20190862 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring_2022_20220913

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20190862
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/15/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/13/2022
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: *
Kelly Phillips
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:*
20190862
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Version:* 1
DMS Mitigation Bank
Nesbit Stream and Mitigation Site
Union
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type: *
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
Nesbit_100121 _MY0_2022. pdf
Existing Version
11.82MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Kelly Phillips
.el/pi Pps

MY0 FINAL MONITORING REPORT
NESBIT SITE
Union County, North Carolina
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050103
DMS Project No. 100121
Full Delivery Contract No. 7868
DMS RFP No. 16-007704 (issued 9/6/2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00832
DWR Project No. 2019-0862
Data Collection: January 2022-February 2022
Submission: September 2022
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to DMS Comments
DMS Project ID No. 100121
Full Delivery Contract No. 7868
RFP No. 16-007704
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00832
DWR Project No. 2019-0862
DMS Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
1. Thank you for including the RFP number on the report title and the data collection dates.
Response: You're welcome.
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
2. Table of Contents: Include each of the tables presented in the report. Lumping Table 4A-C is fine but other
tables presented in the report are absent from the TOC. Include the table number on each table and add to the
TOC.
Response: Each table was added to the table of contents. Unnumbered tables in the report narrative were
labeled with letters (A, B, C, D) and were included in the TOC.
3. Table 2, Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results: OHWM is a specified success criteria and must be added
to Table 2 and in Section 3 and associated tables.
Response: Observation/documentation of all streams maintaining an OHWM was added to Table 2 and Table D
(Section 3).
4. Section 2 As -Built Condition: Please note and discuss any monitoring device location changes from the IRT
approved mitigation plan.
Response: A description was added to Section 2 explaining that deviations in monitoring device locations were
made based on field conditions and that the locations are representative of site conditions.
5. Appendix A Visual Assessment Data: In accordance with agency requests, please add photographs showing the
upstream and downstream views of each crossing/utility area in all future monitoring reports.
Response: These photos will be included in future monitoring reports.
6. Appendix F Other Data: Thank you for including the pre -construction benthic sampling and habitat assessment
results in the MYO report.
Response: You're welcome.
7. Appendix G Plan Sheets: This appendix should be titled "Record Drawing Plan Sheets".
Response: The title of Appendix G was changed.
8. Sheet AB-03: Add callout for crossing.
Response: UT1 crossing, and 60' access easement notes added
9. Sheet AB-041 and AB-041H: Add 60' Easement for Ingress/Egress/Regress.
Response: 60' access easement added with note
DMS conducted a field visit on August 18, 2022. The following comments/observations are a result of that visit:
10. Invasive Treatment: Areas of invasive species were noted within the conservation easement as indicated in the
report. Please treat the existing invasives within the entire conservation easement. Document successful
completion of these efforts in the MY1 report.
Response: Invasive treatments started at construction and will continue as needed. The latest round of herbicide
application will be completed in mid -September 2022.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

11. Conservation Easement Boundary Integrity: The conservation easement was very well marked with signs and
posts at close intervals. Multiple areas of row crop scalloping were observed between the corner posts and
markers and was a common occurrence. The intrusions included areas where soybeans were planted several
feet within the easement and areas where herbicide application had extended several feet into the easement.
The integrity of the easement boundary must be secured. Upon completion of the measures necessary to secure
the boundary please document and include in the MY1 report.
Response: Additional posts will be added as needed to address scalloping and documented as requested in MY1
report.
12. Multiple areas of exposed soil with low herbaceous and stem growth were observed along the sideslopes and
outer floodplain. Please address these areas as necessary to promote vegetation growth and reduce the
enlargement of erosive rills.
Response: These areas will be addressed with soil amendment and replanting as needed beginning this fall.
13. Large areas of tall grass were seen onsite as was in -stream vegetation. Please evaluate the successional
processes expected in these area to insure tree survival and vigor is acceptable.
Response: Herbaceous vegetation will be monitored and addressed if tree survival/vigor requires it.
14. Please review live stake performance to insure streambank objectives will be met as the project moves forward.
Response: Streambank objectives will be monitored as required and additional live staking may be used to help
meet the success criteria.
Spatial Data Submission:
15. Please review the groundwater gauge labels, the labels on the CCPV included in the report differ from the labels
in the digital submission (ex. Gauges 7, 8, 11, and 12).
Response: There are only 9 groundwater gauges at this site labeled 1-9. The labels in the digital submittal match
the labels on the CCPV and soil boring logs. However, based on this comment, all shapefile labels were checked,
and it was discovered that the cross-section labels do not match the CCPV. This has been corrected.
16. Please verify that the vegetation plot origins are the photo station locations for required vegetation visual
monitoring station locations. Please note that in the future, DMS will require a point file for all visual inspection
stations including veg plot and cross section locations.
Response: All vegetation plot photos were taken at plot origins. We are happy to comply with all future DMS
monitoring requirements as they are issued.
Tables:
17. Tables submitted have minor deviation from the templates. Please note that DMS is in the process of developing
a Digital Monitoring Application which will require submission of standard data tables in the future.
Response: Noted. If DMS would like table formats changed, please advise. As far as we are aware, this is the
latest template.
18. The Goals Table is missing from this submission.
Response: Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results was added to the Tables excel file.
Page 2 of 2

MY0 FINAL MONITORING REPORT
NESBIT SITE
Union County, North Carolina
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050103
DMS Project No. 100121
Full Delivery Contract No. 7868
DMS RFP No. 16-007704 (issued 9/6/2018)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00832
DWR Project No. 2019-0862
Data Collection: January 2022-February 2022
Submission: September 2022
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Prepared by:
And
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix A. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 4A-C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Cross -Section Photographs
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6A. Planted Bare -Root Woody Vegetation
Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix—Sitewide Mix
Table 6C. Permanent Seed Mix—Streamside and
Wetland Mix
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from
Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Longitudinal Profile
Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10A-B. Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring
Summary
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
1 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure 1
1.2 Success Criteria 5
2 AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE) 5
3 PROJECT MONITORING — METHODS 6
3.1 Monitoring 6
4 MONITORING YEAR 0— DATA ASSESSMENT 8
4.1 Stream Assessment 8
4.2 Hydrology Assessment 8
4.3 Vegetative Assessment 8
4.4 Monitoring Year 0 Summary 8
5 REFERENCES 9
LIST OF REPORT TABLES
Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits 2
Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results 3
Table 3. Project Attribute Table 4
Table A. Success Criteria 5
Table B. Deviations from Construction Plans 5
Table C. Monitoring Schedule 6
Table D. Monitoring Summary 7
APPENDICES
Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
Groundwater Gauge Soil Profiles
Appendix E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 11. Project Timeline
Table 12. Project Contacts
Appendix F. Other Data
Preconstruction Benthic Results
Preconstruction Benthic Habitat Assessment
Data Forms
Photo Log
Appendix G. Record Drawing Plan Sheets
Table of Contents
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

1 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Nesbit Site (Site). The Site is on one parcel along the warm water Glen Branch and unnamed tributaries
to Glen Branch in the Carolina Slate Belt portion of the Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina. Located in
the Catawba River Basin, cataloguing unit 03050103, the Site is in Targeted Local Watershed
030501003030030 and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin number 03-08-38.
The Site is not located in a Local Watershed Plan (LWP), Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), or Targeted
Resource Area (TRA). Site watersheds range from approximately 0.07 of a square mile (46 acres) on UT2
to 1.25 square miles (799 acres) at the Site's outfall.
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure
Located seven miles southwest of Monroe and five miles southeast of Waxhaw in the southwest corner
of Union County near the North Carolina and South Carolina border, the Site encompasses 18.0 acres.
Mitigation work within the Site included 1) stream restoration, 2) stream enhancement (Level!), 3) stream
enhancement (Level 11), 4) wetland reestablishment, 5) wetland rehabilitation, 6) wetland enhancement,
and 7) vegetation planting. The Site is expected to provide 5198.736 warm water stream credits and 6.477
riparian wetland credits by closeout (Table 1, Page 2). A conservation easement was granted to the State
of North Carolina and recorded at the Union County Register of Deeds on August 28, 2020.
Before construction, the Site was characterized by agricultural row crops. Site design was completed in
June 2021. Construction started on October 7, 2021 and ended within a final walkthrough on December
20, 2021. The Site was planted on February 3, 2022. Completed project activities, reporting history,
completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 11-12 (Appendix E).
Space Purposefully Left Blank
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 1
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

