore Rd.The project will be on your left in 0.1 miles.A conservation
easement was recorded on 18.10 acres of the Site.The Site contains tributaries to Bear Creek, which
flows into the Rocky River, and eventually the Deep River.The Site is located approximately 2.75 miles
upstream of the Bear Creek (Chatham) Aquatic Habitat, a Significant Natural Heritage Area that is
located at the confluence of Bear Creek and Sandy Branch.The Site is located within the DMS Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030003070050
(Bear Creek TLW) and the NC DWR Subbasin 03-06-12.The Sandy Branch Mitigation Site is one of the
projects identified in the Upper Rocky River Local Watershed Plan as a priority for stream and wetland
restoration.The 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities' (RBRP) Cataloging Unit (CU)-wide
functional objectives as well as the TLW goals identified the provision of habitat for the endangered
mussel population (creeper, Atlantic pigtoe, brook floater and notched rainbow) and the Cape Fear
Shiner as a primary goal. Improving water quality is listed as one of the necessities for achieving this
goal.
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges and elevations ranging
from 300-1500 feet above sea level.The Site topography and relief are typical for the region.The
Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed volcanic and sedimentary rocks.The area is called
"Slate Belt" because of the slatey cleavage of many of the surficial rocks.The region's geology also
includes coarse-grained intrusive granites.
Prior to construction activities, cattle were grazed along Sandy Branch Reach 1 and 2, UT1 and UT2.
Cattle access to these streams resulted in significant ecological impacts.Table 4 in Appendix 1 and
Tables 7a-b in Appendix 4 present additional information on pre-restoration conditions.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While
benefits such as habitat improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient
and sediment loading have farther reaching effects.Table 1 below describes expected outcomes to
water quality and ecological processes associated with the project goals and objectives.These goals
were established and completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives described in the
RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift
within the watershed.
Table 1: Mitigation Goals and Objectives—Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Reconstruct stream channels that will
Improve stream maintain stable pattern and profile, Reduce and control sediment inputs.
considering the hydrologic and sediment Contribute to protection of,or improvement
channel stability. inputs to the system,the landscape to,a Nutrient-Sensitive Water.
setting,and the watershed conditions.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 1-1

Goal Objective Expected Outcomes
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, lunker logs and
Improve instream Improve aquatic communities in project
structures,and brush toe into restored
habitat. streams.
streams.Add woody material to channel
beds.Construct pools of varying depth.
Reconstruct stream channels with
Reconnect channels Reduce shear stress on channels, hydrate
with floodplains and appropriate bankfull dimensions and adjacent wetland areas,and filter pollutants
riparian wetlands. depths, relative to the existing from overbank flows.
floodplain.
Restore wetland Re-establish and rehabilitate riparian Improve terrestrial habitat.Contribute to
hydrology,soils,and wetlands by raising stream beds and protection of,or improvement to,a
plant communities. planting native wetland species. Nutrient-Sensitive Water.
Reduce and control sediment inputs, reduce
Restore and and manage nutrient inputs,provide a
enhance native Plant native tree species in riparian zones canopy to shade streams and reduce
floodplain where currently insufficient. thermal loadings,contribute to protection
vegetation. of,or improvement to,a Nutrient-Sensitive
Water.
Permanently Prevent development and agricultural uses
protect the Site Establish a conservation easement on the that would damage the Site or reduce the
from harmful uses. Site. benefits of the project.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The final Mitigation Plan was approved in December 2019. Construction activities were completed by
Main Stream Earthwork in September 2020.The baseline as-built survey was completed by Summit
Design and Engineering Services in January 2021.The planting was completed by Bruton Natural
Systems, Inc. in January 2021. Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed project activity, history, contact
information, and watershed/Site background information.
1.3.1 Project Structure
The project provides 3,286.000 stream credits and 7.267 wetland credits. Refer to Figure 2 Project
Component/Asset Map for the stream restoration feature exhibits and Table 1 in Appendix 1 for the
project components and mitigation credits for the Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The design streams were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed
conditions.The project consists of the stream restoration activities as described below (Table 2) and
illustrated in Figure 2.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 1-2

Table 2: Restoration Type and Approach Per Reach—Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Stream Reach Primary Treatment Restoration Activity
Stressors/Impairments Approach
Erosion, lack of riparian Restoration— Plan, Pattern, Profile,
Sandy R1 vegetation Priority 1 Planting, Fencing
Branch R2 Incision,erosion, lack of Restoration— Plan, Pattern, Profile,
riparian vegetation Priority 1 Planting, Fencing
UT1 Incision,erosion, lack of Restoration— Plan, Pattern, Profile,
habitat Priority 1 Planting, Fencing
UT2 Incision,erosion Restoration— Plan, Pattern, Profile,
Priority 1 Planting, Fencing
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration. Reference reaches were identified to serve as the basis for design parameters. Channels
were sized based on design discharge hydrologic analysis. Designs were then verified and/or modified
based on a sediment transport analysis.This approach has been used on many successful Piedmont and
Slate Belt restoration projects (Underwood, Foust, Holman Mill, Maney Farm, and Agony Acres
Mitigation Sites) and is appropriate for the goals and objectives for this Site.
The morphologic design parameters are shown in Appendix 4,Tables 7a—7b for the restoration
reaches, and fall within the ranges specified for C4 streams (Rosgen, 1996).The specific values for the
design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified with
morphologic data form reference reach data sets.
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands Engineering through a full delivery contract with DMS.Tables 2, 3,
and 4 in Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History,
Project Contacts, and Project Information and Attributes.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
vivo
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 1-3

Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream performance standards for the project will follow approved standards presented in the
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Updated in October 2016 by the
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be
conducted by qualified personnel to assess the condition of the project. Specific performance standard
components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance standards
will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring.
2.1 Streams
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be largely stable and should only show minor
changes in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width-to-depth ratio. Per guidance, bank height
ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be
considered stable. Riffle cross-sections should largely fall within the parameters defined for channels of
that stream classification. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether
the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising
thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or
enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width-to-depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase
in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward
stability.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability.
2.1.3 Substrate
Channel substrate materials will be sampled in restoration reaches using the reach-wide pebble count
method. Reaches should show maintenance of coarser substrate in the riffles than in the pools. Riffle
cross-section pebble counts were conducted during as-built baseline monitoring and will not be
conducted during annual monitoring unless observations indicate a trend toward finer substrate and a
comparison is needed.
2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
2.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented throughout the monitoring period. Four bankfull
flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period and individual events must
occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will continue until performance standards in the form of
four bankfull events in separate years have been documented.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 2-1

2.2 Vegetation
Vegetative performance for riparian buffers associated with the stream restoration component of the
project (buffer widths 0—50ft)will be in accordance with the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued
October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT.The success criteria is an interim survival rate of 320 planted
stems per acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3), 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5, and a
final vegetation survival rate of 210 stems per acre at the end of MY7. Planted vegetation must average
10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. Vegetation monitoring will be
conducted between July 1"and the end of the of the growing season. Individual plot data will be
provided and will include height, density,vigor, damage (if any), and survival. In fixed vegetation plots,
planted woody stems will be marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off a known
origin so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the
difference between the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the
required seven-year monitoring period.
2.3 Wetlands
The final performance standard for wetland hydrology is based on the soil type on the Site and
associated USACE guidance shall be free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for
10%of the growing season under normal precipitation conditions.
2.4 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above.
2.5 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. Based
on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template (June, 2017), the monitoring reports will include the
following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background;
• Monitoring Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps with major project elements noted such
as grade control structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, groundwater wells, and
crest gauges;
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Assessment of the stability of the Site based on the cross-sections;
• Vegetative data as described above including the establishment of any undesirable plant
species;
• A description of damage by animals or vandalism; and
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 2-2

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, hydrologic, and vegetative data to assess the project
performance based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis until performance criteria
have been met.The performance of the project will be assessed using measurements of the stream
channel's dimension, substrate composition, permanent photographs, surface water hydrology, and
vegetation.Any areas identified as high priority problems, such as streambank instability,
aggradation/degradation, or lack of vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
The problem areas will be visually noted, and remedial actions will be discussed with DMS staff to
determine a plan of action. A remedial action plan will be submitted if substantial maintenance is
required.The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments will follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification document(Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook(Doll et al, 2003). Refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 and
Record Drawings in Appendix 5 for monitoring locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
A total of eight cross-sections were installed along the stream restoration reaches.Two cross-sections
were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work,with riffle and pool sections in
proportion to DMS guidance. Each cross-section was permanently marked with pins to establish its
location. Cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope; including top of bank,
bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg to monitor any deviations in dimension. If moderate bank erosion
is observed along a stream reach during the monitoring period, a series of bank pins will be installed in
representative areas where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater than five
feet. If required, bank pins will be installed in at least three locations (one in upper third of the pool, one
at the mid-point of the pool, and one in the lower third of the pool). If bank pins are required,they will
be monitored by measuring exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion
progression. Annual cross-section surveys will be conducted in monitoring years MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5,
and MY7. Photographs will be taken annually of the cross-sections looking upstream and downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven-year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring show a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation (DMS,
2011)and the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Stream
pattern and profile will be assessed visually as described below in section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Substrate
A reach-wide pebble count will be performed in four reaches (Sandy Branch Reach 1 and 2, UT1, and
UT2) during monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 for classification purposes and to show that riffles remain
coarser than pools. Riffle cross-section pebble counts were conducted during as-built baseline
monitoring only unless observations indicate a trend toward finer substrate and a comparison is
needed.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 3-1

3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 18 permanent photograph reference points were established along the stream reaches after
construction. Permanent markers were established so that the same locations and view directions on
the Site are photographed each year. Longitudinal stream photographs will be taken looking upstream
and downstream once a year to visually document stability. Cross-sectional photos will be taken at each
permanent cross-section looking upstream and downstream. Representative digital photos of each
permanent photo point will be taken on the same day the stream assessments are conducted.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
One automated crest gauge was installed on Site.The crest gauge was installed in a surveyed riffle cross-
section on Sandy Branch Reach 2. Crest gauge data will be downloaded during site visits to determine if
a bankfull event has occurred since the last visit. Additionally, photographs will be collected to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition as evidence of bankfull events.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed at the Site on a semi-annual basis during the seven-year
monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability(i.e. lateral and/or vertical
instability, in-stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, or headcuts), vegetated health (i.e. low
stem density,vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access. Areas of concern will be mapped and accompanied by a written description in the annual report.
Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial actions
be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
3.2 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006)to monitor and
assess the planted woody vegetation. A total of thirteen standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation plots
were established within the project easement area.Three of the thirteen vegetation plots will be
relocated randomly on an annual basis to monitor vegetation health across the Site.
Vegetation plots were randomly established between the conservation easement boundaries and five
feet from the top of stream banks. Fixed vegetation plot corners have been marked and are recoverable
either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs were taken at
the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner during the baseline monitoring in
January 2021. Subsequent annual assessments following the baseline survey will capture the same
reference photograph locations. Planted woody stems will be marked annually, as needed, based off a
known origin so they can be found in subsequent monitoring years.
Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the
entire Site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any),
and survival. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the baseline year's living planted
stems and the current year's living planted stems. Vegetation surveys will be conducted during
monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
3.3 Wetlands
Twelve groundwater monitoring wells equipped with pressure transducers were installed to assess
hydrology in wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas. Pressure transducers will record
groundwater pressure at least twice daily. Monitoring well data will be analyzed in consideration of
recorded precipitation, reference well data, and growing season dates. Data from groundwater wells will
be downloaded at regular intervals and included in annual monitoring reports.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 3-2

The estimated growing season for Chatham County is approximately March 18th through November 17th
based on NRCS WETS Tables. A soil temperature probe was installed on-site to determine growing
season dates for each individual monitoring year. Per USACE guidance, the probe was located at a depth
of 12 inches.The growing season will be defined as that portion of the year where soil temperature
remains above 41 degrees Fahrenheit. Soil temperature must be corroborated with bud break and the
growing season may not begin before March 1st of each year when calculating hydroperiods. If a
wetland zone does not meet the performance standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will
be analyzed, and the hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference wetlands to assess whether
atypical weather conditions occurred during the monitoring period. Monitoring wells and soil
temperature probe locations are shown on Figure 3 in Appendix 2.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 3-3