Table 1. Nesbit Mitigation Site (ID-100121j Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Project Segment
Stream
Original
Mitigation
Plan
Ft/Ac
As -Built
Ft/Ac
Original
Mitigation
Category
Original
Restoration
Level
Original
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Glen Br Reach 1
1275
1260
Warm
R
1.00000
1,275.000
Glen Br Reach 2
63
62
Warm
El
1.50000
42.000
Glen Br Reach 3
2776
2763
Warm
R
1.00000
2,776.000
UT1A
314
314
Warm
Ell
5.00000
62.800
UT1 Reach 1
253
253
Warm
El
2.50000
101.200
UT 1 Reach 2
381
373
Warm
R
1.00000
381.000
UT 1 Reach 3
115
116
Warm
Ell
2.50000
46.000
UT 1 Reach 4
171
169
Warm
R
1.00000
171.000
UT2 Reach 1
112
112
Warm
Ell
2.50000
44.800
UT2 Reach 2
197
197
Warm
R
1.00000
197.000
Total:
5,096.800
Wetland
Wetland Reestablishment
5.338
5.338
R
REE
1.00000
5.338
Wetland Rehabilitation
0.902
0.902
R
RH
1.50000
0.601
Wetland Enhancement
1.075
1.075
R
2.00000
0.538
Total:
6.477
Comments
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Non -Rip
Coastal
Warm
Cool
Cold
Wetland
Wetland
Marsh
Restoration
4,800.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Re-establishment
5.338
0.000
0.000
Rehabilitation
0.601
0.000
0.000
Enhancement
0.538
0.000
0.000
Enhancement I
143.200
0.000
0.000
Enhancement II
153.600
0.000
0.000
Preservation
0.000
0.000
0.000
Benthics
101.936
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Totals
Total Stream Credit
5,198.736
5,198.736
Total Wetland Credit 6.477
0.000
0.000
6.477
Wetland Mitigation Category Restoration Level
0.000
0.000
CM Coastal Marsh HQP High Quality Preservation
R Riparian P Preservation
NR Non -Riparian E Wetland Enhancement - Veg and Hydro
Ell Stream Enhancement II
El Stream Enhancement I
C Wetland Creation
RH Wetland Rehabilitation-Veg and Hydro
REE Wetland Re-establishment Veg and Hydro
R Restoration

Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
Minimize downstream
flooding to the maximum
extent possible.
Connect streams to
functioning wetland
systems.
Construct a new channel at historic floodplain
elevation to restore overbank flows and
restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands
Plant woody riparian buffer
Install marsh treatment areas
Remove agricultural row crops
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and
increase soil surface roughness
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual
conservation easement
BHR not to exceed 1.2
Document four overbank events in separate
monitoring years
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -
Water Mark
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Conservation Easement recorded
- Increase stream stability
within the Site so that
channels are neither
aggrading nor degrading.
Construct channels with a proper pattern,
dimension, and longitudinal profile
Remove agricultural row crops
Construct stable channels with the appropriate
substrate
Upgrade forded crossings
Plant woody riparian buffer
Stabilize stream banks
Cross-section measurements indicate a stable
channel with the appropriate substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and
structures
BHR not to exceed 1.2
< 10% change in BHR in any given year
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
- Remove direct nutrient and
pollutant inputs from the
Site and reduce
contributions to
downstream waters.
Remove agricultural row crops and reduce
agricultural land/inputs
Install marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffer
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent
to Site streams
Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction
through deep ripping/plowing
Restore overbank flooding by constructing
channels at historic floodplain elevation
- Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
- Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT
- Improve instream and
streamside habitat.
Construct stable channels with the appropriate
substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic
matter and shade
Construct a new channel at historic floodplain
elevation to restore overbank flows
Plant woody riparian buffer
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual
conservation easement
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent
to Site streams
Stabilize stream banks
Install in -stream structures
Cross-section measurement indicates a stable
channel with the appropriate substrate
Visual documentation of stable channels and in -
stream structures
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -
Water Mark
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Conservation Easement recorded
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 3
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

Table 3. Project Attribute Table IME
Project Information
Project Name
Nesbit Site
Project County
Union County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
18
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
34.8936, -80.6544
Planted Area (acres)
16
Project Watersh d Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03050103030030
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-08-38
Project Drainage Area (acres)
798.8
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Glen Br Upstream
Glen Br
Downstream
UT 1A
UT1
UT 2
Length of reach (linear feet)
1586
2499
314
971
309
Valley Classification & Confinement
Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres)
494.6
798.8
152.6
176.7
45.6
NCDWR Stream ID Score
--
--
28
33
30
Stream Thermal Regime
Warm
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial/
Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial/
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg4
Eg4
Eg4
Eg 6
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
III/IV
III/IV
III
II/III
II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Secrest Cid comp ex
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly dr ined
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric (may contain hydric inclusions)
Valley Slope
0.0077
0.0048
0.0204
0.0086
0.0147
FEMA Classification
AE floodway
AE floodway
NA
NA
AE floodway
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesi Oak -Hickory For st
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
30% forest, 65% ag. land, 5% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Uwharrie
Reference Channel)
100% forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
15%
We land Summary Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
5.338 acres reestablished & 1.977 acres
enhanced/rehabilitated
Wetland Type
Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Secrest Cid Complex
Drainage Class
Somewhat Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric (may contain hydric inclusions)
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised streams, compacted soils, agriculture
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
%Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Restoration Method
Hydrologic and vegetative
Enhancement Method
---
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
Section 401
Certification
Waters of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Yes
Section 404
Permit
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document
(APp E)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
CE Document
(APp E)
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
--
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
DMS FEMA
Checklist (App
E)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
--
NA

1.2 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives
identified from on -site NC SAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
summarizes Site success criteria.
Table A. Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• A continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• BHR at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition during
any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in individual years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
• Intermittent streams will demonstrate at least 30-days consecutive flow.
Wetland Hydrology
• Annual saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of
the growing season during average climatic conditions.
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5 and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the Site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
2 AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
Construction started on October 7, 2021 and ended within a final walkthrough on December 20, 2021.
The Site was planted on February 3, 2022. As -built and MYO data collection occurred in February 2022.
In general, no significant issues arose during the construction of the Site. A sealed half-size set of record
drawings are provided in Appendix G, which includes the post -construction survey, alignments, structures,
and monitoring features. These include redlines for any significant field adjustments made during
construction that differ from the design plans. Where needed, adjustments were made during
construction based on field evaluations and are listed below.
Table B. Deviations from Construction Plans
Location
Deviation
Explanation
UT-1 sta. 1+07
Log cross vane not constructed
Slope in field conditions did not require structure
Additionally, several monitoring devices (vegetation plots, cross -sections, and groundwater gauges) were
relocated slightly from the locations depicted in the monitoring plan in the approved mitigation plan. The
deviations were made based on field conditions and by using the best professional judgement of the
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 5
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

monitoring contractor. The as -built locations of all monitoring devices are representative of current Site
conditions.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Planting 16.0 acres of the Site with 18,600 stems (planted species are included in Table 6
[Appendix B]).
• Treating Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) mechanically prior to planting.
• Applying 160 Ibs of temporary soil health seed mix consisting of white clover (Trifolium repens),
red clover (Trifolium pratense), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum), berseem clover (Trifolium
alexandrinum), chicory (Cichorium intybus), and purple top turnips (Brassica rapa) along the
easement boundary and in upland areas.
• Applying sitewide and streamside/wetland permanent seed mixes at 2 Ibs per acre across the Site.
Species lists are included in Table 6B-C (Appendix B).
3 PROJECT MONITORING — METHODS
Monitoring will be conducted in accordance with 2016 NCIRT Guidelines. Monitoring will be conducted
by Axiom Environmental, Inc based on the schedule in the following table. A summary of monitoring is
outlined in the table on page 7. Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration
Systems no later than December 1 of each monitoring year data is collected.
Table C. Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
x
x
x
x
x
Wetlands
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Vegetation
x
x
x
x
x
Macroinvertebrates
x
x
x
Visual Assessment
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Report Submittal
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
3.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 6
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

Table D. Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As built (unless otherwise
required)
All restored stream channels
Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 12 cross sections on
restored channels
Graphic and tabular data.
Channel Stability
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a plan view
figure with a written assessment and
photographs
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
Only if instability is documented
during monitoring
Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Hydrology
Continuous monitoring of surface
water gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through
the monitoring period
1 surface water gauge on UT1
and 1 surface water gauge on
UT2
Surface water data for each monitoring period
Visual Evidence
Continuous through the
monitoring period
All restored stream channels
Observation/documentation that all streams
maintain Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM)
Bankfull Events
Continuous monitoring of surface
water gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through
the monitoring period
1 surface water gauges on Glen
Branch
Surface water data for each monitoring period
Visual/Physical Evidence
Continuous through the
monitoring period
All restored stream channels
Visual evidence, photo documentation, and/or
rain data.
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
"Qual 4" method described in Standard
Operating Procedures for Collection
and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0
(NCDWR 2016)
Preconstruction, Years 3, 5,
and 7 during the "index
period" referenced in Small
Streams Biocriteria
Development (NCDWQ 2009)
3 stations (Glen Br upper and
lower reaches, and the lower
reach of UT 1)
Results* will be presented on a site -by -site basis
and will include a list of taxa collected, an
enumeration of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index values.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Wetland
Restoration
Groundwater gauges
Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
throughout the year with the
growing season defined as
March 1-October 22
9 gauges spread throughout
restored wetlands
Soil temperature at the beginning of each
monitoring period to verify the start of the
growing season, groundwater and rain data for
each monitoring period**
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Vegetation
establishment and
vigor
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247
acre (100 square meters) in size; CVS-As
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
16 plots spread across the Site
Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
stems/acre
Annual random vegetation plots,
0.0247 acre (100 square meters) in size
As built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Only if poor vegetation grow is
documented during monitoring
Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in -stream habitat.
**The growing season will not be initiated prior to March 1 based on confirmed soil temperature unless evidence of vegetative indicators such as bud burst is present and
documented by more than two species (excluding red maple and sambucus)
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 7
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

4 MONITORING YEAR 0 — DATA ASSESSMENT
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted in February 2022 to assess the condition of the project.
Stream, wetland, and vegetation criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan and summarized in Section 1.3; monitoring methods are detailed in Section 3.0.
4.1 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MYO were conducted on February 8-9, 2022. All streams within the Site are
stable and functioning as designed. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table and Stream Photographs. Refer to Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data. No
stream areas of concern were identified during MYO.
4.2 Hydrology Assessment
9 groundwater monitoring gauges were installed throughout the Site's wetlands. Hydrologic data will be
collected and reported during MY1 (2022).
4.3 Vegetative Assessment
The MYO vegetative survey was completed on February 8, 2022. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a
sitewide stem density average of 658 planted stems per acre, above the interim requirement of 320 stems
per acre required at MY3. All 16 fixed vegetation plots met the interim success criteria. Please refer to
Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table, and
Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data. No vegetation areas of concern were identified during MYO.
4.4 Monitoring Year 0 Summary
Overall, the Site looks good, is performing as intended, and is on track to meet success criteria. All
vegetation plots are on track to exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, and
all streams within the Site are stable and are meeting project goals.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
page 8
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

5 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP 2007). Lower Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2007 (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation % 20Services/Watershed_Planning/Catawba_River_Basin/R
BRP_2007%20Lower%2OCAT_032013%20Final.pdf. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh (December 18, 2018).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
Page 9
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 4A-C. Stream Visual Stability Assessment
Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

Note: Basemap is drone imagery from February 2022 overlaid
on 2019 orthoimagery from NC OneMap.
Legend
Nesbit Easement = 18.0 ac
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level I)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Generating No Credit
Instream Structures
Wetland Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Enhancement
Permanent Vegetation Plots
✓ Vegetation Plot Origins
Cross Sections
• Groundwater Gauge
• Rain Gauge/Soil Probe
A Stream Crest Gauge
A Stream Flow Gauge
O Benthic Sampling Locations
Axiom Environmenlai, mc.
Prepared for:
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Project:
NESBIT SITE
Union County, NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
JUN 2022
Scale:
1:3000
Project No.:
20-007
FIGURE
1

Table 4A. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
Glen Branch
4085
8170
Major Channel Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Bank
Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse
0
100%
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 32
the sill.
32
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 32
guidance document)
32
100%

Table 4B. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
UT 1
971
1942
Major Channel Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Bank
Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse
0
100%
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 15
the sill.
15
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 15
guidance document)
15
100%

Table 4C. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach
Assessed Stream Length
Assessed Bank Length
UT 2
309
618
Major Channel Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Bank
Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse
0
100%
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 4
the sill.
4
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 4
guidance document)
4
100%

Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage
16.0
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.10 acres
0.00
0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.
0.10acres
0.00
0.0%
Total
0.00
0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.
0.10 acres
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage
18.0
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Easement Encroachment Areas
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated
against the total easement acreage: Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native,
young, woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing communities. Species
included in summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of
restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access,
vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
area.
0.10 acres
none
0.00
0.0%
0

Nesbit Site
MYO (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken February 8, 2022)
Nesbit Site
MYO Monitoring Report — February 2022
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data

Nesbit Site
MYO (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken February 8, 2022)
Plot 14
Nesbit Site
MYO Monitoring Report — February 2022
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data

Appendix B: Vegetation Data
Table 6A. Planted Bare -Root Woody Vegetation
Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix—Sitewide Mix
Table 6C. Permanent Seed Mix—Streamside and Wetland Mix
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

Table 6A. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Nesbit Site
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest*
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
7.2
5.0
3.8
16.0
Species
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of total
# planted
River birch (Betula nigra)
250
5
--
--
1750
17
2000
Shagbark hickory (Carya cordiformis)
500
10
--
--
--
--
500
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
400
8
--
--
600
6
1000
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
600
18
--
--
600
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
350
7
--
--
2150
21
2500
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
--
--
500
15
--
--
500
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
200
4.5
--
--
700
7
900
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
200
4.5
150
4
650
6.5
1000
Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
--
--
150
4
350
3
500
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
300
6
--
--
950
9
1250
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
400
8
150
4
1700
16.5
2250
White oak (Quercus alba)
200
4.5
150
4
650
6
1000
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
1000
20
1000
30
--
--
2000
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
200
4.5
--
--
800
8
1000
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
--
--
500
15
--
--
500
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
600
12
--
--
--
--
600
American elm (Ulmus americana)
300
6
200
6
--
--
500
TOTAL
4900
100
3400
100
10300
100
18600
Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

Table 6B. Permanent Seed Mix
Nesbit Site — Sitewide Mix
Species*
Percentage
Species*
Percentage
Achillea millefolium
0.4
Gaillardia perennial
2
Agrostis gigantea
15
Helianthus angustifolius
1
Agrostis hyemalis
5
Heliopsis helianthoides
1
Agrostis stolonifera
2
Hibiscus moscheutos
0.5
Baptisia australis
2
Juncus tenuis
0.5
Carex vulpinoidea
1
Lespedeza capitata
0.5
Chamaecrista fasciculata
1
Liatris spicata
1
Chamaecrista nictitans
1
Monarda fistulosa
0.5
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
4.5
Panicum clandestinum
5
Chrysanthemum x superbum
3
Panicum rigidulum
0.5
Coreopsis lanceolata
4
Penstemon digitalis
1
Coreopsis tinctoria
4
Rudbeckia amplexicaulis
1
Cosmos bipinnatus
1
Rudbeckia hirta
3
Delphinium ajacis
2
Schizachyrium scoparium
5
Desmodium canadense
1
Senna hebecarpa
0.5
Echinacea purpurea
5
Tridens flavus
18
Elymus virginicus
5
Verbena hastata
1
Eupatorium perfoliatum
0.5
Total
100
Table 6C. Permanent Seed Mix
Nesbit Site — Streamside & Wetland Mix
Species*
Percentage
Species*
Percentage
Bidens aristosa
10
Panicum rigidulum
30
Carex albolutescens
6
Panicum virgatum
5
Elymus virginicus
15
Rudbeckia hirta
4
Helianthus angustifolius
10
Sorghastrum nutans
15
Juncus coriaceus
5
Total
100
* Both seed mixes were applied at 2 Ibs per acre; however, in streamside areas, an additional 160 Ibs of temporary
soil health mix (turnip, clover, chicory) were applied along the easement boundary and in the upland areas.
Final MVO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121)
Nesbit Site
Union County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
September 2022

Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Nesbit Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
810
Yes
2
688
Yes
3
688
Yes
4
891
Yes
5
445
Yes
6
972
Yes
7
607
Yes
8
891
Yes
9
526
Yes
10
567
Yes
11
567
Yes
12
688
Yes
13
445
Yes
14
364
Yes
15
850
Yes
16
526
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre
658
Yes
Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
16
2022-02-03
2022-02-08
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 8 F
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
4
4
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
FAC
3
3
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
FACU
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
2
2
3
3
3
3
11
11
7
7
5
5
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
3
3
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
FACW
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
to l i ptree
Tree
FACU
2
2
5
5
1
1
Morus alba
white mulberry
Tree
FACU
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
FACU
3
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
4
4
7
7
other
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
FAC
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FACW
2
2
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
Tree
FAC
1
1
Quercus sp.
3
3
2
2
6
6
6
6
1
1
1
1
3
3
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
1
1
Su m
Performance Standard
20
20
17
17
17
17
22
22
11
11
24
24
15
15
22
22
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
20
17
17
22
11
24
15
22
Stems/Acre
810
688
688
891
445
972
607
891
Species Count
7
7
4
6
6
8
7
6
Dominant Species Composition (%)
20
18
35
50
36
29
47
32
Average Plot Height (ft.)
123
138
185
169
131
169
121
174
%Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
20
17
17
22
11
24
15
22
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
810
7
20
123
688
7
�18
138
688
4
35
185
891
169
445
6
36
131
972
8
29
169
607
7
47
121
891
6
32
174
% Invasives
0
=0
0
0
0
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been app oved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior
monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued)
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
16
2022-02-03
2022-02-08
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 9 F
Veg Plot 10 F
Veg Plot 11 F
Veg Plot 12 F
Veg Plot 13 F
Veg Plot 14 F
Veg Plot 15 F
Veg Plot 16 F
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
1
1
5
5
4
4
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
FAC
2
2
2
2
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
5
5
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
4
4
1
1
1
1
Morus alba
white mulberry
Tree
FACU
1
1
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
FACU
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
other
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
1
1
6
6
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
FAC
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FACW
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
3
3
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
Tree
FAC
1
1
Quercus sp.
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
6
6
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FAC
1
1
Sum
Performance Standard
13
13
14
14
14
14
17
17
11
11
9
9
21
21
13
13
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
13
14
14
17
11
9
21
13
Stems/Acre
526
567
567
688
445
364
850
526
Species Count
5
7
8
7
6
7
6
7
Dominant Species Composition (%)
31
29
36
29
36
22
29
23
Average Plot Height (ft.)
153
167
164
173
172
188
185
181
%Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
13
14
14
17
11
9
21
13
Stems/Acre
526
567
567
688
445
364
850
526
Species Count
5
7
8
7
6
7
6
7
Dominant Species Composition (%)
3129
36
36
22
29
23
Average Plot Height (ft.)
153
167
164
173
172
188
185
181
% Invasives
0
=0
0
0
0
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been app oved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior
monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Longitudinal Profile
Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10A-B. Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Final MY0 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Downstream), XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
614.8
4.3
614.9
8.1
615.0
11.2
614.9
12.2
614.8
13.2
614.3
14.6
613.4
15.7
613.4
17.4
613.2
19.1
613.1
21.6
612.9
23.0
613.0
24.4
613.2
25.5
613.3
26.9
613.7
27.7
613.9
28.6
614.3
30.2
614.8
31.6
614.8
34.1
614.8
38.2
614.91
41.3
614.9
44.1
615.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
614.79
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
612.90
LTOB Elevation:
614.79
LTOB Max Depth:
1.88
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
22.9
Stream Type
E/C 5
Elevation (feet)
615
614
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Downstream), XS - 1, Riffle
613
MY-00 9/29/21
0 10 20
Station (feet)
30 40 50