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

Section 5: AS-BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between September 2020-January 2021.The
survey included developing an as-built topographic surface; as well as, surveying the as-built channel
centerlines, top of banks, structures, and cross-sections.
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings
A sealed half-size set of record drawings are in Appendix 5 which includes the post-construction survey,
alignments, structures, and monitoring features. No significant field adjustments were made during
construction that differ from the design plans. Minimal adjustments were made during construction,
where needed, based on field evaluation and are listed below.
5.1.1 Sandy Branch Reach 1
• Station 100+32 boulder sill not installed due to elevation of existing bedrock.
• Station 100+41—Station 100+60 boulder toe substituted for log vane due to elevation of existing
bedrock.
5.1.2 Sandy Branch Reach 2
• Station 111+36 angled log sill substituted for boulder sill due to material availability.
• Station 119+98 angled log sill substituted for boulder sill due to material availability.
• Station 126+74 angled log sill substituted for boulder sill due to material availability.
• Station 127+53 boulder sill not installed due to removal of drop over pool.
• Station 127+74—Station 128+05 boulder toe added for additional bank stability.
• Station 128+97—Station 129+25 brush toe substituted for boulder toe due to material
availability.
5.1.3 UT1
• Station 200+68 angled log sill substituted for boulder sill due to material availability.
• Station 200+84—Station 200+69 boulder toe added for additional bank stability.
5.1.4 UT2
• Station 302+68 rock floodplain outlet added due to observed overland flow.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring(MYO)was conducted between September and January 2021.The first annual
monitoring assessment(MY1)will be completed in late 2021.The streams will be monitored for a total
of seven years,with the final monitoring activities concluding in 2027.The close-out for the Site will be
conducted in 2028 given the performance criteria have been met.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Refer to Appendix 2 for stream photographs and Appendix 4 for summary data tables and morphological
plots.
Profile
The MYO longitudinal profiles closely match the design profile. On the design profiles, pools and riffles
were depicted as straight lines with consistent slopes.The as-built surveyed profiles are not as
consistent in slope due to the size of the rock used for construction. Pool and riffle depths and slopes
are expected to be maintained near design parameter values.The variations in slope and depth do not
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 5-1

constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions and will be assessed visually during the site
walks.
Dimension
The MYO channel dimensions fall within specified design parameter ranges.The channels are expected
to maintain dimensions of C4 Rosgen type channels. Summary data and cross-section plots of each
project reach are included in Appendix 4.
Pattern
The MYO pattern metrics fall within the design parameter ranges for all reaches. No major changes to
design alignments were made during construction. Pattern data will be evaluated in MY5 if channel
dimensions or profile indicate that significant geomorphic changes have occurred.
Sediment Transport
As-built shear stress and velocities are similar to design calculations and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along the reaches.The substrate data for each constructed reach was compared to the
design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the potential for bed degradation.The
shear stresses calculated for the constructed channels are within the allowable range, which indicates
the channel is not at risk to trend toward channel degradation.
5.2.2 Hydrology
Bankfull events recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the MY1 report.
5.2.3 Wetlands
Wetland data recorded following completion of construction will be reported in the MY1 report.
Groundwater well photographs are in Appendix 2.
5.2.4 Vegetation
The MYO vegetation survey was completed in January 2021.The MYO planted density is 573 stems per
acre which exceeds the MY3 interim stem density requirement of 320 planted stems per acre.
Vegetation Plot photographs are included in Appendix 2 and summary data for each plot are included in
Tables 6a and 6b in Appendix 3.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 5-2

Section 6: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Drostin, M., and Herrmann, M. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy,John P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites:An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth,Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. http://www.nceep.net/business/
monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017.
Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance June 2017. Accessed at:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendors/rfp-forms-templates
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2018. Lake
and Reservoir Assessments Cape Fear River Basin. Accessed at:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-data/water-sciences-home-
page/reports-publications-data#capefear-river-basin
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011.
Surface Water Classifications. Accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications#DWRPrimaryClassification
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2012. 2012
North Carolina Integrated Report. Accessed at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data-assessment/integrated-report-files
North Carolina Interagency Review Team. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-
M itigation-Update.pdf
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey(USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
Accessed at: http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (2019). Sandy Branch Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
vivo
Baseline Monitoring Document and As-Built Baseline Report-FINAL 6-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

}d i'znannnwn7nnn
0
x
.
c eo,,. creel(' - Project Location
a se
Hydrologic Unit Code (14 Digit)
6ariUm A"�Ext
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
Sam FieIds Ka
re
N
CI
` 4
G 0 rC*76.
i _o
t rn , 03030003070020 03030003070040
t -
c.5prinrjy Rd u�r� Gilrttore Lodrye Rd
I o
GA.
_ ./ ._ i�e�
' .,
-
�..,.��..� �•' 3 e\.,
d �Q�Moore rya
�a
"arth
..` / ,,t di L21-
1 f °yg MY
a.
,- • 1
x
b n _.:_ .e
r n
u CarnAbe
03030003070050 -
Bear Creek
-,1s'`rg4`` a
dy A?i S
"0"..... 1 �'
A .� E..♦ \ i1
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the / `�_ \ ��
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is f r�`:SsId•-"°\.er-.{
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but is
bordered by land under private ownership.Accessing the site may f ecaT 1 Directions: 50
require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and From Raleigh, NC,take 1-40 W then ;t
therefore access by the general public is not permitted.Access by take US-1 S towards Sanford. In 31.5
authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their miles take exit 70B from US-1 N toward
designees/contractors involved in the development,oversight, 030300030E Siler City/Greensboro. Follow US-421 '
and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms
and timeframes of their defined roles.Any intended site visitation or for 14.5 miles and then turn left onto
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles Elmer Moore Rd.The project will be on %.r
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS. your left in 0.1 miles. 10
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
It WI LD L A N D S Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 100060
I I I I I Monitoring Year 0-2021
Chatham County, NC

1-1
' u_ _� Conservation Easement
gage MooreC1:3 _�L ��_. 1 r4.it' .
,.' x ..
Wetland Re-establishment
III :t
• A \ Wetland Rehabilitation
Ili V I!
'x< _ V Stream Restoration
IN. N ` �
A -�.,'\�.``°
I \\ tt —tt Fencing
. III ,�
Reach Break
LLA
4� - . __t SandyBranch N n
a. Reach 1 ��'_ ' "" t' }
. ..lr ..
- . ..iiik:. dieg _ *Pi \ '
li * ®
mist,
ay r� 1 i t• x iiiii `1,
. ~ �" -P7 Ili x NI ` t X • ' '
Reach 2 ` 0,, I •
• r:a �� X �.
, ,-„isit,..*3•
II
,:0 ,. 0 , «� .1 -ill - lc '" .
ft
I VOr-
f \11 • .4.
T t 1
1
' '
ill
\\:1 r' •
w1111f1r III 7w.,
' li .�'' •y' � yam .,., -1's•''''ep s - Y '4
t.
W t I �;•` ` ti
vo-• Y
2018 Aerial Photography .%
y
Figure 2- Project Component/Asset Map
011111,,WILDLANDS , Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet
DMS Project No. 100060
I I I I I N
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Chatham County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Existing Footage Mitigation Plan As-Built
Mitigation Mitigation Ratio
Reach ID or Footage or Cale or Restoration Level Priority Level X.1 Project Credits Footage or Comments
Acreage Acreage gory ( j Acreage
STREAMS
Full Channel Restoration,Planted
II 838 861 Warm R P1 1 861.000 849 Buffer,
Fencing Out Livestock
Sandy Branch Reach 1
126 110 Warm R P1 1 110.000 104 Full Channel Restoration,Planted
Buffer,Fencing Out Livestock
Sandy Branch Reach 2 1,931 1,929 Warm R P1 1 1,929.000 1,919 Full Channel Restoration,Planted
Buffer,Fencing Out Livestock
UT1 102 131 Warm R P1 1 131.000 125 Full Channel Restoration,Planted
Buffer,Fencing Out Livestock
UT2 ill257 Warm R Pl 1 255.000 254 Full Channel Restoration,Planted
11=1Buffer,Fencing Out Livestock
WETLANDS
Hydrologic Restoration,
Wetland Re-Establishment N/A 4.721 Riparian R 1 4.721 4.721
Conservation Easement,Planted
Wetland Rehabilitation 3.819 3.819 Riparian RE 1.5 2.546 3.819 Hydrologic Restoration,
Conservation Easement,Planted
PROJECT CREDITS
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian
Restoration Level Coastal Marsh
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine Wetland
Restoration 3,286.000
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Re-Establishment 4.721
Rehabilitation 2.546
Enhancement
Creation
Totals 3,286.000 7.267

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Activity or Repo11=11 Data Collection CompletWompletion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan December 2019 December 2019
Final Design-Construction Plans June 2020 June 2020
Construction September 2020 September 2020
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal September 2020 September 2020
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 September 2020 September 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments January 2021 January 2021
Stream Survey September 2020
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) March 2021
Vegetation Survey January 2021
Stream Survey 2021
Year 1 Monitoring December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Stream Survey 2022
Year 2 Monitoring December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Stream Survey 2023
Year 3 Monitoring December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
Year 4 Monitoring December 2024
Stream Survey
Year 5 Monitoring December 2025
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring December 2026
Stream Survey
Year 7 Monitoring December 2027
Vegetation Survey
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Greg Turner,PE Raleigh,NC 27609
919.851.9986
Main Stream Earthwork,Inc.
Construction Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd.
Reidsville,NC 27320
Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Planting Contractor P.O.Box 1197
Fremont,NC 27830
Main Stream Earthwork,Inc.
Seeding Contractor 631 Camp Dan Valley Rd.
Reidsville,NC 27320
Green Resources
Seed Mix Sources P.O.Box 429
Colfax,NC 27235
Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Bare Roots 825 Maude Etter Rd
McMinnville,TN 37110
Live Stakes Bruton Natural Systems,Inc
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring,POC
919.851.9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
County Chatham County
Project Area(acres) 18.10
Planted(acres) 15.87
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35°38'35"N 79°23'14"W
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Cape Fear River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030003
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03030003070050
DWR Sub-basin 03-06-12
Project Drainiage Area(acres) 463
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area(2011) 1.5%
CGIA Land Use Classification(2011) 49%Cultivated Crops and Hay,36%Forested,13%Developed,1%Shrubland,1%Grassland/Herbaceou
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters Sandy Branch Reach 1 Sandy Branch Reach 2 UT1 UT2
Length of Reach(linear feet)-Post-Restoration 953 1,919 125 254
Drainage Area(acres) 323 388-463 35 73
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 48 44.5 45.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C,NSW
Morphological Desription(stream type) Perennial
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model)-Pre-Restoration Stage III:Degradation
Underlying Mapped Soils CmB-Cid-Lignum complex
FEMA Classification N/A
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No.4134.
Division of Land Quality(Dam Safety) N/A N/A N/A
Sandy Branch Mitigation Plan;Wildlands determined"no effect"on Chatham County
listed endangered species.Per the new standard from the United States Fish and
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Wildlife Service(USFWS)Raleigh Field Office,Wildlands submitted the Sandy Branch
Mitigation Site Self-Certification Letter on July 9,2018.USFWS had no comment during
the thirty-day review period.All documents and correspondence submitted to the
USFWS are included in the Appendix.
Correspondence from SHPO on April 16,2018 indicating they were not aware of any
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
historic resources that would be affected by the project.
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Quantity/Length by Reach
Parameter Monitoring Feature Sandy Sandy Frequency
Branch Branch UT1 UT2
Reach 1 Reach 2
Riffle Cross-Sections 1 2 1 1 Year 1,2,3,5,and 7
Dimension
Pool Cross-Sections 1 2 0 0 Year 1,2,3,5,and 7
Pattern Pattern N/A
N/A
Profile Longitudinal Profile MVO(Unless Required)
Substrate Reach Wide Pebble Count 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW 1 RW Year 1,2,3,5,and 7
Transducer:Crest Gauge(CG)or
Hydrology Flow Gauge(FG) 1 CG N/A Quarterly
Vegetation CVS Level 2 Vegetation Plots 10 Fixed;3 Random Year 1,2,3,5,and 7
Wetlands Groundwater Well 12 Quarterly
Visual Assessment Semi-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Yes Semi-Annual
Vegetation
Project Boundary Semi-Annual
Reference Photos Photographs 18 Annual

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

it. -- luirip
i Conservation Easement
Moore1Z3 �._. -r
` fa. ,. Wetland Re-establishment
III `,'', 01+00
m41% �\ - ,. r \ Wetland Rehabilitation
I� (] �WGciV ■ Structures
g...w., - . ,. `.\\ i MilFixed Vegetation Plot
�GWGE1 q.//,
/',, ;\\ Random Vegetation Plot
I 00;`` ( )\\ +54, — Fencing
g ,,
\\` tio� '', — Stream Restoration
_Irn.•. _ � ' Q , +^r ---• As-built Top of Bank
%
�` Reach 9 lR`'• \11a� UT1 r, Cross-Sections
- • 110 \\` �4- ,. Reach Break
+ F i ,\1 35000 5sy Xs o,. Crest Gauge 1
e 4 VI ® �..GPO�k 4- • lit, �4 + Groundwater Gauge '
—4. -x GWGa ;.', s It 0 Photo Points
12 ,.,113+00 111 ilDra + Soil Temperature Probe
'R Gp0 ,� (I) �? III Barotroll
III \:. 3 WOO r'
g3 A 'I
I 1.
II ��1ik00 II
1
III
6 G0411Q,- v
c.\\` PP 12+I + •. �.
#.1 x
ft 0(44_ f s�� q z •
I 1, . el
• 1 I .' k
, ,
± l_ yXo°�5,xod mom' ea �111 r
• ,1;:17413, ,' --, tt Olt
GP413 11
� .
i,
,y, It'
1 - _
- - -- t
2018 Aerial Photography .t - - • r -� -
Figure 3- Monitoring Plan View
011111,,WILDLANDS , Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 150 300 Feet
DMS Project No. 100060
I I I I I ICI
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Chatham County, NC

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

..
•
1 ,: '
Ks
al
f•
•
5'?+l1 ) Y
i&.'i :
PHOTO POINT 1 Sandy Branch R1—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 1 Sandy Branch R1—downstream(09/23/2020)
,� _ ._ I
a
'a
ti
PHOTO POINT 2 Sandy Branch R1—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 2 Sandy Branch R1—downstream(09/23/2020)
°;, � ��
iNM -W
•
- -----4 .1,:. :-.1: :,,": '1$,::-:-.--44,',...'.,,,,,_
4
. ,. _. . .7. :',. : - - . .,, 44-,,fiv.,::21v.,:14:4 ii.-.
iit
PHOTO POINT 3 Sandy Branch R1—upstream (09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 3 Sandy Branch R1—downstream(09/23/2020)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

t µ c, ... x i�aieiztih.I
• .'.4y.n : _ •
2.4....
sue'
'i h 1 • 'i'c KLy„R.,
rc-
PHOTO POINT 4 Sandy Branch R1—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 4 Sandy Branch R1—downstream(09/23/2020)
•
as
wT yp
PHOTO POINT 5 Sandy Branch R1—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 5 Sandy Branch R1—downstream(09/23/2020)
•
-- = «,$4,:,
1
.
•
PHOTO POINT 6 UT1—upstream (09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 6 UT1—downstream (09/23/2020)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