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Downstream), XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
615.5
4.4
615.5
11.4
615.2
13.9
615.1
17.2
614.2
19.6
613.2
21.1
612.9
22.8
612.9
23.8
612.9
25.6
612.6
26.8
612.5
28.3
612.6
30.7
613.0
32.2
614.4
34.8
615.1
38.5
615.5
43.7
615.4
50.2
615.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
615.07
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
612.46
LTOB Elevation:
615.07
LTOB Max Depth:
2.61
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
33.2
Stream Type
E/C 5
Elevation (feet)
616
615
614
613
612
0
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Downstream), XS - 2, Pool
•
MY-00 9/29/21
10
20 30
Station (feet)
40
50
60

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
618.1
3.3
618.2
6.5
618.4
7.6
618.4
8.1
618.0
8.9
617.8
10.0
617.8
11.5
618.0
12.7
618.1
13.2
618.4
14.2
618.5
16.5
618.4
19.4
618.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
618.41
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
617.78
LTOB Elevation:
618.41
LTOB Max Depth:
0.64
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
2.4
Stream Type
E/C 5

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
618.3
2.8
618.3
4.5
618.6
5.7
618.3
6.9
617.9
7.6
617.6
8.4
617.3
9.5
617.3
10.7
617.2
11.6
617.5
13.2
618.4
13.9
618.6
15.5
618.6
17.1
618.6
19.4
618.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
618.33
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
617.17
LTOB Elevation:
618.33
LTOB Max Depth:
1.17
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
5.3
Stream Type
E/C 5

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Downstream), XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
620.4
5.5
620.3
11.0
620.2
13.4
619.9
15.4
619.3
16.9
618.6
18.7
618.1
20.2
617.3
21.9
616.9
27.0
617.2
28.2
617.3
29.9
617.7
31.7
618.2
33.0
619.1
34.3
619.6
35.2
620.0
37.1
620.1
41.3
619.9
47.0
620.1
51.5
620.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
619.98
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
616.89
LTOB Elevation:
619.98
LTOB Max Depth:
3.09
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
42.3
Stream Type
E/C 5
Elevation (feet)
621
620
618
617
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Downstream), XS - 5, Pool
616
0
MY-00 9/29/21
10
20 30
Station (feet)
40 50 60

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Downstream), XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
620.7
4.4
620.4
9.5
620.2
14.3
620.2
15.4
619.9
17.0
619.3
18.4
618.8
20.0
618.5
21.7
618.6
23.8
618.5
26.9
618.6
28.8
618.7
30.0
619.2
31.6
619.7
32.6
620.0
35.7
620.0
40.0
620.1
45.8
620.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
619.97
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
618.49
LTOB Elevation:
619.97
LTOB Max Depth:
1.48
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
18.5
Stream Type
11 E/C 5
Elevation (feet)
622
621
620
618
617
0
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Downstream), XS - 6, Riffle
MY-00 9/29/21
10
20
Station (feet)
30
40
50

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XSID
UT1,XS-7,Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
629.3
4.0
629.2
7.4
629.2
9.3
628.9
11.2
628.6
12.9
628.1
14.6
627.6
15.9
627.7
17.6
627.9
18.4
628.2
19.3
628.5
20.6
629.2
21.3
629.5
26.4
629.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
629.22
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
627.64
LTOB Elevation:
629.22
LTOB Max Depth:
1.58
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
11.6
Stream Type
E/C 5

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
629.4
3.7
629.4
6.0
629.5
7.9
629.4
8.6
629.0
9.3
628.7
10.2
628.5
11.4
628.4
13.4
628.6
14.8
628.6
16.4
628.7
17.5
628.9
18.7
629.4
19.6
629.5
21.3
629.4
24.4
629.3
27.2
629.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
629.40
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
628.44
LTOB Elevation:
629.40
LTOB Max Depth:
0.96
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
7.7
Stream Type
E/C 5

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Upstream), XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
626.0
5.6
626.1
9.2
626.2
10.7
625.9
13.1
625.2
15.1
624.7
16.3
624.4
17.5
623.7
18.8
623.7
20.3
623.8
22.1
623.7
23.5
623.9
24.3
624.2
24.9
624.7
26.0
625.2
27.9
626.2
29.1
626.1
32.2
626.1
34.7
626.1
37.6
626.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
626.03
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.03
Thalweg Elevation:
623.71
LTOB Elevation:
626.09
LTOB Max Depth:
2.38
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
26.0
Stream Type
E/C 5
Elevation (feet)
626
625
624
623
0
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Upstream), XS - 9, Pool
MY-00 9/29/21
10
20
Station (feet)
30
40

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Upstream), XS - 10, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
626.2
4.2
626.0
7.2
626.0
8.1
625.9
9.0
625.6
10.3
625.1
11.6
624.8
13.9
624.8
15.6
624.6
17.3
624.7
18.7
624.9
19.7
625.0
20.9
625.2
21.7
625.6
22.5
626.0
23.4
626.3
25.1
626.4
28.3
626.3
31.1
626.6
34.1
626.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
626.04
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
624.59
LTOB Elevation:
626.04
LTOB Max Depth:
1.45
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
14.7
Stream Type E/C 5
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Upstream), XS - 10, Riffle

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Upstream), XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
632.8
5.4
632.8
9.0
632.6
11.0
632.8
12.5
632.5
13.7
632.0
14.6
631.8
15.9
631.5
17.3
631.4
18.8
631.3
20.5
631.2
22.2
631.5
23.8
631.5
25.4
631.7
26.2
632.2
27.6
632.5
30.0
632.5
33.5
632.6
36.8
632.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
632.51
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
631.16
LTOB Elevation:
632.51
LTOB Max Depth:
1.34
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
13.2
Stream Type E/C 5
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Upstream), XS - 11, Riffle

Site
Nesbit
Watershed:
Catawba River Basin, 03050103
XS ID
Glen Br (Upstream), XS - 12, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/8/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
633.1
5.2
632.7
8.8
632.7
10.8
632.5
12.2
632.0
13.6
631.3
15.5
630.7
16.5
630.6
18.3
630.5
20.6
630.4
22.5
630.8
24.0
630.9
25.3
631.7
27.0
632.5
27.9
632.9
29.6
633.0
33.5
633.0
37.7
632.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
632.69
Bank Hieght Ratio:
1.00
Thalweg Elevation:
630.43
LTOB Elevation:
632.69
LTOB Max Depth:
2.27
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
26.1
Stream Type
11 E/C 5
Elevation (feet)
634
633
632
631
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Upstream), XS - 12, Pool
630
0
MY-00 9/29/21
10
20
Station (feet)
30
40

Project Name Nesbit - Baseline (2022) Profile
Reach Glen Branch (Sta 00+00 to 10+00)
Feature Profile
Date 2/8/22
Crew Perkinson
Station
2022
Baseline Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
0.0
87.2
95.0
114.4
119.6
178.8
181.7
195.9
198.5
256.0
260.2
276.9
284.7
331.5
335.1
354.6
360.4
411.0
414.7
423.7
428.5
473.6
476.9
500.1
501.9
566.4
574.0
610.89
612.45
611.75
611.57
612.38
612.33
611.64
611.32
612.44
612.45
611.97
612.05
612.31
612.88
612.28
612.16
613.03
613.44
612.49
612.77
613.35
613.73
613.02
612.29
613.43
614.10
613.29
611.52
612.73
612.75
612.75
612.78
612.88
612.87
612.90
612.88
613.15
613.18
613.16
613.17
613.38
613.36
613.38
613.45
613.73
613.72
613.75
613.73
614.10
614.12
614.12
614.12
614.51
614.49
614.82
614.47
614.67
614.78
614.89
615.26
615.66
A.
a)
0
ct
a?
W
621
619
617
615
613
611
609
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Sta 00+00 to 10+00)
Baseline Profile 2022
-441"----
---I
111 Lig
-
0
1
100
1
200
1
300
1
400
1
500
Distance (feet)
1
600
700
800
900
1000
Bed Baseline 2/8/2022
Water Surface Baseline 2/8/2022
TOB 2/8/2022

Project Name Nesbit - Baseline (2022) Profile
Reach Glen Branch (Sta 10+00 to 20+00)
Feature Profile
Date 2/8/22
Crew Perkinson
Station
2022
Baseline Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
994.7
1015.9
1020.4
1058.7
1062.8
1074.9
1075.9
1129.8
1137.7
1160.4
1162.8
1195.3
1201.9
1219.5
1241.3
1248.7
1282.8
1285.3
1295.5
1332.8
1336.1
1346.0
1349.3
1386.4
1389.1
1402.7
1419.3
614.92
614.59
616.36
616.40
615.52
615.20
616.59
617.02
615.74
615.73
617.08
617.40
616.74
616.41
616.87
617.46
617.76
617.07
616.88
617.88
616.75
616.37
617.72
618.15
617.52
617.28
617.62
616.46
616.49
616.55
616.79
616.82
616.92
616.92
617.42
617.36
617.35
617.36
617.62
617.62
617.62
617.67
617.89
618.07
618.07
618.07
618.35
618.35
618.39
618.36
618.62
618.60
618.64
618.60
TOB
618.03
618.49
618.95
619.32
619.74
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
A
4.4
`~
0
ct
4.4
W
624 -
623
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Sta 10+00 to 20+00)
Baseline Profile 2022
622
621
620
619
618
6171111111
_
111111.
616 J
615
-
614
1000
1
1100
1
1200
1
1300
1
1400
1
1500
Distance (feet)
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
Bed Baseline 2/8/2022
Water Surface Baseline 2/8/2022
TOB 2/8/2022

Project Name Nesbit - Baseline (2022) Profile
Reach Glen Branch (Sta 20+00 to 30+00)
Feature Profile
Date 2/8/22
Crew Perkinson
Station
2022
Baseline Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
1993.3
2023.9
2035.3
2066.2
2069.8
2105.5
2110.5
2117.0
2120.1
2147.7
2154.4
2167.9
2175.2
2218.6
2222.6
2251.2
2257.7
2294.0
2298.1
2311.6
2314.7
2349.2
2352.3
2363.4
2368.5
2412.2
2416.4
620.13
620.37
619.50
619.46
620.55
620.99
620.30
620.10
621.15
621.38
620.75
620.66
621.52
621.90
620.88
620.90
622.10
622.19
621.55
621.47
622.58
622.63
621.42
620.97
622.87
623.31
621.93
620.66
620.90
620.91
620.94
620.91
621.19
621.17
621.19
621.38
621.62
621.65
621.63
621.66
622.26
622.26
622.26
622.30
622.58
622.58
622.55
622.74
623.16
623.17
623.16
623.18
623.66
623.67
TOB
622.13
622.40
623.65
624.24
624.12
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
a .4
4.4
tro
0
.-
ct
4.4
W
630 -
628
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Sta 20+00 to 30+00)
Baseline Profile 2022
626
624
622
:::
2000
1
2100
1
2200
1
2300
1
2400
1 1
2500 2600
Distance (feet)
1
2700
1
2800
1
2900
3000
Bed Baseline 2/8/2022
Water Surface Baseline 2/8/2022 TOB 2/8/2022

Project Name Nesbit - Baseline (2022) Profile
Reach Glen Branch (Sta 30+00 to 40+00)
Feature Profile
Date 2/8/22
Crew Perkinson
Station
2022
Baseline Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2970.0
3000.9
3003.5
3022.0
3027.9
3057.6
3061.0
3074.3
3104.3
3106.0
3139.1
3143.8
3165.9
3167.6
3198.6
3206.8
3229.3
3231.1
3270.4
3273.7
3294.6
3299.1
3322.2
3327.9
3352.9
3354.1
3397.0
3403.4
627.56
627.39
626.74
626.76
627.41
627.84
626.90
626.98
626.10
628.12
628.10
627.29
627.06
628.55
628.58
627.57
627.55
628.84
629.14
628.48
628.46
629.23
629.64
627.78
628.58
629.89
630.07
629.35
627.80
627.81
627.81
627.84
628.07
628.05
628.06
628.07
628.35
628.66
628.66
628.69
628.76
628.90
628.92
628.88
629.04
629.43
629.44
629.44
629.53
629.84
629.85
629.83
630.08
630.39
630.39
TOB
629.22
630.05
630.54
631.30
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
a�
4.4
tro
:~
0
.-
ct
4.4
636 -
634
Nesbit, Glen Branch (Sta 30+00 to 40+00)
Baseline Profile 2022
632
630
628
626
\--1
624
3000
1
3100
1
3200
1
3300
1
3400
1
3500
Distance (feet)
3600
3700 3800
3900
4000
Bed Baseline 2/8/2022
Water Surface Baseline 2/8/2022
TOB 2/8/2022

Project Name Nesbit - Baseline (2022) Profile
Reach UT 1 (Sta 00+00 to 10+00)
Feature Profile
Date 2/8/22
Crew Perkinson
Station
2022
Baseline Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
0.0
8.5
14.6
15.9
22.1
24.9
36.0
39.7
62.7
66.2
74.8
78.1
104.6
106.7
113.6
116.1
139.0
144.6
146.6
163.4
165.3
168.8
170.6
230.3
233.4
240.9
242.5
622.96
623.33
622.57
624.00
623.93
623.17
623.16
623.86
623.83
622.90
623.60
624.41
624.76
623.54
623.64
624.80
625.16
623.83
625.14
625.42
624.45
624.42
625.55
625.83
624.57
624.36
626.06
623.47
623.65
623.67
624.10
624.12
624.11
624.12
624.13
624.42
624.42
624.40
624.50
624.92
624.92
624.89
625.00
625.20
625.21
625.30
625.61
625.64
625.62
625.70
626.10
626.09
626.10
626.20
625.21
626.05
626.26
a)
ct
a-
W
634
632
630
628
626
624
622
-
Nesbit, UT 1 (Sta 00+00 to 10+00)
Baseline Profile 2022
W
0
1
100
1 1
200 300
1
400
500
Distance (feet)
600
700
800
900 1000
Bed Baseline 2/8/2022
Water Surface Baseline 2/8/2022
TOB 2/8/2022

Project Name Nesbit - Baseline (2022) Profile
Reach UT 2 (Sta 00+00 to 02+00)
Feature Profile
Date 2/8/22
Crew Perkins on
Station
2022
Baseline Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
As needed
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation TOB
Station
As needed
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
TOB
0.0
21.7
23.9
31.6
32.6
47.4
49.9
53.7
54.5
72.4
74.6
82.0
82.8
98.5
100.3
107.5
108.6
120.7
122.4
125.6
127.3
137.6
138.7
142.9
145.2
157.4
188.4
616.01
616.39
615.65
615.20
616.74
616.83
616.21
616.35
617.07
616.99
616.01
616.27
617.53
617.69
616.78
616.74
617.81
617.90
617.58
617.45
618.01
618.09
617.21
617.28
617.73
618.09
617.98
616.45
616.53
616.51
616.50
616.79
616.93
616.92
616.90
617.11
617.31
617.33
617.29
617.58
617.76
617.75
617.74
618.00
618.11
618.13
618.09
618.11
618.10
618.10
618.11
618.11
618.24
618.27
617.83
618.32
618.45
a4
:
0
ct
a4
W
621 -
620
Nesbit, UT 2 (Sta 00+00 to 02+00)
Baseline Profile 2022
619
618
617
616
615
\........j
614
1
0 20
40
1
60
1
80
100
Distance (feet)
120
140
160
180
200
Bed Baseline 2/8/2022
Water Surface Baseline 2/8/2022
TOB 2/8/2022

Table 9A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Nesbit - Glen Branch (Upstream)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicaple)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
(MY0)
Riffle Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.0
15.1
26
7
14.2
16.3
15.2
15.4
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
16
50
100
7
50
100
75
75
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
1.1
1.5
7
1
1.2
0.9
1.0
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
2
2.2
7
1.3
1.8
1.3
1.4
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
16.7
16.7
16.7
7
16.7
16.7
13.1
14.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
13.7
43.3
7
12
16
16.2
17.8
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
2.8
6.5
7
3.5
6.1
4.9
4.9
2
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.8
2.2
7
1
1.3
1
1
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Cg 4
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
68.7
68.7
68.7
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0..75
0.0067
0.006
Other
Table 9B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Nesbit - Glen Branch (Downstream)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicaple)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
(MVO)
Riffle Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.2
15.7
18.2
7
16.7
19.3
17.4
18.0
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
25
100
100
7
50
150
100
100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.5
2.1
7
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
2.4
2.8
7
1.5
2.1
1.5
1.9
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
23.2
23.2
23.2
7
23.2
23.2
18.4
22.8
2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.3
10.5
14
7
12
16
14.1
16.4
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
5.9
8.9
7
3
7.8
5.6
5.8
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1.7
2.1
7
1
1.3
1
1
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Eg 4
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
97.3
97.3
97.3
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0047
0.0042
0.0046
Other

Table 9C. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Nesbit - UT 1
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicaple)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
(MY0)
Riffle Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.1
8.7
9.5
5
10
11.6
11.0
11.0
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
20
29
50
5
50
100
75.0
75.0
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1
1.2
5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
1
1.3
5
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.0
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
8.4
8.4
8.4
5
8.4
8.4
7.6
7.6
1
Width/Depth Ratio
5.9
8.7
10.6
5
12
16
15.9
15.9
1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
3.2
7
5
5
8.6
6.8
6.8
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1.7
1.8
5
1
1.3
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Eg 4
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
32.9
32.9
32.9
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0081
0.0075
0.0069
Other
Table 9D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Nesbit - UT 2
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition (applicaple)
Design
Monitoring Baseline
(MVO)
Riffle Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.4
4.7
7.9
3
6.2
7.2
5.6
5.6
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
30
50
3
25
75
100.0
100.0
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.7
0.9
3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
1.1
1.5
3
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.2
3.2
3.2
3
3.2
3.2
2.4
2.4
1
Width/Depth Ratio
3.8
6.7
19.8
3
12
16
13.1
13.1
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
3.8
14.7
3
4
10.5
17.8
17.8
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
2.5
8.7
3
1
1.3
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Eg 6
Ce 3/4
Ce 3/4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
11.8
11.8
11.8
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0143
0.0128
0.0089
Other

Table 10A. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Nesbit/ DMS:100121) Glen Branch Upstream
Glen Br (Upstream) - Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Glen Br (Upstream) - Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Glen Br (Upstream) - Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Glen Br (Upstream) - Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
614.79
615.07
619.98
619.97
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
612.90
612.46
616.89
618.49
LTOB2 Elevation
614.79
615.07
619.98
619.97
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
1.88
2.61
3.09
1.48
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
22.9
33.2
42.3
18.5
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted
in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As -built bankfull area and the cross
sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As -built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As -built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation
would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and
the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each
successive year.
2 - LTOB 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.
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter -annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.