` arse r' v '. Yw k'[ ;
-_ - yam• 9AS_ '•
"Lerw S�
zM '4i'
i
PHOTO POINT 7 Sandy Branch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 7 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
PHOTO POINT 8 Sandy Branch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 8 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
-. yY `i
by r' .:
yy
.'. -mow`' M'` y ••
y
''
PHOTO POINT 9 Sandy Branch R2—upstream (09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 9 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

ir.___
,..
, . .. ..
, . , . .
- ...., ..
ti
,,,..,
..
,...."...:".:.. ..
. .
. .„,:iitr....witt.:4‘1,,,...._......;--,70,1,....„41,44,40,,,....
-
PHOTO POINT 10 SandyBranch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 10 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
` ' k
I y f
. r
' '
r
a �� .g,,
:� y
k
PHOTO POINT 11 Sandy Branch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 11 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
x
D Y
•
. . - - -.
�
',..:-.41".'..,.-. - ' . 01 rili -- - .•_-• ,
dS
•
.x..6 a ..
PHOTO POINT 12 Sandy Branch R2—upstream (09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 12 Sandy Branch R2—downstream (09/23/2020)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

1 ::
`ve■
V i . •I
ems.
P
PHOTO POINT 13 Sandy Branch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 13 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
• ',,.
t
PHOTO POINT 14 Sandy Branch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 14 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020)
• ,yy
.. `FLY ,,
9.
_may.:, Y3 fir.d-�.��-'a�'•:.. P.. '' . _¢ :eq,
-:'-
: ' ' '.
• r #k
eiliiiii4,-. '...'. •
,o-• y
PHOTO POINT 15 Sandy Branch R2—upstream (09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 15 Sandy Branch R2—downstream (09/23/2020)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

1 i
R•Y ifs.��6 :'.; _'.
,,t e'nfik
`-'; '-.„..-;:'# . i . tt-....,- -.4
�.q 17'
•
f
PHOTO POINT 16 Sandy Branch R2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 16 Sandy Branch R2—downstream(09/23/2020J
•
•
p e;
PHOTO POINT 17 UT2—upstream(09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 17 UT2—downstream(09/23/2020)
r
,``..1
g
" °„
fC a, gr
•
,-.41 . (tt,_°",.1V.• .,...:7.4. ;,'': ,
PHOTO POINT 18 UT2—upstream (09/23/2020) PHOTO POINT 18 UT2—downstream (09/23/2020) '
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

GROUNDWATER WELL PHOTOGRAPHS

�`
g
. , i,--.„,...:. . , . • • , . _ . .• -..... ....
r<. li .• ,.::. --:::.--•,......_...i._:.:%. „•':.!-.:.
r,
. -.44":.:'re..:;-..0.- --,,.•,.' :',r...-''.-.-4:004.i0.,,4'-.‘,' _,a,..,'',. . . --I': -- ' ..
.:,..,.,/ _:-..-.:.,--- ...44...4v.,!,..3.,,..,,,,o,,,,,,,,,-,_4,..•....,, ...,....,.-., -,...,..40...-',1<„, •.....,,,..,....„--,...-,511,..,,..;,,,-.,,r,..::.-: .. .
T j. ..Wyk I y g- :.1.
GROUNDWATER WELL 1(09/23/2020) GROUNDWATER WELL 2(09/23/2020)
r
L
F i
• 1 .
. .
- - - -
. .
• • ,
. ...,, .. . ,
_ ......_. __. , .
. . , ..
GROUNDWATER WELL 3(09/23/2020) GROUNDWATER WELL 4(09/23/2020)
�" y
-
a-
•
GROUNDWATER WELL 5(09/23/2020) GROUNDWATER WELL 6(09/23/2020)
A Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Groundwater Well Photographs

` ;A' ��!' .i. • •`�•`\�,''"F ,Y �'7' A '"T • &.L t ; •., ilk
�� s .. _ � ' ^; may, :�.
--.:(:' ':'..4400. •
e ' `I 3 y f N� i
. * a erg` i
Lek a� y• �`.42. � _' .4 ak„m t w '� • j u ,e 's'`
.4,..,,,,, ,. \.,,,,.... .,! „...",:21, , ,.,-... ••....,,,,:,...,,4....,-•yk.-,,.,t...*:,;,.,..,....-4...
'� T 4 ti k • �. \_ / $ lh. tT Sl..
µ 4R i`.11{ ➢ Y ke,. 3u � �•�" °'=�� ,d... # 4,- rg 1z }�; � ^ t
;_ c S r .� 3 x -73�titi.•. e y
GROUNDWATER WELL 7(09/23/2020) GROUNDWATER WELL 8(09/23/2020)
- -.J fte.1
•
• I /•
}
_, '
-4,17 . . . I
..
. .._
... „., :..,,.,
•
GROUNDWATER WELL 9(09/23/2020) GROUNDWATER WELL 10(09/23/2020)
r.
-r
•
' S :. n 4 —
' .:. ••-:..,:..,..-....... „,..: -,v-
3
y xy
lit,.....,,, -4:-,f.4,!:..: .;40 -• - ..• ' .
�J
GROUNDWATER WELL 11(09/23/2020) GROUNDWATER WELL 12(09/23/2020)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Groundwater Well Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

•- ". Wit;
FIXED VEG PLOT 1(01/11/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 2(01/11/2021)
FIXED VEG PLOT 3(01/11/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 4(01/11/2021)
i
4.
Sim
�y y
W 4 y _ j,�
' A 4
� MR
Vi
FIXED VEG PLOT 5(01/11/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 6(01/11/2021)
' Sandy Branch Mitigation Site I
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

a
. , li
.,
FIXED VEG PLOT 7(01/11/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 8(01/11/2021)
-- r
E 5 E r �. ,414..41,
ill,
t
AN
i,
VP
Io
• 1
FIXED VEG PLOT 9(01/11/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 10(01/11/2021)
t 1
c
t. I er' -.
000
� ,it
RANDOM VEG PLOT 11(01/11/2021) RANDOM VEG PLOT 12(01/11/2021)
' I Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

i
ram;
'
r
wr
l:" 'l i '
RANDOM VEG PLOT 13 (01/11/2021)
40I Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix 2:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6a.Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Current Plot Data(MYO 2021)
VP 1 VP 2 VP 3 VP 4 VP 5
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 4
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Tree
Salixnigra Black Willow Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Stem count 14 14 14 15 15 15 14 14 14 12 12 12 16 16 16
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 9 9 9 6 6 6 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8
Stems per ACRE 567 567 567 607 607 607 567 567 567 486 486 486 647 647 647
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 6a.Fixed Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Current Plot Data(MYO 2021) Annual Means
VP 6 VP 7 VP 8 VP 9 VP 10 MYO(2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 26 26 26
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 6
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 24 24 24
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 23 23 23
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 8 8 8
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 21 21 21
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
Salixnigra Black Willow Tree 3 3 3
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 11 11 11
Stem count 15 15 15 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 146 146 146
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 10
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25
Species count 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 12 12 12
Stems per ACRE 607 607 607 567 567 567 607 607 607 607 607 607 647 647 647 591 591 591
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS-Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all-All Planted Stems
T-All Woody Stems

Table 6b.Random Plots: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Current Plot Data(MY0 2021) Annual Means
Species VP 11 VP 12 VP 13 MY0(2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Type Te Total Te Total Te Total Te Total
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 3 3 5 5 4 4 12 12
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 6 6 2 2 0 0 8 8
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 1 1 3 3 6 6
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 2 2 3 3 1 1 6 6
Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak Tree 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm Tree 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Stem count 15 15 14 14 9 9 38 38
size(ares) 1 1 1 2
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07
Species count 6 6 6 6 4 4 8 8
Stems per ACRE 607 607 567 567 364 364 513 513
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Te-Number of stems including exotic species
Total-Number of stems excluding exotic species

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 7a.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS DESIG `MONITORING BASELINE
(MYO)
Parameter Sandy Branch R1
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.6 1 14.0 14.4 1
Floodprone Width(ft) >60 1 >30.8 100 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1 1 0.9 1 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.6 1 1.3 1.5 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 6.6 1 13.2 14.9 1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.5 1 14.8 13.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio >9.1 1 >2.20 6.9 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1 1.00 1.20 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 87 88 82.7
Rosgen Classification E4/F4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 22 44.0 51
Sinuosity 1.10 1.16 1.16
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0100 0.0140 --- 0.002 0.011 0.007
Other
Parameter Sandy Branch R2
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.3 11 3 16.0 15.0 16.9 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 11.0 40 3 >35.2 70 80 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.2 1.6 3 1.1 0.9 1.0 2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.7 2.1 3 1.5 1.4 1.5 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 9.1 14.0 3 17.5 14.0 16.3 2
Width/Depth Ratio 4.7 8.4 3 14.6 16.2 17.5 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 3.7 3 >2.20 4.1 5.3 2
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 2.4 3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 2
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 68.3
Rosgen Classification F4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 29 39 51.0 58.0 53 57 2
Sinuosity 1.20 1.27 1.27
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0041 0.0090 --- 0.004 0.024 0.006
Other

Table 7b.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
PRE-EXISTING I DESIGN MONITORING
CONDITIONS (M
Parameter UT1
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.3 1 7.0 7.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 1 >15.4 55.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.63 1 0.6 0.7 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1 0.8 1.2 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.1 1 4.0 5.3 1
Width/Depth Ratio 5.2 1 12.3 11.3 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.7 1 >2.20 7.1 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.9 1 1.0 1.2 1.0
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 62.6
Rosgen Classification E4/F4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 7.7 9.0 13
Sinuosity 1.10 1.14 1.14
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0270 0.003 0.020 0.008
Other
Parameter UT2
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 2.9 1 9.0 9.9 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 6 1 >19.8 80.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.4 1 0.7 0.8 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.7 1 1.0 1.3 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.1 1 6.5 8.1 1
Width/Depth Ratio 2.1 1 12.5 12.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1 >2.20 8.1 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.5 1 1.0 1.2 1.0
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 77.4
Rosgen Classification F4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 15 16.0 27
Sinuosity 1.10 1.09 1.09
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0084 0.0140 --- 0.004 0.025 0.008
Other

Table 8. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
andy Branch ReachI
Cross-Section 1(Pool) Cross-Section 2(Riffle) Cross-Section 3(Riffle) Cross-Section 4(Pool)
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area N/A 473.58 465.71 N/A
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area N/A 1.00 1.00 N/A
Thalweg Elevation 470.62 472.04 464.27 461.58
LTOB2 Elevation 474.01 473.58 465.71 465.78
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 3.4 1.5 1.4 4.2
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 38.9 14.9 16.3 56.7
IIMMI- IMP Sandy Branch Reach 2 IMP IMP 'II=P 11111 UT1 IMP 11=P !Mk IMP
Cross-Section 5(Riffle) Cross-Section 6(Pool) Cross-Section 7(Riffle) Cross-Section 8(Riffle)
Dimension Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfulll Area 461.37 N/A 469.34 459.29
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfulll Area 1.00 N/A 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 459.87 458.14 468.11 457.99
LTOB2 Elevation 461.37 461.17 469.34 459.29
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.5 3.3 1.2 1.3
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 14.0 38.6 5.3 8.1
1Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
2LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The
difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch Reach 1(STA 100+00 to 110+11)
480 -
ani
il x
478
476 A A .4 .A. k • • ••• A AAA A A4 AA A AA AA A 4 A A AA A A
AA A AA a • • AA AA A AA : • 4I A 4A AA •••• *AAA • • •• A AA,A A A • A• •
if 474 4 4
.f. • • •
O 472
-.0
---•- 10"---
'al
Tj 470
468
466 -
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500
Station(feet)
—•—TW(MY0-1/2021) _WSF(MY0-1/2021) • LBKF/LTOB(MY0-1/2021) • RBKF/RTOB(MY0-1/2021) • STRUCTURE(MY0-1/2021)
476 - .
I I
474
I I
I I
• • 4 e A•k • AA A AA• A, # AA AA_ _ _ _ _
472
470
A
A AA • A AA A AA A I I
if
A A • A • A A
)______________ -_____________ -A• t /A tA4AA •A• A 1, .4 A • A A •AA •
c
o 468
ci ............a......*_irfi_r_=
LT, 466
1 40 Easement I
464
Break I
10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950 11000
Station(feet)
—•—TW(MY0-1/2021) WSF(MY0-1/2021) LBKF/LTOB(MYO-1/2021) • RBKF/RTOB(MY0-1/2021) 0 STRUCTURE(MYO-1/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch Reach 2(STA 110+11 to 129+40)
472
m a
m m
470 -• x x
•
468 = ♦••!
♦••
y __ •••t••• A
---I r •••1�♦♦•♦♦
•
i 464
462
460
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000
Station(feet)
TW(MY0-1/2021) -WSF(MY0-1/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB(MY0-1/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB(MY0-1/2021) • STRUCTURE(MY0-1/2021)
464 -
462 LA).'•:
it a'•A Alt•Li IA t A:A A AA• : • • AA, AA
______________
t
i.
•
01
w 45E ......4._vi../
•
y 456 -
ITJ
454
452
12000 12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850 12900 12950
Station(feet)
—4—TW(MYO-1/2021) WSF(MYO-1/2021) LBKF/LTOB(MYO-1/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB(MYO-1/2021) 0 STRUCTURE(MYO-1/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
UT1(STA 200+61 to 201+92)
475 -
n
473
471
a
•
♦
• A • •
° 469 A
•• ♦ •• • ♦ • • ♦
♦ ♦ • •
•
467 • •
465
20050 20100 20150 20200
Station(feet)
tTW(MY0-1/2021) -WSF(MY0-1/2021) LBKF/LTOB(MY0-1/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB(MY0-1/2021) 0 STRUCTURE(MY0-1/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
UT2(STA 300+38 to 302+93)
464 -
co
x
x
462
• • • ! • • •
460 • • • r A• i • .
li
• •
o —
458
456
454
30000 30050 30100 30150 30200 30250 30300
Station(feet)
♦ TW(MYO-1/2021) -WSF(MYO-1/2021) LBKF/LTOB(MVO-1/2021) • RBKF/RTOB(MYO-1/2021) 0 STRUCTURE(MYO-1/2021)