Table 10B. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Nesbit/ DMS:100121) Glen Branch Downstream
Glen Br (Downstream) - Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Glen Br (Downstream) - Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Glen Br (Downstream) - Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Glen Br (Downstream) - Cross Section 12 (Pool)
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
626.03
626.04
632.51
632.69
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
623.71
624.59
631.16
630.43
LTOB2 Elevation
626.09
626.04
632.51
632.69
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
2.38
1.45
1.34
2.27
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
26.0
14.7
13.2
26.11
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted
in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As -built bankfull area and the cross
sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As -built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As -built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation
would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and
the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each
successive year.
2 - LTOB 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.
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter -annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.

Table 10C. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Nesbit/ DMS:100121) UT 1 and UT 2
UT 1- Cross Section 7 (Pool)
UT 1- Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
UT 2 - Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
UT 2 - Cross Section 4 (Pool)
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
629.22
629.40
618.41
618.33
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
627.64
628.44
617.78
617.17
LTOB2 Elevation
629.22
629.40
618.41
618.33
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
1.58
0.96
0.64
1.17
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
11.6
7.7
2.4
5.3
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted
in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As -built bankfull area and the cross
sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As -built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As -built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation
would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and
the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each
successive year.
2 - LTOB 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.
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter -annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.

Appendix D: Hydrologic Data
Groundwater Gauge Soil Profiles
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 1 (34.890737, -80.657679)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-4
10 YR 5/2
100
silty clay
4-16
10 YR 7/1
75
10 YR 6/6
20
C
M
sandy clay
10 YR 5/8
5
C
M
16-20
10 YR 6/1
85
10 YR 6/6
10
C
M
clay
10 YR 4/6
5
C
PL
20+
Gley 6/1
80
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
clay
10 YR 6/4
10
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' .&,,,a
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 2 (34.891545, -80.656266)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-3
10 YR 5/2
95
10 YR 5/6
5
C
M
silty clay
3-12
10 YR 6/2
85
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
clay
10 YR 5/8
5
C
M
12-18
10 YR 6/1
95
10 YR 5/6
5
C
PL
clay
18-22
10 YR 6/2
90
10 YR 7/6
10
C
M
clay
22+
10 YR 6/1
80
10 YR 6/6
20
C
M
clay
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' .&,,,a
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 3 (34.891814, -80.656475)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-4
10 YR 4/2
100
silty clay
4-8
10 YR 5/2
95
10 YR 5/6
5
C
M
silty clay
8-12
10 YR 6/1
90
10 YR 5/6
10
C
M
clay
12-20
10 YR 6/1
70
10 YR 5/6
20
C
M
clay
10 YR 6/4
10
C
M
20+
10 YR 6/2
70
10 YR 5/6
30
C
M
sandy clay
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' .&,,,a
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 4 (34.892395, -80.654796)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-5
10 YR 4/3
100
clay loam
5-11
10 YR 6/2
80
10 YR 5/6
20
C
M
clay loam
11-20
10 YR 6/2
80
10 YR 5/6
15
C
M
clay
10 YR 5/8
5
C
M
20+
10 YR 5/1
80
10 YR 4/3
20
C
M
clay
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' .&,,,a
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 5 (34.893161, -80.654477)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-10
10 YR 6/2
70
10 YR 6/4
20
C
M
silty clay
10 YR 4/4
10
C
PL
10-20
10 YR 6/1
80
10 YR 4/3
15
C
M
clay
10 YR 4/6
5
C
M
20+
10 YR 7/1
90
10 YR 7/4
10
C
M
sandy clay
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' .&,,,a
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 6 (34.894454, -80.653669)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-1
10 YR 6/4
100
silty clay
1-8
10 YR 6/2
95
10 YR 5/6
5
C
PL
silty clay
8-12
10 YR 6/3
80
10 YR 6/6
20
C
M
clay
12+
10 YR 6/2
90
10 YR 5/6
10
C
PL
clay
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 7 (34.895188, -80.653881)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-7
10 YR 5/3
90
10 YR 4/4
10
C
M
silty clay
7-15
10 YR 6/2
85
10 YR 6/4
10
C
M
clay
10 YR 3/6
5
C
M
15+
10 YR 7/1
90
10 YR 5/8
10
C
M
clay
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' . v�
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 8 (34.896665, -80.653192)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-5
10 YR 4/3
100
clay loam
5-9
10 YR 7/2
90
10 YR 6/6
10
C
M
silty clay
9-20
10 YR 6/1
70
10 YR 5/8
20
C
M
clay
10 YR 4/2
10
D
M
20-26
10 YR 6/1
70
10 YR 5/6
20
C
M
clay
10 YR 5/8
10
D
M
26+
10 YR 7/1
70
10 YR 6/6
10
C
M
clay
10 YR 5/3
20
C
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
w' .&,,,a
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 2/8/2022
Project/Site: Nesbit
County, State: Union County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile - Groundwater Gauge 9 (34.897034, -80.652611)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Wehadkee varient (mapped as Secrest Cid Complex)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes:
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
Type
Location
0-5
10 YR 5/3
100
silty clay loam
5-9
10 YR 5/2
90
10 YR 5/8
10
C
M
silty clay loam
9-15
10 YR 6/2
85
10 YR 5/8
15
C
PL
silty clay
15-20
10 YR 6/2
80
10 YR 5/6
20
C
M
silty clay
20+
10 YR 7/1
80
10 YR 7/8
10
C
M
clay
10 YR 4/6
10
PL
M
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. Locaction: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature:
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 11. Project Timeline
Table 12. Project Contacts
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

Table 11. Project Timeline
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Task Completion or
Deliverable Submission
Project Instituted
NA
Apr-19
Mitigation Plan Approved
Jun-20
May-21
Construction (Grading) Completed
NA
07-Dec-21
Planting Completed
NA
Febuary 3, 2022
As -built Survey Completed
NA
Jun-22
MY-0 Baseline Report
Feb-22
Sep-22
MY1+ Monitoring Reports
Table 12. Project Contacts
Swamp Grape Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site/100115
Provider
Mitigation Provider POC
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Worth Creech
919-755-9490
Designer
Primary project design POC
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Charles Hill
919-639-6132

Appendix F: Other Data
Preconstruction Benthic Results
Preconstruction Benthic Habitat Assessment Data Forms
Photo Log
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

AXIOM, NESBIT 9GLEN BRANCH, UNION COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/2/2020.
PAI ID NO
53933
53934
53935
STATION
UT-1
GB -US
GB -LOW
DATE
6/2/2020
6/2/2020
6/2/2020
SPECIES
Tolerance
Values
Functional
Feeding
Group
PLATYHELMINTHES
Tricladida
P
Planariidae
0
Girardia (Dugesia) tigrina
7.1
P
1
MOLLUSCA
Biva!via
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
FC
Pisidium sp.
6.6
FC
2
2
Sphaerium sp.
7.2
FC
3
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.
8.7
CG
3
7
5
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta
CG
Tubificida
Naididae
CG
Naidinae
CG
Stylaria lacustris
8.4
CG
1
2
2
Tubificinae w.h.c.
CG
1
Tubificinae w.o.h.c.
CG
4
Pristininae
Pristina sp.
7.7
CG
1
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
CG
1
Lumbriculus sp.
CG
2
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Amphipoda
CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
7.2
CG
4
Insecta
Odonata
Coenagrionidae
P
lschnura sp.
9.5
2
Libellulidae
P
Erythemis simplicicollis
P
1
Corduliidae
Neurocordulia sp.
5.3
1
PAI, Inc.
Page 1 of 2 aXIOM NESBIT 6 20c1

AXIOM, NESBIT 9GLEN BRANCH, UNION COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/2/2020.
PAI ID NO
53933
53934
53935
STATION
UT-1
GB -US
GB -LOW
DATE
6/2/2020
6/2/2020
6/2/2020
SPECIES
Tolerance
Values
Functional
Feeding
Group
Plecoptera
Perlidae
P
Perlesta sp.
2.9
P
6
1
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.
9.5
P
1
Corixidae
PI
6
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.
6.6
FC
1
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
P
Neoporus sp.
5
1
Elmidae
CG
Stenelmis sp.
5.6
SC
8
2
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sexmaculatus
2
Hydrophilidae
P
Hydrochus sp.
SH
1
Diptera
Chironomidae
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
3
2
2
Cricotopus bicinctus
8.7
CG
2
Cricotopus sp.
CG
7
1
Cryptochironomus sp.
6.4
P
2
Eukiefferiella claripennis gp.
6.2
CG
1
Parametriocnemus sp.
3.9
CG
2
1
Polypedilum illinoense gp.
8.7
SH
1
1
Thienemanniella xena
8
CG
2
Zavrelimyia sp.
8.6
P
1
2
1
Sciomyzidae
1
Simuliidae
FC
Simulium decorum
1
Simulium sp.
4.9
FC
1
Simulium tuberosum complex
4.9
FC
13
15
Simulium venustum complex
7.3
1
Simulium vittatum
9.1
10
Tipulidae
SH
Tipula sp.
7.5
SH
1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
37
51
60
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
16
19
18
EPT TAXA
1
1
1
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES
6.83
6.34
7.27
PAI, Inc.
Page 2 of 2 aXIOM NESBIT 6 20c1