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 1-Sandy Branch R1
103+29 Pool
475
474 ♦
473
';� 472
471
470
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
—MYO(1/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
38.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
21.9 width(ft)
1.8 mean depth(ft) ' v `s
3.4 max depth(ft)
23.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.7 hydraulic radius(ft) ;.",t
12.3 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 1/2021
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 2-Sandy Branch R1
103+69 Riffle
476
475
474
';� 473
472
471
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MY0(1/2021) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
14.9 x-section area(ft.sq.)
14.4 width(ft) `
1.0 mean depth(ft) - �-.
1.5 max depth(ft)
15.1 wetted perimeter(ft) •
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft) -
13.9 width-depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area(ft) r- =; y -�(
6.9 entrenchment ratio y
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 1/2021 ♦ -•1 '
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 3-Sandy Branch R2
115+32 Riffle
468
467
466 t
• •
465
w 464
w
463
462
0 10 20 30 40
Width(ft)
MY0(1/2021) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions "Milk __ :a •
16.3 x-section area(ft.sq.)
16.9 width(ft) "1° _ _ •
1.0 mean depth(ft) •
wix
1.4 max depth(ft) 4" l
17.3 wetted perimeter(ft) +:
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft) —
17.5 width-depth ratio r jam"_
70.0 W flood prone area(ft)
4.1 entrenchment ratio + � 7 ,-
1.0 low bank height ratio - -
Survey Date: 1/2021 . .. - ti
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services .
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 4-Sandy Branch R2
115+68 Pool
468
467
466 t
465 �• •
464
w
w 463
462
461 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
+MYO(1/2021) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
56.7 x-section area(ft.sq.)
25.7 width(ft)
2.2 mean depth(ft) ie,'
4.2 max depth(ft)
29.0 wetted perimeter(ft) T'
2.0 hydraulic radius(ft)
11.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 1/2021
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 5-Sandy Branch R2
122+55 Riffle
464
463
462 �^
• • • •—s
461
0
w 460
459
458
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
MY0(1/2021) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions - r!�
14.0 x-section area(ft.sq.)
15.0 width(ft)
0.9 mean depth(ft)
•
1.5 max depth(ft) I • •
15.8 wetted perimeter(ft) :F " 1-
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft) •
16.2 width-depth ratio _ -
80.0 W flood prone area(ft) ' .
5.3 entrenchment ratio . ; �_-
1.0 low bank height ratioT
Survey Date: 1/2021
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 6-SandyBranch R2
123+04 Pool
463
462
461
460
w 459
458
457
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width(ft)
+MYO(1/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions .- .
38.6 x-section area(ft.sq.) p
22.7 width(ft) ; 4.
•
1.7 mean depth(ft) '�' ` • If_
3.3 max depth(ft) +"
23.9 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.6 hydraulic radius(ft) --_
13.4 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 1/2021 •-4
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services
4.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 7-UT1
201+19 Riffle
472
471
470
•
469
♦��
0
w 468
w
467
466 , ,
0 5 10 15 20
Width(ft)
MY0(1/2021) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) EIPIIIIIII- .. y.
7.7 width(ft) _ I- •.
0.7 mean depth(ft) • '• .°*.e•-it
1.2 max depth(ft) .,3i' '--
8.3 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius(ft) - -
11.3 width-depth ratio � .�,r�
55.0 W flood prone area(ft) t, ,;'' " _
7.1 entrenchment ratio {
1.0 low bank height ratio 4r
Sr
Survey Date: 1/2021 •
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services %-i.. lit, - - ,,i :
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100061
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Cross-Section 8 -UT2
301+79 Riffle
462
461
460
•
459
0
w 458
457
456
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width(ft)
MY0(1/2021) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions ;• xN
8.1 x-section area(ft.sq.) .' . �°
•
9.9 width(ft) •.St`-. , . '' • - '
0.8 mean depth(ft)
1.3 max depth(ft) �-
10.4 wetted perimeter(ft) -�»� - __
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) ►-
12.2 width-depth ratio
80.0 W flood prone area(ft) 4y
8.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio 4.4 � :z ^ r::
h: T.
Survey Date: 1/2021
Field Crew: Summit Design&Engineering Services T ' A
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch R1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Sandy Branch R1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 17 18 18 18 100 * I I 1 ~• •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 18 90 Silt/Clay Sard I<
Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 4 4 4 22 EiraMMil--
li-
80 Bedrock_
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 22
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 6 7 7 29 0 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 29 (;) 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 29 550
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1 30 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 4 4 4 34 V
Fine 5.6 8.0 5 6 11 11 45 u 30
J0' Medium 8.0 11.0 5 3 8 8 53 a 20
60.
Medium 11.0 16.0 5 4 9 9 62 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 2 7 7 69 0
Coarse 22.6 32 5 2 7 7 76 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 8 8 84 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 7 1 8 8 92 �MYO-09/2020
Small 64 90 3 3 3 95
0,, Small 90 128 2 2 2 97
e Large 128 180 2 2 2 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100 Sandy Branch R1,Reachwide
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
40, Small 362 512 100
Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
,v
Total 50 50 100 100 100 w 60
a
r, 50
Reachwide f0
V 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= Silt/Clay v 30
D35= 5.78 c 20 _
D50= 9.8 — 10
D95= 90.0 �co'L 4-,o.LS ,5 '. '1, ,ti4 b hcp W ,y1 ,y(o 1,,L<9 „z'L by ,ob 0O 4, ��O 156 ��ti 4,,,'L 1O.Lb,Ob4 bo�6
o. o
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
MY0-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch R2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent Sandy Branch R2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 5 27 32 32 32 100 * I I I •� ~• •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 32 90 Silt/Clay yard
Gj7bbl414el
Fine 0.125 0.250 5 5 5 37 80 e Boulder Bedrock�
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 1 4 5 5 42
Coarse 0.5 1.0 42 F. 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 42 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 42 3 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 42 L40 • • •
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 2 3 3 45
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 3 4 4 49 u 30
JFp Medium 8.0 11.0 3 1 4 4 53 a 20
60.
Medium 11.0 16.0 3 3 6 6 59 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 1 3 3 62 0
Coarse 22.6 32 1 1 2 2 64 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 10 10 10 74 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 6 1 7 7 81 MVO 9/2020
Small 64 90 8 2 10 10 91
�\, Small 90 128 7 7 7 98
L0� Large 128 180 2 2 2 100
Large 180 256 100 Sandy Branch R2,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
rA 50
Reachwide f0
u 40
Channel materials(mm) 73
D16= Silt/Clay 30
D35= 0.19 c 20
D50= 8.7 — 10
D95= 110.1 cp, 40 o.LS ,5 '. ti ,ti4 b 49 W ,y1 ,y(o 1,,L<9 ,,l, by ,ob cO 1,L'b ��O 156 ��ti 4,y'L 1O,Lb,Ob4 bo�6
o. o
D1oo= 180.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
i MVO-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
UT1,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT1,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 23 25 25 25 100 * I I I •—• •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 25 90 Silt/Clay yard )14
Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 2 9 11 11 36 80 Cobble Boulder gedrock�
Q4� Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 2 2 38
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 2 2 40 F. 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 40 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 40 3 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 40 E 40 • •
Fine 4.0 5.6 3 4 7 7 47 y
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 3 5 5 52 u 30
.10. Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 54 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 3 1 4 4 58 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 2 4 6 6 64 0
Coarse 22.6 32 7 1 8 8 72 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 7 79 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 8 2 10 10 89 • MvO 9/2020
Small 64 90 6 6 6 95
�\0 Small 90 128 1 1 2 2 97
L0� Large 128 180 2 2 2 99
Large 180 256 1 1 1 100 UT1,Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Small 256 362 100 100
Small 362 512 100
tel 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) 7.3
D16= Silt/Clay 30
D35= 0.23 c 20 I
D50= 6.9 10
Dsa= 53.7 ' ' I u I ' I ' I
D95= 90.0 �co'L 4-,o.LS ,5 '. '1, ,ti4 b hcp W ,y1 ,y(o 1,,L<9 3� by ,ob ,O 1,L'b ��O 156 ��ti 4,y'L 1O,Lb,Ob4 bo�6
o. o
D1oo= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
i MVO-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
UT2,Reachwide
Diameter(mm) Particle Count Reach Summary
Particle Class Class Percent UT2,Reachwide
min max Riffle Pool Total Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 24 27 25 25 100 E ^T� r• •—• • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 25 90 Silt/Clay k cal
Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 3 27 80 Cobble Boulder Bedrock_
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 1 11 12 11 38
yi
Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 2 40 e 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 40 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 40 3 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 40 E 40 • •
Fine 4.0 5.6 40
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 1 41 u 30
JFp Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 2 2 43 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 1 3 4 4 46 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 3 49 0
Coarse 22.6 32 2 1 3 3 52 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 6 3 9 8 60 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 12 1 13 12 72 • MvO 9/2020
Small 64 90 9 9 8 80
'''\, Small 90 128 9 9 8 88
00.'' Large 128 180 8 8 7 95
Large 180 256 4 4 4 99 UT2,Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Small 256 362 1 1 1 100 100
Small 362 512 100
tel Medium 512 1024 100 90
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 80
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 60 50 110 100 100 w 60
0
rA 50
Reachwide f0
u 40
Channel materials(mm) 7.3
D16= Silt/Clay 30
D85= 0.41 c 20 I
D50= 25.4 10 ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ 1 1 1 1 1 ■D84= 106.9 0
D95= 176.2 (.o'L 42 o.LS ,5 '. ti 1, b h(p W ,y1 ,y(o 1,1,<o ,51, by ,ob cO 4b $ 156 41,4,,,11,1OLb le es6
O. 0
D1a0= 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
i MVO-09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch R1,Cross-Section 2
Diameter(mm) Summary
Particle Class Riffle 100-Count Class Percent Sandy Branch R1,Cross-Section 2
min max Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 6 6 100 ,,,(— -).6. • • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 6 90 Silt/Clay Sad >t< Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 7 80 Nobble GQr'�ier Bedrock�
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 9
Coarse 0.5 1.0 5 5 14 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 14 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 14 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 15 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 7 7 22 Y
w 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 8 8 30 u
,..p Medium 8.0 11.0 7 7 37 a 20
•
GQ Medium 11.0 16.0 9 9 46 10
•
Coarse 16.0 22.6 15 15 61 0
Coarse 22.6 32 10 10 71 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 9 80 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 8 8 88 tmvo-w/zozo
Small 64 90 3 3 91
\(<, Small 90 128 1 1 92
c . Large 128 180 4 4 96
Large 180 256 3 3 99 Sandy Branch R1,Cross-Section 2
Small 256 362 1 1 100 Individual Class Percent
100
Small 362 512 100 90
Medium 512 1024 100 80
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 c 70
w
Total 100 100 100 y 60
a
Li 50
Cross-Section 2 i0
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= 4.20 v 30
D35= 10.04 'v 20
E 10
D84= 17.5D = 53.7 0 ■ — ■ 1 — , 1 1 1 , ■ — ■ ■
D95= 165.3 pco'1' y1`5 Otis Oy 'v ti 1Lb P 4° 4z 'c ,yo��b ,�'1' Ph 0b cO 46 1$O <o 41',1ti o b oOW Ooi'
o• o• ti ti 0
Dim- 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
NYO-09/zozo

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch R2,Cross-Section 3
Diameter(mm) Summary
Particle Class Riffle 100-Count Class Percent Sandy Branch R2,Cross-Section 3
min max Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3 100 .„(— -).1.. • • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 90 Silt/Clay k Sagd Gravel lk �l'
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 4
80 J C bble 30J der n Bedrock�
QC�� Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 5
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 4 4 9 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 9 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 9 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 9 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 9
w 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 9 2
,..p Medium 8.0 11.0 9 a 20
60' Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 15 10 -•
Coarse 16.0 22.6 7 7 22 0 •
Coarse 22.6 32 10 10 32 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 19 19 51 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 17 17 68 tmvo-w/zozo
Small 64 90 14 14 82
�`•
(<, Small 90 128 11 11 93
LCP Large 128 180 3 3 96
Large 180 256 1 1 97 Sandy Branch R2,Cross-Section 3
Small 256 362 3 3 100 Individual Class Percent
100
Small 362 512 100 90
Medium 512 1024 100 80
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 5, 70
w
Total 100 100 100 y 60
a
t2 50
Cross-Section 3 i0
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= 16.81 v 30
D35= 33.77 'v 20
E 10
Dsa= 44.2
■ — — ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1111111 I 1 ■ _ ■
D95= 160.7 pco'1' y1`5 Otis Oy 'v ti 1Lb P 4° 4z 'c ,yo��b ,�'1' Ph (ob cO 46 1$O <o 41',1ti o1b oDW Ooi'
o• o• ti ti o<
Dim- 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
NYO-09/zozo

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
Sandy Branch R2,Cross-Section 5
Diameter(mm) Summary
Particle Class Riffle 100-Count Class Percent Sandy Branch R2,Cross-Section 5
min max Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 6 6 100 ,E ; .• • • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 6 90 Silt/Clay k �Sand Gravel lk
Fine 0.125 0.250 9 9 15
80 obble 30J der n Bedrock�
QC�� Medium 0.25 0.50 15
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 16 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 16 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 16 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 16 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 18 Y
w 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 20 u
,..p Medium 8.0 11.0 4 4 24 a 20 ,
60' Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6 30 10 /
Coarse 16.0 22.6 11 11 41 0 ••-� --���
Coarse 22.6 32 13 13 54 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 15 15 69 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 11 11 80 tmv0-09/2020
Small 64 90 6 6 86
�`•
(<, Small 90 128 8 8 94
LCP Large 128 180 4 4 98
Large 180 256 98 Sandy Branch R2,Cross-Section 5
Small 256 362 2 2 100 Individual Class Percent
100
69, Small 362 512 100 90
Medium 512 1024 100 80
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 5, 70
w
Total 100 100 100 y 60
a
Li 50
Cross-Section 5 i0
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= 1.00 v 30
D35= 18.72 20
v
E 10
D50= 28.8
D84= 80.3 0 I III 11 I I 1 � 1 . I I I ' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1
D95= 139.4 p<0'L tiye o t' oy ti ti tiro a 5° 4, yti yo�1,b „Dti ah (ob cO 4.6 1$O ��o 41ti t1ti o`b oDW Oct
o• o• ti ti 0
Dim- 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
NYO 09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
UT1,Cross-Section 7
Diameter(mm) Summary
Particle Class Riffle 100-Count Class Percent UT1,Cross-Section 7
min max Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3 100 .„(— -).1..^, j • • • • •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 90 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel lk
Fine 0.125 0.250 3 3 6 J Cobble 30J der I`
80 Bedrock_
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 6
S Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 7 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 7 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 7 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 5 5 12 Y
w 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 6 6 18 1-2.40, Medium 8.0 11.0 5 5 23 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 30 10 • + • •
Coarse 16.0 22.6 9 9 39 0 �•�•
Coarse 22.6 32 9 9 48 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 18 18 66 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 13 13 79 tmv0-09/2020
Small 64 90 10 10 89
'''\(<, Small 90 128 1 1 90
00.'' Large 128 180 5 5 95
Large 180 256 5 5 100 UT1,Cross-Section 7
Small 256 362 100 Individual Class Percent
100
Small 362 512 100 90
Medium 512 1024 100 80
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 5, 70
w
Total 100 100 100 y 60
a
Li 50
Cross-Section 7 i0
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= 7.10 v 30
D35= 19.38 '1320
D50= 33.2
E 10
D54= 75.9 0 • • — � • � � • � ' � ', 1 � ' � — • •
D95= 180.0 pcoti 4,,0,15 Oy v ti ,Lb P ��0 4z y1 ,yo��b 0;1, Ph (ob cO 1,L'b , o 41',1ti orb 00i'
o• o• ti le
Dire= 256.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
NYO 09/2020

Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Sandy Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100060
Monitoring Year 0-2021
UT2,Cross-Section 8
Diameter(mm) Summary
Particle Class Riffle 100-Count Class Percent UT2,Cross-Section 8
min max Percentage Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 6 6 100 ,,,(— ).1., l • • • •
Silt/Clay Sandi 1< �Ik i1 Very fine 0.062 0.125 6 9pravel �( �I'
Fine 0.125 0.250 6
80 Co ble 30J der n Bedrock�
Q$C) Medium 0.25 0.50 4 4 10
S 70
Coarse 0.5 1.0 10
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3 13 > 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 13 g 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 13 E 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 13 u
w 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 14 u
,..p Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 15 a 20
GQ.P Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 20 10 ....• •�• • •
• • •�
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 25 0
Coarse 22.6 32 5 5 30 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 18 18 48 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 63 tmvo-w/zozo
Small 64 90 14 14 77
'''\(<, Small 90 128 11 11 88
0LP Large 128 180 7 7 95
Large 180 256 4 4 99 UT2,Cross-Section 8
Small 256 362 1 1 100 Individual Class Percent
100
Small 362 512 100 90
Medium 512 1024 100 80
Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 5, 70
w
Total 100 100 100 y 60
0
t2 50
Cross-Section 8 i0
u 40
Channel materials(mm)
D16= 11.86 v 30
D35= 35.18 '1320
E 10
Dsa= 47.2 I I 1 ■
D84= 112.6 0 El 1 1 ■ 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 • 1
D95= 180.0 pco'1' y1`5 Otis Oy 'v ti 1Lb P 4° 4z 'c ,yo��b ,�'1' Ph (ob cO 46 1$O <o 41',1ti o1b oOW Ooi'
o• o• ti ti o<
Dim- 362.0
Particle Class Size(mm)
NYO-09/zozo

APPENDIX 5. Record Drawings

•
tin
Sandy BMitigation Site z . ,
ai li�z
-tE:
Cape Fear River Basin 03030003 ° 3
Chatllarn County, North. Carolina
.i
Ei ‹,. �
. ,.F-; '
NgiUgcsliu3. Sheet Index
Title Sheet (1,1
r�
- Froject Overview 0,2
--
L;i1
- [
;araeral Hates and Symbols 0.3
oN -
& Stream Pian and ['ruffle 1.01-1.09
'''rtt Mlocie Rd
CS
s. Planting Fables 2,0
�. - G
yr r Planting Plan 2.01 :�
0
Fencing Plan Overview 3.
O U
Project Penning Plan 3.1-3,2 +� i.
SiteIl b•O or""
`
10
41
iiii.
PO
A
viLtriity rtn a Project Directory ..
Not to Stale
CERTIFICATE OFSLIRVEY Engineering! Owner
v mu
As UIU'I' AND,. Wildlands Engineering,Int. Attentitlrr Jeremiah [)ow
RECORD DRAWINGS License No.F-083I NCDEQ Diviiott of
I,VIA MTLYW.WELLS,CERTIFY Ti1ATTHE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THIS PROTECT WIS4O .PEU MEt APRIL 2021 312 West MilIbr�' kRoad Mitigation Services
g LINER NIY DIRECT SUPEPV155ON rebid AN ACT 'AL 5UpvEY MADE UNDERW! DIRECTSUPEAM$ION,T}IAT THE Suite 225 Raleigh,NC 27.99
RECORD DRAWINGS URE IE PAIPAREU6Y WILDLAPIDS OTOINEEPIIN ,RIC;Mew bi61TALFILESAHDCONTOUROATA �Hi �' 1 $ �
2 PROVID[nRYSUMMiTpESIGNANDEHGINEEFIHGSERVICES,PtLCAS.SHUWtrONAN•,LSeUILTSURVE3'aF S .5 .
(CI N4fR1J TICNI War NEWT Fr R SAHIW RR&NCW SI.iLtMTr fEE 1f:H ARChAr.'r A mum,.SEAE.EO OECEM.EEF IOW John Hutt!,Il,Project Manner -lijv..'
t 2DD;THATTH15SURVEYWASPERFORMEDATTHESS%COlNFIDENCEIEVELTOME(TTHEFEDERALSEOGRAPHIC G Turrner,PE Proect Engineer
1 DATACOMMETFEESTAMDARDS;RiATTHISSURVEYWASPERFORMEDIDMEETTHEREgI,IIIIEMErTTSFORA F
- TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO THE ACCURACY OF CLASS AHORLTONTIL AND CLASSIC VERTICALWHEFlEAPpUCARLE; 919,851.99 I �
- THAP THE ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAIN 9 ETWEEi1 THE OATES OF 10/13/7U70 AND 11fD /2D1SF,TIIAT CIE Stream
Origins y I
(ONIONS SHOWN A5 BR EEN[Au gAY HOT FAEUIHE SWOP Surveying! ![
t BAEEDON NADA![N5R420111ANDALL ELEVATJUNSAlA D SECON MAVD89;THAITHIS MAP MEETSTRE =_
E S,PEciFICATION$FOR TOPOGRAPHICSLIFIVE's S STATED IN TIRE 21„CHAPTER 34,SE€T14M.Sfidfi;.-niR THI$MAP Surrunit design and Engineering Services,PLLC 3
5 WAS NOT PREPARED 1114 RD&NCEWRH&S.d730 AS AMENDED Ann 6pES NOT'pE9kE5EFF1 ANi o IDEAL Stream Latitude LorL'Rude 5U°}�vlead wland Drive
F BOUNDARY SURVEY.WITNESS Ulf 'pEGIHALSIGNATURE.REGISTRATION NUI.1FEA,AND SEAL TH15 Z4 DAVOF �
MUItCII.20.2E Sanely Branch N35°3E'45.69" b4'79° '16.26" Hillsborough,lsborough, MC 27278
UT1 N35°3E'3B.21" 1,'79°2.1''12-95" '
w� N,� �raTltly Ulrells, f la^ D i IVff, 18 €}78 .g 1
5 t* IfP2 N:15°3R'2I,.F41" ur74°7a'1f..16" l9.732 3$S3 1
1
0 EitvIS ID Nu. 100060
i SUMMIT DE RFND E'l I#IEERIMGSERYICES,PLLC P3339 = 5t L DE {intracl)!11Q-� ` 7 li
L-4.544 : USACE Action 1D No.SAW-2013-0110
z
` .rEY,'�I1 ,c�° • All
_ J\

•
7 - - - --
)AREIl•1 YLEOLDHAM Cl P4
1
PFHiI 86$8E�7d490d.�! -
{ PAA{Fl ICId 8 1[ I I .• #
AB.19T9-562 I �1E =P.B.929-56 gy
s' .-
IOIiN L FESMIRE ET AL - _ - — - - - - t _ - - 1-7 2 2.
Pm 86B80C1590M4 I - - - - - - - - - -- - - _ - — _ - r•I
FARM.Ina g$ I • — —
D_B.2.13p4151 I M
P.6_2002441
- I ,ul I!rlrr
I\
-
I
+�
I r Ca
II
z.
I �K w
%.-- '8 .. ,,,,
I I It
BEEi71 E.M009E&
4UANN;MOORE1{1H143O1.1 TRUSTEE
PM B69900502275
PARCEL 10N$.1]4$
WILL BOOK El 3Z.13&7-0
D.E.\ \ / -59 1
P.B.260
2-441
� +}� lIIME5&E)L3MNA EMERSjJM
" PiMtt 6600rJ317'6378
AEON UT!LR.ESTORAT MN' IDPk L IdR ensiti�ww7 1' _ $ 4.6.317-no
a - I
- REACH 7fhNTrAMAlfrOsl� +II
, I +R'fASE�lEN1 Eh1AK 6 a� }j��� a5— - „ n—, TM 122.70
T REArCSI1 v CI ANLW — _ Fx6 u17(hE3Tau111bn1
D fxl�lfl YfA T42+A3
t'N W Eni EI-iEtiT dV..ou!
WW1 RRAlk7! iT C .- f j
ei \_-----1 REACH 1 I.-,.. --11 \ . ft
• 'PPP. i 1 .z. _
01
1.014 li a
>~am¢` d J a r
0 _.---r" -1--, ,-.70
rJ -1.-'
_ ' 84411LIgarE5E4RAPNl- id r
[ i Ionl3 _y
0 S I\ !A---.""r 1,03
TIN--
iii., lip_
µ1y. Q _ -
r1 ,a-
Lu F \ ---..-ice. ----'-'
] I i-ea 0
f AN END SANDY BRCH
REA4 k 1 IhE5r011AT1pP}) r
0
REA41 2IRES DRATIOIV)- 1 tt
iiA.110.17 i'�
a. in x}-- — +k.— .1]—i) END LR1 PEST ORATION)
SI&i01+4?
REGgi SaN0Y Q4u+CH
REACH f iRfSTQRATICFIM
1 PA ]OO+OU I
1 i f
L
I
r
E BUTTS.MI}p.E R.
I \ 11\ 4U ANNE MOORE JDHNSON TRUSTEE
PINAI 86986049761B
fPAn L£C IDIr 0967
WILL 6O0K E-811 13ffi!4
D.B.741.714
E
F - •
1
- - :.•e
i
T y 1 L I CI
r r
i
2 =
I i Er 1flS aax 2 1 v
a11.e••I'1 .+.