(itrY7(1-((ei
3/06 Revision 6
13^a-‘4 k D_c Lek/V
G b_ 05
fr. tk 0
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream 6l4w5,-4_f1i YJ5 Location/road: t/Yfilj{ 4" (Road Name _JCounty 144//0(4/
Date 0 ` ' •49d`0 CC# 0") 00 [ 03 Basin f ca tx. ‘ Subbasin 0 3 - 0 6-39
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
TOTAL SCORE 6
Observer(s) MS.. Type of Study: 0 Fish /�V Benthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitudel)C,J-11O15 Longitude V v, ('11 I t6VEcoregion: ❑ MT i 4' 'Slate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature — °C DO `- mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture /60 % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) 1 5— Stream Depth: (m) Avg p. Max
0 Width variable 0 Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: TO ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑reply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 0 Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization 11CT Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ❑H_i� formal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear Ja Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? YES ONO Details 1 e C K /dl'. ) J
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed 0
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ❑
D. Root mats out of water 0
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ❑
Weather Conditions: C Ie4.1/14/ ilwofj, Photos: ON 1lY ❑ Digital ❑35mm
Remarks: jL (7 c P —1 %! trrd 1► .- r{ . f 1 f're- ( fog W 7 7'
c YS
c 4 5 "' '` 1 y?' t1 ^
d
r

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends 5
• 4 r1,w
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old)
C. some channelization present
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare_ Common. or Abundant.
4' Rocks
Macrophytes re —,Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 15 11 7
2 types present 18 1® 10 6
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present. 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal l IA
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% 8
4. embeddedness >80% 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% 11
3. embeddedness 40-80%
4. embeddedness >80% 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% 8
2. embeddedness >50% 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock 3
2. substrate nearly all sand 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay 1
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed) �,l
a. variety of pool sizes 0
b. pools about the same size 4
B. Pools absent 0
Subtotal
ool bottom boulder-cobb =hard 0 Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 Silt bp(to 0 Some pools over wader depth
marks fl ; o f (0 0 `, f 1--/4 u P \ , 4 d ,rn. k VI 4 ddhU- ( lik Page Total'ai
40

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream• 16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ® 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D. riffles absent 0 14
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems 0 67
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0 J
Total j 71/4
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Remarks
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas 2
E. No canopy and no shading 0
Subtotal D
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Defmition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: la''I'rees ErShrubs la" gasses 0 Weeds/old field [Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters 5 5
2. width 12-18 meters 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters 3
4. width < 6 meters 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters 2 2
d. width < 6 meters 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters 1 1
d. width < 6 meters 0 0 L/
Remarks Total
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE 6
41

Diagram to determine bank angle:
90°
Site Sketch:
MIMI ME
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
45°
•
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.
Other comments:
42

3/06 Revision 6
7;6_45)
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ TOTAL SCORE J
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream µnr.A.N.4.5 Location/road: (Road Name }County ►v/1pK1
Date )--o CC# 0 3 05 01 0 Basin CA-A-G, u/ Subbasin 03 — 0 5- 3I
Observer(s) I\ k. Type of Study: ❑ Fish ❑Benthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 3y.VStcLongitude 52654 Ecoregion: 0 MT P ZI Slate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 1,0 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture qa 0 % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : .orest ligriculture ❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream L - J Channel (at top of bank) 4 Stream Depth: (m) Avg 1 a: Max Lo
❑ Width variable 0 Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) 3
Bank Angle: S ° or 0 NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures MExposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON ❑Y: ❑ ip-rap, cement, gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow condi 'ons : ❑High ormal ❑Low
Turbidity: Wear 0 Sligh ly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑ YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed 0
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed 0
D. Root mats out of water 0
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ❑
Weather Conditions: VW� r,.., ��' Photos: ON ❑Y Cl Digital 035mmm
Remarks: '2., r c .,..► -Q1� �sw.., 1
at am �, .�.� s P1' "�
16 opt 1 1- (mil { 5
39

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) 4
C. some channelization present
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
IL Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Defmition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
11/4 Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs — Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 15 11 7
2 types present 18 14 10 6
1 type present ra 13 9 5
No types present. 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal 1 vi
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders)
2. embeddedness 20-40% 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% 8
4. embeddedness >80% 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% 6
4. embeddedness >80% 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% 8
2. embeddedness >50% 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock. 3
2. substrate nearly all sand 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus 2
4. substrate nearly all silt! clay 1
Remarks Subtotal l 5
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes 6
b. pools about the same size
B. Pools absent 0
Subtotal
YPoo1 bottom boulder-cobble=hard 0 Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
emarks
40
Page Total 3�

65, (15
V. Riffle Habitats
Defmition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 4 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D. riffles absent 0
Channel Slope: g'1'ypical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal i10
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion..
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total I
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas 0
E. No canopy and no shading 0
Remarks Subtotal's--
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees 0 Shrubs 0 Grasses Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters 0
2. width 12-18 meters 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters 3 3
4. width < 6 meters 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters 2 2
d. width < 6 meters 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters 1 1
d. width < 6 meters 0 0
Remarks Total t
Page Total f'1.
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
41

Diagram to determine bank angle:
90°
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
45°
Typical Stream Cross-section
�; ' Yam► Extreme High Water `
/ .1 bete' r`��� Q� 141.' .
41 if
441
'41%, Normal High Water
461M4. Normal Flow .��.
L__ Stream Width
Site Sketch:
Loner
Bank
r Upper Bank
This side is 45° bank angle.
Other comments:
i'.)O(wek CoY(rs VS—
PcrAR.1 lti��:� `�'�( ( c;I
r u G4n i c'-^�Y` 502
yt-f4
Pi-rA'V-c-✓AbC: SS• vS VN ln5 ( 4 d,.Zv't i {.,v "C—P -tr'%

�'�
it/P.515I/1
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ !TOTAL SCORE 60
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream fU t°4r1 j /( ( Location/road: It) V' (Road Name )County " it,
Date 2 - 2..o 1 a CC# 03050103 Basin int1 \4
Subbasin 0 3- C5 3,4
Observer(s) Type of Study:�C 0 Fish Benthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
LatitudeitiMC O i (P Longitude (dN -6; )-(10 Ecoregion: 0 MT vf P 54 Slate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: b %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture ____Tc_1% Active Crops 44P4'"4=""
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream 2— Channel (at top of bank) 3 Stream Depth: (m) Avg 2— Max 5
•
0 Width variable 0 Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: `i S ° or 0 NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend Qhannel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development BBuried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 0 Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON MY: ip-rap, cement, gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ❑High PiNormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear 0 Slightly Turbid 1Turbid ❑Tannic
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? , YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed (&�
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed 0
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ❑
D. Root mats out of water 0
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools 0
Weather Conditions: 412, '� S , Photos: ON ❑Y ❑Digital 035mm
Remarks:
q\A.Po' v-+ ,
❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Csr c.� es o ezt - PRc"..too 1,44, Skd cttc \ -Q . r .....
vva. 5tr'r s 1'-��,°.r yr.t. `rv, •! t.
39

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) 4
C. some channelization present 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream 117jBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal '2-
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Defmition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common. or Abundant.
Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks
Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 15 11 7
2 types present 1.8 l20 10 6
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present. 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal 14
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) 15
2. embeddedness 20-40% 12
3. embeddedness 40-80% 8
4. embeddedness >80% 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <20% 14
2. embeddedness 20-40% 11
3. embeddedness 40-80% 6�1
4. embeddedness >80% • 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness <50% 8
2. embeddedness >50% 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock 3
2. substrate nearly all sand 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay 1
Remarks l u .-Le r (Z.. p ° i�-� _ Subtotal tp
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes 6
b. pools about the same size (j
B. Pools absent 0 a Subtotal
VS -Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 0 Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
40
Page Total 210

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream16 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 3
D. riffles absent 0
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ,teep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal 0
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM
Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.07 '/
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0 L�
Total ) )
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas 2
E. No canopy and no shading
Remarks _ Subtotal 0
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Defmition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: 0 Trees 0 Shrubs 0 Grasses 0 Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters c7
2. width 12-18 meters 4 4
3. width 6-12 meters 3 3
4. width < 6 meters,, 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters 2 2
d. width < 6 meters 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters 1 1
d. width < 6 meters 0 0
Remarks Total , 1 L%
Page Total
0 Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE (D
41

Diagram to determine bank angle:
90°
Site Sketch:
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
45°
Typical Stream Cross-section
Extreme High Water
Try x.
Normal High Water
ga 4_ ` Normal Flow +S
dipol
le- Stream Width
Lower
Bank
4r- Upper Book
This side is 45° bank angle.
Other comments:
42

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 5 — Planting & Monitoring Devices
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Bare -root planting - 02/02/2022
Bare -root planting - 02/02/2022

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 5 — Planting & Monitoring Devices
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Bare -root planting - 02/02/2022
Bare -root planting - 02/02/2022
Page 2

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 5 — Planting & Monitoring Devices
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Live Stakes - 02/08/2022
UT-2 Cross Sections - 02/08/2022
Page 3

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 5 — Planting & Monitoring Devices
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Glen Branch Cross Section - 02/08/2022
Glen Branch Cross Section - 02/08/2022

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 5 — Planting & Monitoring Devices
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Ground Water Gauge Install - 02/02/2022
Ground Water Gauge Install - 02/02/2022
Page 5

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 6 — MY0
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Glen Branch, upper extent, ford crossing - 01/15/2022
Glen Branch, upper extent, looking south - 01/15/2022
Page 1

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 6 — MY0
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
UT1 & UT1A - 01/15/2022
Glen Branch & UT1 confluence, looking south - 01/15/2022
Page 2

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 6 — MY0
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Glen Branch & UT2 confluence, looking south - 01/15/2022
Glen Branch / Site outfall - 01/15/2022
Page 3

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 6 — MY0
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Cross sections 1, Glen Branch - 02/08/2022
Cross sections 3 and 4, UT 2 - 02/08/2022
Page 4