1- Existing Features Design Features As-Built Features
4 �
- - - - - - - - -- Existllnp,Droper[y B�Ilndiry —a LE attm
€E� Design Conservation Eaent - - - - - - rLi-tivd[SSr{erM1;wllg,nmefl[ y? ��
km* pi '
Existing HLDDT Aleln-ot:Way - I Not For Credit - - - — As-&viti Banktull 7 �
lO t tla Q
.s . ._�._. ENistinglom,kw I — DasipnRestorationReeeh hs-&urlt5'Mayor[ontottr 1-1-1 a. 4
y 3
tr
... fyiiting Top al Bank Design Bankfullfsap of Bank _ As.Suilt 1'Mirsor{antor/
-T ExIstlrte Edge of Pavement S214------- Datiljn 5'MsF6rant6rte O.13 > >-8{rois 54rtian- • - ExistirLB Fence ••-- Design 1'MlnerC3ntaur 0 0 O AS•$UIIR Perrrr` M •w�
Dr,Ygn Fence. L4—L06—LOG— 0— Limits of G rx � IA
ExIstrrte EvaereenTree• t ' F4 E
orslga Riffle li P❑PM Photo POW. ' ham# I-
•••' N
�J+hJ. n�r
Existing GCtidvaui Trer. ig.S
Design Log 1 3-1opk {DWG illy Ground water Ga-ace
F Eosting 6pihcal Finer Marker
D�esignGoultierSill l [G 111 Crest ,auea
a - 'r" t531s
Existing Wetland
r y Design/ogled toe 5.1
• f
ExlstlneBeOrcck Gesign 4unkcr IA; ti f'an Vegetat on Plot
r
GeMiMr1 Lug Vane
VE{i
IOesiR1 LuokerStrutnnt • {' As•Bult Riffle
i?
❑ As-BolR log i-Kw& O
r o L) c.
Design TransulartedSod MaL OCI As-Bulls BoulL3irrSill r
As-Built rngped Log Sill G
laesl�rr&nkshTae . 11 =
n
r r =� As-SuIlR Linker Lag ''6
r 0
I?asign RehadelToc • Av•puIIS117;'Worm {MI i.
rl ID
4
-. As-Built Lunker Strodure rd Q
Design Rack Floddplain Oudet - 'u^{I 4I En
it
[EW'Culutrt Crossing IPA.
As-Wit Brush lar
s _
^ [Aestgn Dare
At•BUik Bntsh 1pr
s AE,Lnlilt BoLrider Tae N;
S FF
i As-9Vilt Rock Frflodplaln outlet S
s:
I
r $i i

r ,
,..
Al
i N
1 U a:
tau I I _ — I r I o' 1C iP Er ,1 }}'
I � I 0„01 airy,
-' ...4"te., I, I
;4
II
{ 3� Vill Nli berry,
475
z�, �I': , 1
1 . ll ^ ` '`� .-gyp•?'-
f— ' / :get
d74- - �'SIGN SRAAE .. � -�--- d70 � .,�
AS-LiUILT�SF/.D E F III.
4�4nq w,d
' 1 1
-
4691. 1 I Kr
1004-00 lO-4io 1O1+90 t0i+50 102+06 742*96 163+00 108+54 i3d•00 fba+ .5 0 U op
fI&EF is ,� �. i y. �. fir. >V as s �. x� 1 F.y
MAaKER 5r;1$d+32 cAN DY BRANCH ,G '�
.r ,t .at at. � L � ati � � a r-I �
6OlJ1UERSILL�fOfhMSTALLEO '"---.� ' y
i UUE79CLEYA71d=+IOF r n. . . . .r
EXISTING SEORQCK # I I
?-.jCW73�9' $�.' r 4OT . OD] —Q "'f l:�"._ .. Ad r fwdal
cl
i
4
it # ti• r *.4— % ' { '•,, x,: -�`+.. ' .•ham
.:1
4111.
J
... - / GwG 7 '6 i �{}fir .[�..
r * BEGIN SANDY BfUN[k
/ j 1. STA.1 s oRaTton� STb 1 41-wo-•6o - _ --
ROULDER7OE Su95TITUTED
,p FofLQ vAtlEdufTO } �p••r •• ••
4, \ ELE1+dT1ON OF 7(I5T,HFt . f- J I#
' BEDROCK
O
FI6ER J J . i IRI
' .e._._._.,_.7.,_._._.,,7,-....„,..._„„...___....."........0(.,
•
•
F - `'49 +}v - L O�104 :kt'G 3 a. - ,i a a u �� 1
'�
441
. _- 3i. aY aL .L y i
NOTES: f . .� II . •
trf
i. DEViA714H5 FROM THE DES! !1'oiLL6E {f
S}iraww ur R60. f4;� k f
! 2. AS.BUILT 14 FORMATPDIx FOR FENCING IS ! ` >' -
ADORESSEO ON SHEETS3.1 AND3.2. •
- #
A .� Ad A. A A t .r a .Y i = I ,-

1
y
w 2.i
X :a ac ca a:`-
ANI: 2
b
,7_ asN n
Y
675 I I I I 475
I
I ' I A4�{� NI T•I
a.
— CiESiGHGRiOE ; - I - ' Y �'tl
I. — - - I 6
I { 1
4, -• , {
,r.rim-7,509''
...
,- ._
470 � � r x fr rr{{ _ {10 ',II
'— — ... l* f x NI
r ~.x f{ z lllallry�,
id
I ii.".--Nk-,
• f SSSLLLFFFiii Al
-
11 A 8LIJLT GRADE I .rt�ip.l�l `
I
I
I
495 -- I -
_mmiri:Hm :, . .
1_ 1 Mill - . ,5
•
{84 I e F I _ I 460ea
iO4+25 1(A.h5g t05+0p 106+30 1U9+00 1087.50 147710 107450 196*O3 08150 ID
w
a
Mrs
W� sV as ,a ,Y, ba W al, yc tt u
id
E
— � SANDY €3f ANCH i '� '` I — Lr,
I T r 10 ROCX OUiCBOR 3 �-
a _ _ r ... +•!
• mac. 045.—w--- __.-
PP 0- .' tetra}�C } tura. U
•
ter.. 4. �r1 • ,3
•
`- '.�'• •_ + •� ter.• .. 4. _ iS
_� ice'• • -. - -• �' f. y * I.
i•
h--1 •• •Tr. 16: ` •'• -
G PP NI #�:- fi. /a. l ~~ . PO...
.. J ;
- Zt#: - ._ _ ! l of P aS i
•
sIir. �r r ,� WL {.. fP
„Jane �. +o a _- .
I _ sac
LO6L44L06 ak Al.a t t4J}
�J —LOB F+� {Qa �� {
A, sia AL abc aa. fa J — U r
1 'gib a. / cp
NOYES: I to.I.i, 6, A .Y ak a4 AL a4 W W .,. .yIa. DEVIATIONS I !Y THE DESIGN WILL 8E r 473 J n r�--{
SHOWN IN RED. ....8. ¢. N4 £ W . . A Ai IN i. 41. 4a 4 sYaI
-_
• 2. AS-BUILT INFORMATION FQRfEI+CING I5 - --�
ADDRESSED.ONSHEE35S.i.0.7.10.1.2_ . y ar, ,u a. 4, '4 r, ak ,i ar a.. - a. .,A, a. J.L. +4 Az •4 f a do a
93,1

r __ ._
-..._.,.
In7\---12,, , .
, , i
1A 0.41111 fRfYSVNf. , I I � ' A `d
'LEV:
a 473.75 I ! r*"Y"' Z? d qI b ...MIMI'
�75 rBe EV 411. Err�i5 ��= 2 a' ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �' .Z 1.4 4
F -, . ■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■
-..-. ------.�... ■■■■■■■ ■■■ .- ■■■ ■ --
•
_ _
• z
. ..42.6„,.: ip,_
2 _
!!!II!I.■ ■� 11 E■ - - .;�+" - a
iimiiiii...---"Ak
III III-1011AI
RN:467.56 , ! UUUU l_, E JimaI% AS-BUIL G' I■■ !U■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1i ii.•..,
■■ 83"XSTGAP ■■ IE qt?MEM..
in4f'FS165 PIPE�%Po N ' 165■ ■■■■■■ 4 '
■ IS iIiLT CULVERT c` y
Ml:16781 ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ,■ ■ ■■■■■■ 1211
■■■ ■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ 111111111111 .111
■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ Ago €.1
4
ea
1Q8+59 1W+46 I04-r$p 11D IO 10+50 111MIC 111*54 1t2+4p 112.50 71&I-W Q
-w--i— - ti fa t} Q
rJdTE '.{ - ` + da Li.. d. Li., LL LE.
,4 V .�+ y i
FULs+oCo., EtT1ds1, A% . f if Pr{ e a AL W r. {l
II
fi
I ' r/
SAN 1' BRANCH A:. J. V.
' - - 40'Eb iEMENT 6AE+iK -,1. gyp} 7
N! REAM 1 / 0.
di -.y STA_106+61 ". `^ i
I 4 41}'EASEMENT BREAK 4 • LEfl ST14 iI1+96 f f v_ x•y'�-_�r:ti. '1 Cf;
S SANDY BRANCH ' W VIM rU$Slen rEO .. f : _ _ _ - 1•y
/ its}'
i 1 i REACH 1 MA EIOULDER shu.WE TO rLr,:F' y' U
STA.1D9*01 1 ff.W.. MATERIAL AVAILABWITr . : .
,..
•
... .
..!.., • . .
., ,
GOA-
-- --"•-..P.) ..,,,,, - - :
Y 1 i 5 y F�+ dG• X....„ ' Ike •t.
\ail
4IC-A\ A IF 1\ Y • �• R rqa ti +�. -� I •' fir' ren
t �•• by
01
i �y rS Q' Alas1a l- ENO SAWN BFLANC+1••• . i e.t f i
rr, •• *fr Sr •. Y - ' ISEACI11 ER[STOMTION� tti � { % — - 1 ��
.16 • 9E�IN 5ARDY WAN ` ti i{ {f 'J'+ ��'
* _ REACH 2 NESTORATICIW) d6. j'' ...ri " I ' i t
'c 5 % `&3•J�57' MP PIPE ARCHSTA.11011 • a• / i 1r - • tiyy• 1
.�;I NV IN:A�T.$l ENO L1Tl PP Lr7 x .
INVOL11-A67 .% REACJ12IRESTORATIO0 f 17-1 1 f
fi 5TA.241+92 - �, '
4 v 1-1 \:L -gt
\ \ _i_:,
S E •
�'
1. CitraATION�SiFLoM THE DE5ICf1',WILL BE — ;57' ' r' 1
•
c $H¢WH IN RED. P I f y;WG 5r,
= 2. AS-BUILT INFORMA:ICIN FORLTI IS F 4 + '� " ; ° •
1 �
ADDRESSED ON SH EE3 LBS. \ I VET q
II • x �` —� y
ll : l 2

._■■■■■■111111..E,,III:
■■■ C el 2 da•
E .
•
.m .•
L k uF_�i
ilit.311?"': '1 6
470
li
— { — o€sd�n�xaEl� �—ass f 1 -
IIIMIllir
ill
Milmal . --
Th _.IWJF
I
■■• fr ff• „,wn
■� _7.111.111Pr ta5t-i"
I I.iimmill II ri
460 ••••• • , 450 %44.vato
■�EINEM
■■■
455 ■■ ��■ ■■■ 1 ;s¢
■■ _r■ ■■■ --
45.4 - ■■ ��■ ■■■ . , 1 1 1 45ct
113►00 113450 114+00 114R50 115+00 115450 116*04 116430 117-40 117+50 CI 4+
I ..viNG0 II -
O V
tw[ r vcG C
1 N\-4;,?,en .: ,..% 46
2 \.-----
1: o
r 5�F`6 .6+ 1:1:1
•
3 ,..$ X
MI
y7:'' '3:''' . r
%
,7��i777u. m . �r yae
i .. ' a4 4'
z r( 1.. i a 7 w ,L as ,r w m w / — —Y4 y
-- ' '!,. a6} s.i}{S��g;a� Q 7 /0. : • .. RP 410 11 441
h.
eir
a x '� &ANDYBR1NC i r
�jj a]Si ,n �,i I_—__il - 0. \` •• r 14G Ln0-L�0
I �•7,..... .. ...* * � •
* i r ram., gil
i
ter_ S ' . ,.. _ -— -- ••• • TiGRT4 #� - +� 4' } 1
fi
11 re)
W 04 .ib r .i.
NOTES:
,.
h. 0EVIkTI0N$FROM THE 13E06N VilL L y
SH04YN IN REO. - 1 AL 5
}{it
2 k5-BU1LTWFORht4TiON FOA FENCING + f w+1 'li Y
A�RESS€OONS�1EE753.1Rn63.2. 1 CP- -Th. w �� � ] - '�i J

-
•
:1 -*' U' 2' 4' L. C 1a
pro — — I l!'_1
•
•
zr TAR,
II
a' ,� fin}�'
3 - � n:i /3100 Z a 2 9'
-i 1 I
I 1
-0BS I �. �1 ip
�. I �y` S
INIF S
ti
f{ k \1 Ir r1� _ _ AS-9[11LTfafL46E m11l,,
I --- I AS-MKT GRADE } f %1 ' 169 a �.' )4,s
?{ '
II-
•
40 . .. ' ._ i ass
J
•.w Q
i ' _il .. 1-52 ft
111450 _ 11E000 114+5l 11E1KO 119i50 124+00 120+50 171*00 121*$Q 122*00 0 UcIL
.. rum]th. .±. zy- - 4... - ------_____
H.a� ar a a -� is jo I • 2 �'n II
Al �ii �e J� f
II
pi} i f Hc)
II .>
vs{r T * is
:,1, _ -~_;.. .� £ya SANDY6RAN I I 'anf "r •
x
\‘(1. .-
�4' \Vi . '4.
+ __ •4 { ate ._. f' {
i LOLD % T { PP Rl 121,C0. r k# ',. $
.1 '1 il
/
} �y SA4]19+58 }f
Z? ANGLE 11t41 Silt i1J S1 FEUDED_Lop ts+ f y.6
3 I YPB FOR 2DuLDER Stu.0uE T{1 '
MATERIAL A 1LA1ILIr-' #
NOTES: 11 VEC C D 0 1D0 • J
1 ORNAT1aMSFROM THE 0E5101 WILL RE 1�
i 5Hpy,'p la flE0.
-~�° Jr t i
Ay9UILT INF'g1U.1AT16N FOR FEI+C�r+G 15 al2.i . w
.. ADDIRESSEDOM SHEETS AND 3.2.
„ - - - I - J 1

En
1I a e
I , 1' _ -
I Q MI .r BY 131 w]
4E5 I �_ +E =
r
1..1V
— I 4
_ ,�
450
',. 1 /--- r---
�ESIGMGRACF k -- -f •
�- - { %�� Jr �iuu..
ri
RA AS•ELLIILTGDE ! '`"
456 ' -�
- — 1 I *�r1Y
'n yd.4.-:..?tk:„
I
_I I
456
L
_ a50
418 I : _. . _- - 11 Ca
122M-DD 127 III 123103 1234.5D 124400 1211,511 125.61:10 125+5D 129+00 126+25 0
1• «ad ♦e W �. Q-r .A. A. A. J .4 . A ,L AY J. .L J. L A. a V+J W 1-.
A. vt is 4 A. .a, A. A. # .k A. A. 4r 44 i. A. A. A. A. A. A. W W '7 1-
\IN:
'-
w
A. .4 .i ,l i .4 A. A. . .R 4. ,t a. . i. .L .4 W J. A. A. a. sid ,a '•
A. A. ,..L.. m { A A. # # A A A i, . .4 AA A. A. a. ,A. A. W I Linj Y
r .1... .I.. A. A. A. A. A. . W a, .L A. * A. A. # # A AA a. A. a ..1. A. A. A. .1. u. 1 a A 5
Q GWG 11 I yam'., U
Q VI'la ,A A. A. A. .LC A. A. A. A. A. .! A. Lie A. A A. 4r , A. a. ,A. Ad 'a. ti:
Ecy m A. A. A. A. AL Ad. y. ALa. # A. al. A. A. a m A. A. us a1
•
'--I A. A. A. A. A. 3. a. A. ON .1. A. A. A. A. A.
[ i
rt 4. �ap.I' Ql__.. 42aI
�I ,� I r '.
yw - mar ao1 ~�'
27
SANDY BRANCH
.. GAUGE b _ ,x-+- - • w:-._ { F Pi)is,A 'J 4a1...-D..'
ili
v.
; .-• / ' - '.01,. .-..... ___--- .0 rhi7 AC'
'0._Its:•:',3; ' 41' '
+i - +• *3 '•T---+ P i£ N. # tee.. A ' si r* L. . � •y
_..0 .ZE
HaafaUT P % s l - -
- adCx OUTCROP' 111.41.
i ii
al-
0 LO Ch—uce—Lou-----A. .---...-°<;13' -4 61 -• .... ,,lei:1311.
1 .rt
U 1 1
C.-1
1144.
6 1- ti 3
1
ci
5 •
0
L. DEVIATIONS.c ROM THE'DESIGN WIILLEIE
SHOWN IN RED_ 0 0 A. A. 0
2. AD'$Ui4r INFO 1iErrs FOR iEl4CIFFC�S � -I�
11)
A6G9z5if66H$h�E1:'f31.1Arab3 _ I } # T
- -- - - � t +mil II ' l

0.'"- --.- _ ____ _
4„..„ _
4.,
IT,.
,. ,,,, ,
iJ I y
r
I ■■■■■■ MOEN1121, -
• - - - -- - - d' LR 40r Eff
11-- ■ M�■■Iiiii■■■ .. - - •
■ ■■■1 �Y {
■■ ■ ■•■■■•■ ■ ■■■ _ ■E■
4611 ■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■I■ ■■■ 4„
1111111 ■ AS9UILTGRAGE ■■ ■■i ■■.■■■■ _ ■■■■■■■.■. :t 1 n
1•05 i 1Mi1i1Ii1r1l-l
V■■■■■■_.L....... .. .......
MINE■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ° ;i1
Li■ - E a ■■
455
,v f,4N'l,_,,.,.i.,..,i•,.,kArd.i....
4551ILIIHhIIIiiHilNuuIIpunnIu:::
E ,11.„rr
I■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■E■■■■■ _ I•Iis .* 47
1■ _ ■ ■■ ■■■■MEIN 6E.MaR0.LIE ■E■_ I■■i■■ E■ rri
. i iN■■■■■■■■■■■■ sm PRE-CONSTRUCTION GRADE E■ E. _ __ _1
-- -
�9Q l 456
■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■.■■■ ■■■■■■■
■.■■■■■■ -
446 ' •. . — ■_-.
126425 1264-50 127-4> 127+50 1284011 i y.50 1129*OE 1294,50 1.361•00 113G+50 U
.-
STA 12b*T4 •*.+GhE b. �O 6 P.
ANGLED UK S,LL Su 1 T T1 EIS ram-
SFIONNONZ EET1at T (7p FUR 6SrJLVtR L P y am"
CFI •
PPa15 #�_ ` _C ?-,
_ ?j wd
'' ..,�., . rt,r -_�_ =# SANDY 3RAN,CH L. riz C. r
Cf1
r J
`i •••4• �• x QUlC SANDY BRANCH 1 r
• s x x - DO1 REACH 2{RE5TORATION� �
t Y�' 'Y _ �.t.�■ END LFT2(RESiURATIC]NO ],,ii ( II re
z
p -0 $ '{ � • -
.-
Ti -/ %DUIDUTCRDP . ff
f--f BOULDER 51L1 NOT INSTAU.EDDUE TO w _ - �� r1�r r` •
0 .1 REMOVAiOF DROP OVER POOL i. �� '!• ,`y t _ `•9 __, .'
1 • C_+j--) I--••-liel5 Tiol: ' -NI i
e .. J Jl l'Z�a7�-i� ad! 'Y.�1.— .- c._ f
3 • - p3� DC 70E A4DEo 5a '� ~ JI_Z
jj�� -"■'- EraosfiNESYaRANcr+
y " 4'w ;45 FOPo+ADDITIONAL BANK " "a -J REACH 2(RESTORATIQ?I) p
�'' STJAILfTi a5' STA.1.29+dD
4
f.
* I itSiA 12&.47 129+35
BRLIdNTCIESUBSTIMED
:2 0 _I ,
* i -FOP Po4ADER TOE Mg rp
ter'f ._.. y.,. s-l- -- MArERIALAYAILA3ILITY
` � _ 1.'d -,
e NO,Ex CPa3L15 ! I
1. DEV ATFDNS FROM THE DESIGN MUM
�_F '
SH0Wif IN RED, `'
2 A5-BUILT INFORMATION FON UT2 6 L i x p'P9 -A`� sal~ 4'= =d 2^
t ADDRESSED ON SHEET 1.09. 4; — - .�' I k'
3 AS-BUILT INFORMATION FOA FENCING IS 1 - _ 1 k L
ADDRESSED 4�I SHEETS 3.1J4ND3.2. I. .' . ., '� _Y - _ • - 3r - •.-.• d L o
yuP10w Y c. -66A

. E I o• r .' s T Q p
q w ab7 40' 60' 131 4 i 17'7.
x r.9
Ix _I I-IQ L
7.
474
• - ". -.--. .....- .]
Qa Cwl
—_ {-PRE-DONSTRUCTION GwwE I f r 1.1 ' ig-
A.r&LIJLTGR,41]
AP
4E5 •
zuo«w 200Haa 251.00 - 201.50 2)11
. -11 ! !7\
•
•
6....c, • '\:\
V
p E$ .lit\::- I {,`• it
HFC NDUTJ[RESiORATIQNh • i0STA.2d1+92 ? { .
STAJ44+84-1CI4.d9 ENDSAND.VORAI,ICH �' --C, _ ' ''I'I L.L. u.
BOULDER TOE ADDED FOR /1140-11.[REriTORATJONh . •L ti fi 1 • . /... q�,
AJPITIIONA-1 LAN 5TA6IUT+' 'BEGIN SANDVEHM CH r + r { O
� cH z1ITESraRAnonh ti I # , rd
9FGINLITI(RE A OO+Gl 51A 1WO1 i L i I' I fiWGfi r
...i .
• +;� ► ice• {{` ' _: r �+ Y t � F.
. ,y`;- `{147. �."1 Y ET ! •�'_ rValli. f 1" I +1+ 1' ff '++.
* ��• ti 241-L4]r. Jf ' i. L.1 VFW + I j
• '�'1t'ly/�- ETA 40.63 . } re' F'V?7 y + f` +
ili '� . + ANGLED LOG SILL SLI STITLIT#D y vI i" .ai
0147..15 '. FOR BOULwERFILL Dili TO '•GL44,5/
/ / - •
'
•
4�- 5`• MATERIAL AVAILABILITY
+ I� 29'K4#'CMPALPEJIRC3i `?f~ { rCtirSal f� �If}.
4 4.70� r'u• a. NV GUT:45.9.iR "'j g l j.Y
� r •lit•
}1Ir I,
# 4CY E�SEiN f FlT BREAK i 7/ f 1
' SANDY BRANCH k f .• --
j
p r r IiEAC7k 1 \ •
2 `° W STA.3P9ad1 '� • r - / �y •r} f ;• kill
rri . I 7: ::.:77-7:::::::::-4'.. - !:':.;:.:..:'. 17. . .. . r..2:..77.2:- '-'Cr •
-
co
TIQ►[5: f 44'EA341.1ENX61lf_N{ o c, r! _ _� ,
1. MIAI.TIC1h15 FROM ENE DESIGN ik'ILL EE - S{I I#QY BRAkCFL i 41"X P PIPE AACFi --`-E--Cr "
11I W►I IN RED. r RE:dC111I INV III;457.81 {r ` '
::' All''''' 1 III d
2 Af 9U 1LT INFORMATION;OP SANDY 9AAH[H f # IHY OUT;d57,56 eE + " • LOD IU I}z
_ IS.ADORES$EO ON$HEE7$l.41 THA4UGIi 1,�T, ffr STA.SC"8+61 c } CI' tr i ld•]�LOQ_J I i it
3 AS-SLULT INFORMATION FOR FENCING IS 3 .
•
_ A I.0 E55EO ON SHEETS 3.1 AND 3 1. 5 r {I t" --I d e�� ,2-,
ti 1

•ir.I kr M174YF 1.4-I 0 .�
gi
m - �. u Y 2. Z
0-4: -0 hi
z
YY I ,- z f C
Sit - - .4 . .�"
— —'-- Y --- — •- .. _ /DESIGN GRADE Ni-,,,,,
•
Re{ONSfRUCTKIN GRADE 4 rf _ ' �q'"+
--,---V'FI 1 '',.
hi
+N I 1_
►G.DIU LT GRADE} I a55
I
--i--— . — $.
•
4-13/4i.irilic7
d1511[ I i .-
90 306t50 311-1 34ir5G 3(12+0:1 942+58 3•,..... ,:,d2+ 3
•
41,f
rr ¢ k}{`.-.. N...
} ` ...... _ ..:. ,
l1F •,.,_. • ,.,
� • �reVl 5•. Aa L �l a4. . . . . . AL INI. IL AO • .I.L ••
�4 a� — 1. •
IF 11/P id
•
11 0 0 0 O k �'f
•..1.0 11� ill;
y} •4• F L
F ��_ - 1 /� ail i� a� }.fY 1•-1 •
I
c r $ çm
A6CIL ULI7OIOP ; ' _ L+ w 0 .
( UT 3. ]I A SL12y-¢!e y 1I
ROCK FLCIOQWAIN 4k1T1F-f ,' )ECa1Fi4f2[ 1R+�T10MM MQEQ Q Jf TOOBSElL4E6 f ]
+ 1 • PRyt& 4.01 05.AfiDRQ'44+ • I, 041 �^ ,� .0 I L] G .
..0
_ f ENDUT2IRESTDRATIONI e5 C
+ 1 + • --. r + y'• `--. ) } A�`•-' . • w STA.302/93 n O IL
6 .� • " +;'4 + { 1. REACH 2{RESEORAFIDM� ira , , .,� t •�� 1s ' '�.:. t \ I SFA.127+i0 �P ice, U:
.. \
*Jr-'•.
iVPlO %• p •r
a gy,�pp.
, it +t . 1 - - {1 ]P!i4 4 '� irt—
n 1 - - ` IH 'i rs (0L
i OD
eZ
•
•
, ': 11 I
+ mo . y t f 'R� ti '• d - - _ 2
- j 4 x END SAW'BRANCH I .-.
R
7 � - REACH 2{RESTORATION" '
NU ES: x7+1. a .. M1 4- ,. , .TA,121140 S NI ..
1. DfViPT[ON5 FROM THE OE5 Gf}1MILL BE '
•
E SHOWN IN RED. 4. "
1 2. AS-BUILT INFORMATION FOR SANDYSAiki£N 4.
2 IS ADDRESSED ON SHEETS 1.01 THROUGH 1.07 .- 9
3 AS-BUILTtNFORFAA11ONFORTEHCINGIS 2 J. EIS f
ADVRE55EDQN SHEETS 3.1 AND 3 2.
- i

I I [one 1-Suaam4ank Plenl;nglun r
Strambank Planting Pone #'errr1en611# RiOerian Soiling I 'a
flue Stakes Pure trove Seed{113 rbslaarel C� � Atok
_ { k ' 2ene2-Buller Plenting2arre ' z
Pac1�s G#nm4n N,me Spacing Mtn.Sate Slrak�+m �,e f Stems ADP Mond
Dates Spades Name Comrrpm Name Si alum (�tlsfatrea Percentage v
.4£ .I 1
Sahx rabrre Black 1hSlkrw d,5-1.5'Cal, Shun 15�( Ai Year Pinourn ngir rn' Flaarap PrIrkgra99 �+-'`.- ei 1.¢ Mi. _ _ _ I�me#-VJe7land Planking�on2 u
Con'os
SO k
arm rnpm�Lna Y 6 r xk 0.8.-1.8-Ge. SIYi r 25% 88Y5ar ha2lraFr.vlF FiNer lash Hai ti Weeils ao 19%
SaGr sericea Silty Wakve 4,,�, p.4'•i$'pl. -- 5N-64 30% AIY Year ki+7becrta Prate- B13c ed il Sna Herbecaga 1.15 5% I
cephalenhus 8ullonhuih , O 5 4,3'c Shrub 15% All'Veer r` °c�Asra l��celeai I Note.Darr natdred areas,Mrt#lln the ta.rser+rakion 4afCm2nk are r,F1 rr
yeys J, alah HX6acex 1.0 5Ya lay?vegetaledandwereplankehasneededkaadllevc
l.
}' - +}.;t'-1.5'caX sin 15s,L - earg printed according lG 5 hullo 3.03.01serwuan aaic�nhe i.�� r.s
EAi Ihll Year Carer wiipoMa F9ar$a d9q Herh5c9ws 38 15Yr wai
ir]G+Ir All Year Ca ea MAN Lurid Sedge HerUecaa,s 1.0 5% eLS I'2 4
All Yav 'n°"�rR' aeerlan.la I-19r6a[ 5 3.1 IS% i,,-i ,'
HerbaceoUUS s' clond=hirsun +$�
dem^oselw�ana Fanmon Meal 1 1.0--Ler repo Herbsce l ayA, AA Year €J)arwt wrgiraiCYrs tilrgjria Vial Rya Hi r�000ic 3-0 15}G y r +
Core'e+'9Ss �raert9ryle Sedge UI-2.0-Ptip I-lerbarAc s. 2IPAr. Crnerrrrrrecrtaa
-J An Year ratacrciNar9raer PanrMpePee Herbaceous 1.1:1 5%
Pxn;rirra hsci,� fa
vv�t;artA � d•_� i.q'-3-o-'Pl# k#ertacrans 2p7¢ - ��� I
d+pLLS lisa
I All Yrry SwWr�F,Milkweed Mr/mews 0.2 1%
cypinnus W4dQrasa 11,U'-2,9'I�lJ9 li4r�r l{5 l0�'. All Year dw?w elYraaua GI1 Rumor Flar6aceulla 2.0 10'16
Carex?arils Lrrid&Dagp I l.IT-20'pNg Herpaee met 20rrb
Al Year AiQgn5 ari5r4&a &1r Marlgioitl }re rtia¢abu5 Oil 4%
181011
Al Year angrrurrifpGllx SaainhSL 1110..Lr 146rb3^.amms 14.1 5%
.. Buffer Planting Zone I ~
asreRonrs Temporary Seeding
I MIN-SF9SI4FT'Gammen Noma Spacing l IF,Caliper 0lralum I n&Stamm Size Pula Live.
'iR.TllG Phall'u WMIYNCak F 12 R 8-sE-1,o' C GrlapV I9% Appwwmd $peC1L+4 liSrrY4 CommoniN1174 Stirs tuna
plaFenree -1 - t?ata�G I �lkhsrscre)
acacierrdeha Syr_a S-12 FL 4.25' ,d- Canopy 20% .ro
ro
Aug 15-Max 1 & aale caramelCa
Rya Green H ura eAheoe 1a0
Soma Agra River Bich 6.18iL 02e•-1•�' oP1 20% May1-Auce15 Sciaria,':1:ra ! GermanMlleir I11tIaeous 54
m I
� $kempaminitOak i-12L 025r.ii es .-1nichn .fl'J Canopy 1514
r
4uec7.130 'y WtrrerOnk 12t 11.25'-1A 1 aarwpy 8% - - -- • - Z
Anernownea ocelrier 5-121L 0,27.11,0- I sr ,�uiru a% Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
d.rhnrrr rubs Ellppery Elm 13-121L 025'4_o• ropy 4% 7r1 En
u ApAre4ed Species Name Common Hama Stratum Density Percentage Fr
Slrarnardtlgh 1-121t . r}.25--IA' I ianppy 11% Elates ;Ibs?acra) --II
attat.prota--- 1I' % Pill Year -
ardaa neoea I WI}4iGW K9r89S 904 1G !4'i H
Ai Year Fsarcrea!titles Craaliug Rod Fescue lkrbncea.s A0 10%
- AA Taal- 1:1414 'A2'Abrrrera59 a/alartlgrees Herheceorss 40 MI% i„J r-i `-R
i --- - - - - - - - Floodplain and Wetland Planting Zone ion%
Bare Ha ON 3
' -- - - - ,
Cali
Species Common Name Sp I�ng Min. txe Per St atum #of Stems .5 tR
Acan'.a regrp Riour Birch {-12 IL 025'-1.0' Canopy X.% tt
Quercuspagioda cherrybark i k _ 4-12IL d.25-LA' callow 10% CI] `4
PAI erx s
4i.rt+defrtAa`e sycei1ire &.12 n. 0.75'-1.1T Canopy WI
Oiser{Jr3 Swamp CheebiLAc r 8-12R d25'-1,0' Canopy 15%
IE rrrrherrrir
;Taft rslg.a Oki&Wdliwr 1r12iL 1 25'-1.7 rrapY 5%
t 4e1e..C1rarphagat lh9kwOak $42r1. 825'-1.Cr Ca!ropy 1tli%
j C rebut Harm Water Oak 8-12 R 0.25',1.cr Garlcp'I 5%
Ceitieladtelgole Sugarterry 6-1211. o25-1.t1' Gimpy 5%
ACM relyarlde eexNd!# a2 h. 0 5'-1.7 S, nape 55:
rJrnws riudra elder
Elm L
n %1.a' Cla-12 VI. Q25`-1.IT ClOC*I 5%
*xydn'ara
3
I.21
ii
21 i
:i

P
1 ZBn+1-5Ul8R5hllnk Milling 1Qnr
a
SINK 2.Buffer Conlin Zee eN'''''''-,. t
I e
"} M{
-_-_- • Zane 3-Welland Plantirr�g3arm — — - - - - — - - i..i'r 3
n
gate'N411-hatched areas wiChlrl the[Ard.erWrikn easenscnt arq
currently vegetated and went pealed as rcc Cdcd to I
i mill iryr+
athiewc Carpet density-Th■rernamde*uithetonserr,atran I -N
eascrncn#was planted accardingm Sheets 7 I.G1. I -
_ - II i
\ \ - -- -._ -_,__ _
- -�{ - _-J II i-e.
+;
w
j J
r } I
rd
CG
U1
twit g4Ai`1 � _-_-
Ce 0 5A _ — - - - -_
C I . _ -__- ExolsilNG
G :— :—;— — — — — — -- — — - - - - +- -- NAROI+��oa
rANIOPY
IN
ig \ 11\1_ .._ .. . i.0 _
. V - -• #4,--wAti 4. 03
.-ererotv 0,00so, '. . A\--- - -_-,- - - -_
- - - - - - r ip
-r.,414,e, -::-
- - - _ { D I}
- - - - - - - - - - - E cr—to / ea
�A Y MCL
r
__- - - f _ - - -- _ _. - ?4MSt4 cisr U 4 ctpY ` _47 a
_ _ -tr
4110 WI'
46
il
\ Fr
I U
\ \ _ _ . _ _ _
5.
r
i
r {
'. r1
1r � 4 CD
z
I I i l
I It _ e
N,QbiW Lw4S.. �� o +

r
va
IZ S-6LIILT WI:WM WiR[PENCE I _
A
t
l as auuT 12 TUBE sr�El GATF T - —— — — - - I �•_: g
IYrI
0.61. NL r y..,4
, \ \
I
NIa \ ' ' ) _____ _ _
to a +
° i 1 ee • . •
211: . I a I:, .. . ,,....„0.toi
5_ _.A.,__._._ticrtf, ..„...7.-_,::;----._,7-.-,.._
•
i- - *) I f/ 1 ,_o LIB •- 03 0,-1
fldl
- ;,57 ter}
f •'
V .
{ o� °4 • �o — CP
- , a✓ n
r.
CD
r
•
.5 t
Do
e.
t - - .
IL
CFI ut4
L
L
S
...,
V
i': \ \
Si
S ?
}
f —
S
7.
I xiI
,vim zap z L 1l
d

r. _ _
to ,
. A
• AS-BUILT WOVE 11 WIRE Fr NC 4
. •, 0 a Zr1 .:411
tln: 1;r2
,--, As-poi T 5 T'TURF STEEL GATE =i'w
!2
12'STER GATE
I
111 •
_,,_.__,...,: ..,_..L--• .J.
1:11.::2'' '
; WOVEN WIRE FENCE
I. ..------ • • . ..
WNSERVAT101.1 6%3011E10 :
0-...• -__t_{,kis
iar- 't-A A. 1.
VI
‘t,ke 1..11 ,d4Z-
.N:"..ij - 4. 2•Ud IV
I -, 4... 1 .
.
.
4-I
.
I• It' •
t2'FTEEL.GATE .--1 „.LlilY11...0
I Iti .
..
..../
...r ..00°....." 11 1 ....%`•C: /
• l•— Ir r, It'l
12`5rEELGAIE-\\
6'
T ..Q.J. /- -•--•- -.•' LU
41.1
..------
-
. - -
• .. ---- :4.' . . - .
• .
.1.2r STEEP_GATE • , 011ii -- 0 ..
S4 A, LL, ''',iNr:
• i—i-,_ ,.....--1:1-'41. ).' ..) (.......<0...- ilql'7---..% "Vk
PASSAGE Ain 7.14131\ ••• -L- A
- ------'-'-'-' . I
=
, _ "litiv u
• 1-
•.----
e(aft„„........ fc, - at 11)- • / L' '• // J - A
wavi-ha ibiflf FE rioi __--.
-,._ _, 45., .• -,'... '.. - ..
41121-- . \ 5;41/4 ,
- ., / / ' '' ''.
Je
•• rAY.,......
•
--.• i • Eb.1 01A-
.L. c .- .... IA I. a . k( =-,/ I/ ../ .____
A-----'-- raj (7 7: .•,,'1._ -1r i . . - •..... ,
a• am-La•-•, 111 '; • ' .----\-=as -
al
_ • , •..._- -----
.112, Ao
: ..e ' --- -4'" Ffr/ _ ;';-' :.' •..
--
, .
Cnc L.I
ill 2'STEEL GATE
..--r•-•- • _,...... -
.
12'STEEt GATE ADOEC-.., ilt . •;
). er. 61 i- 1Z nj
,.....
1:1.\\\NN.1:: _ 0:.:/.eX.-- .1 j ..-•
.3TI•X .2,/ + cio.f'-.-1
•. 2 r
--`
i 0
''• br.
/ X
CONSERVATION EASEMENT ,.. .1 .,41, _-•- LETT-a-,...Tho - .. - '.i
irEr
tdi
E !
,. —EXIST!hIG FENCE ROME, oe i iIlL___ 1-L,!. . !. . -------- ••- - .---- 1.6
.-' ....."-
§ - \ A, ik: 7• -- -_7_7-7'-=7--- --
CO
..-,-,-.2-ciet-7...9Y•_____.... .) i ...;
_.,...i.P5 VI • -,-. "-,_ ,,, — ,..• . _.--
• _-•-- --- _._._.--.,
.••••' _ --__
-__ .- _ .- i• >-.
- ' e ,____ --____ -- .• .-1 cd
„_:.--'-- •J '__. % ilk
1 ....
si \rkli ... ra
.. , _ e •
I
........'4'.'
.
. 7 _. ..-e I / — ...
•-----. 121TEEL GATE
1 I / .-- ..—'- •
CIO.. 4).‘ er ... i Fr."• _... 4
• 11,.. r •
-----
1_,I'STEEL GATE
51 --Toli- - •. -
4
7 Ai
._------- ..,
. 1.
)
12 2.•-.-m-Ekgrin a•c".
a._ - . r . - . .0... a
Et -.----- -------
'1 '---- _.---•-• i 11
12 SIEEL GATE
1 -.--•-•
.. -------- ------
_-----
,1.1; - -.---------
1. DmAriahis.i-Ram THE PE slam iiior BE . Cn
SICOKM IN FED. 11
1 2 p.s-IluiLT INFORMAII:Oti tOlg SANDY 13.WIcH.
7 iii. 00 170'
LIT1 AND UTI ES ADDRUSED Cm sHan i.01 itigl
_
THIGSJCP1 1(19. .
%...-- -

a 6 � � F.5-IEWLI SVCFVtN 1LrRc htKit r s
OGhNELTEO TO E711.511NG FENCE Ilel:31N. 5
Y121.5. .g
AS-BUILT! M2'iUBE57€FL GATE F
,aa 1 1-
I w
LrmfEEATE
41.... icy '
i• Yt
if! il
]Y STEEE GATE
'MOWN WICRE FENCE
-.—9=. i Wtel
— JD n— si
� 2}— ,_ , i �f
___ _.
..=__ _ ,_ -
•
aol
leT.
CONSERVATION EASWEENF 1„7) C #
Emu = z lyir.e.........=
,. ARA tv f
w �*
CA _.6.-sr---‹. ,:,.. %. ' \ .., an-,
Lu ''"--;:,,,..--: — -'''\., 0 7 ' ,„,---. 7-.....-- -:, -L---. ,i1 - ___.- :----.L70., •
44 I 1• , . _ ..5 i f Lod C+d _ h f II
le
--5 COLS _ k OOy REMOVE E'Q'a7N4G FENCE
w I
____ ___{1;C..,.75....-/-:_..",z2 `L '-'. :',4..,,.,°,,.2°4,.7„.
7 ~ - - ti *� Wl77lr O]N9F1(7it7FQN
ti r ti ly '• 1- _ FAar¢WHIT R
65' , 1 ! 1 ,1 / tot......,_,A4:5
]i. r I i w -f I rG C. v._
, • \ bon--..... .. ,
\ t'i.---r,ri. ... L':". ........i .-• \\•<- ....-47 I
' 32'3TERGf+TE •, r• f_ wwee
..;:414-LOCI c
. ,,r
,... ___
v. ot,
. ____ .
, ,
z , --- :. Fan,._.....„, r.'Ls -.
ELfiATE_ •-• I !o 0
4 \
i1.1
12'STEEL GATE t, i
1 - m.CTED TO MOMS FENCE I LA
a 1 18
1
r43 1 { e
1 I IDEVIAn4N5 F M 11.1E DESIGN MI BE
2 5NOWN IN MD.
2. ks1.1.1n1 I IIOR I TIDl4 POR 5Ai19'!EraMIr.4-1,
VT1 AND UTZ11A4 £iS#OUwNE€751,41
a A*
>i Pill MGM L . y