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 6 — MY0
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Cross sections 5, Glen Branch - 02/08/2022
Cross sections 7 and 8, UT 1- 02/08/2022
Page 5

Nesbit Mitigation Site: Task 6 — MY0
DMS Contract #: 7868; DMS Project ID: 100121; RFP # 16-007704
Cross sections 9, Glen Branch - 02/08/2022
Cross sections 11, Glen Branch - 02/08/2022
Page 6

Appendix G: Record Drawing Plan Sheets
Final MYO Monitoring Report (Project No. 100121) Appendices
Nesbit Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Union County, North Carolina September 2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1FC76015-44FB 474D-ABCE-701E6835D8D2
QD
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
AS -BUILT PLANS
NESBIT SITE
LOCATION: UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT (CLEARING,
GRUBBING, GRADING, EROSION CONTROL AND PLANTING)
VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
RECORD DRAWING
Parkwood School Rd 1146
NOTE:GLEN BRANCH IS LOCATED IN A FEMA
LIMITED DETAILED STUDY AREA. PROJECT TO
BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO
APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. ANY
DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS WILL
REQUIRE APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER
AND FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR
Nesbit Site
Site #100121
Catawba 03030030;
Union County
Contract #00077868
Latitude: 34.8936
Longitude:-80.6544(WGS84)
GRAPHIC SCALES
50 25 0
50
100
PLANS
50 25 0 50
100
ThLW \/
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10
1tlit
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
END -GLEN-
STA 42f17
STAR
T
-UT2
END
STA
RT -GLEN-
END -U
TGI- EN�Q
et 1
ca
P_SHG4LENaAB0STA 0f77
UTf-
30N
2SSTAm=/9 �QP1"H4*,,or:
SSyNR-UT lA
0f00STA 0f00 UT
STA 9f80
edied
-oUTA
l PSH
AB-041
GLEN
START -UTI-
STA 0+00
Nesbit Rd
1131
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -GLEN- =
4140
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -UT 1A- =
314
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -UT 1- =
980
PROPOSED LENGTH OF -UT 2- =
309
TOTAL STREAM LENGTHS (LF) =
5743
RESTORATION LEVEL
STREAM (linear footage)
RIPARIAN WETLAND (acreage)
NONRIPARIAN WETLAND (acreage)
RESTORATION
4801
5.338(Reestablishment)
0.000
ENHANCEMENT I
316
1.789 (Rehabilitation)
0.000
ENHANCEMENT!!
541
0.000
0.000
PRESERVATION
0
0.000
0.000
TOTALS
5658
7.127
0.000
MITIGATION UNITS
5199.756SMUs
6.531 RIPARIAN WMUs
NONRIPARIAN WMUs
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
RS
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Roleigh, NC 27603
GRANT LEWIS
Restoration Systems
1 101 Haynes St.
Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
PROJECT DESIGNER
WORTH CREECH
SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
SHEET NUMBER
AB-01
AB-02
AB-03
AB-04A T H RU AB-04V
AB-04W
STATE
STATE PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SHEET
TOTAL
SHEETS
N.C.
NES1IIT SITE
1
INDEX OF SHEETS
SHEET
Title Sheet
Symbology
Easement
As -Built Structures
As -Built Planting List
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION(S)
Surveyor's disclaimer: No attempt was made to locate any cemeteries, wetlands, hazardous material
sites, underground utilities or any other features above, or below ground other than those shown.
However, no visible evidence of cemeteries or utilities, aboveground or otherwise, was observed by
the undersigned (other than those shown).
I certify that the survey is of an existing parcel or parcels of land or one or more existing easements
and does not create a new street or change an existing street.
I JOHN A. RUDOLPH , certify that this plat was prepared under my supervision from an actual field
survey made under my supervision, of as -built conditions.
That the boundaries not surveyed are clearly indicated as such and were plotted from information as
referenced hereon; That the ratio of precision as calculated was 1:7,500+ and that the
global navigational satellite system (GNSS) was used to perform this survey and the following
information was used:
Class of Survey: CLASS B (HORIZONTAL) CLASS B (VERTICAL)
Positional Accuracy: 0.12 feet (HORIZONTAL)
Type of GPS field procedure: RTK
Dates of survey: May and June 2022
Datum/Epoch: NAD 1983(2011)
Published/Fixed Control Use' OPUS
Geoid Model' 2012B CONUS
Combined Grid Factor: 0.99995565 GROUND TO GRID
Units' US SURVEY FEET
That this plat meets the requirements of the standards of practice for land surveying in North
Carolina. Witness my hand and seal this 29th day of June , 2022.
SEAL OR STAMP
\Y�1Y111111f///
(--7bo- �i�n�° ////
/i
• SEAL
L-4194
%O57, *0 SURv4'* * /
a \,
//gsNL EY) VC \\filitill`�
9/1/2022
L-4194
Professional Land Surveyor
Prepared in the Office of:
SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
•0
905 JONES FRANKLIN ROAD
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27606
TEL [phone]
ENG FIRM LICENSE NO. C-890
JOSHUA G. DALTON, P.E.
PROJECT ENGINEER
DATE:
License Number

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY:
State Line
County Line
Township Line
City Line
Reservation Line
Property Line
Existing Iron Pin
Computed Property Corner
Property Monument
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Line
Proposed Fence Gate
0
EIP
ECM
X X X
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence
Existing Wetland Boundary
Proposed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary
Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
Existing Historic Property Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE:
Gas Pump Vent or U/G Tank Cap
Sign
Well
Small Mine
Foundation
Area Outline
Cemetery
Building
School
Church
Dam
HYDROLOGY.-
Stream or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir 7
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 2
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream
Spring
Wetland
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
EAB
EPB
HPB
0
0
0
W
t
Js
BZ 1
BZ 2
RIGHT OF WAY & PROJECT CONTROL:
Secondary Horiz and Vert Control Point
Primary Horiz Control Point
Primary Horiz and Vert Control Point
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
Note: Not to Scale *S. U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering
Exist Permanent Easment Pin and Cap
New Permanent Easement Pin and Cap
Vertical Benchmark
Existing Right of Way Marker
Existing Right of Way Line
New Right of Way Line
New Right of Way Line with Pin and Cap
New Right of Way Line with
Concrete or Granite R/W Marker
New Control of Access Line with
Concrete C/A Marker
Existing Control of Access
New Control of Access
Existing Easement Line
New Conservation Easement
New Temporary Drainage Easement
New Permanent Drainage Easement
New Permanent Drainage / Utility Easement
New Permanent Utility Easement
New Temporary Utility Easement
New Aerial Utility Easement
m
O 0
0
(A,
Pipe Culvert
Footbridge
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
Paved Ditch Gutter
Storm Sewer Manhole
Storm Sewer
UTILITIES:
O POWER:
Existing Power Pole
[� Proposed Power Pole
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES:
Existing Edge of Pavement
Existing Curb —
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
Proposed Curb Ramp
Existing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guiderail
Proposed Cable Guiderail
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
VEGETATION:
Single Tree
Single Shrub
Hedge
Woods Line
Orchard
Vineyard
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
MAJOR:
♦ Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert
0 Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall —
MINOR:
Head and End Wall
E
TDE
PDE
DUE
PUE
TUE
AUE
C
F
CR
TTTT
11
n n n
ED
Vineyard
CONC
CONC WW
/ CONC HW \
>—
CB
Existing Joint Use Pole
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer
U/G Power Cable Hand Hole
H—Frame Pole
U/G Power Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
U/G Power Line LOS C (S.U.E.*)
U/G Power Line LOS D (S.U.E.*)
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole
WATER:
Water Manhole
Water Meter
Water Valve
Water Hydrant
U/G Water Line
U/G Water Line
U/G Water Line
LOS B (S.U.E*)
LOS C (S.U.E*)
LOS D (S.U.E*)
Above Ground Water Line
GAS:
Gas Valve
Gas Meter
0
0
A/C water
U/G Gas Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
U/G Gas Line LOS C (S.U.E.*)
U/G Gas Line LOS D (S.U.E.*)
Above Ground Gas Line
SANITARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout
U/G Sanitary Sewer Line
A/G Gas
OO
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer
SS
A/G Sanitary Sewer
SS Forced Main Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
SS Forced Main Line LOS C (S.U.E.*)
FSS
SS Forced Main Line LOS D (S.U.E.*)
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pole
Utility Pole with Base
Utility Located Object
Utility Traffic Signal Box
Utility Unknown U/G Line LOS B (S.U.E.*)
U/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Underground Storage Tank, Approx. Loc.
A/G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Geoenvironmental Boring
U/G Test Hole LOS A (S.U.E.*)
Abandoned According to Utility Records
End of Information
Existing Contour Major
Existing Contour Minor
Contour Interval = 1 ft
Riffle Rip Rap
Log Vane
Log Cross Vane
Step Pool Structure
Stream Plug
FSS
•
0
0
(uso)
AATUR
E.O.I.
Hof t o o$0
>oa ooa ooa ooa
Begin End
Floodplain Interceptor
Proposed Fence
Limits of Disturbance
AS BUILT
Stream Centerline
Stream Top of Bank
Stream Gauge
Groundwater Gauge
Benthic & Water Quality Station
Origin Point on CVS Plots
CVS Plots
Cross Section
Adjusted Stream Structure
Not Constructed
/l / / Jlip/ii
— LOD —
O
XS-10R
0 21122 SL'NGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A. THIS DRAWING AND ALL REPRODUCTIONS OF IT ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SDG. REPRODUCTION OR OTHER USES OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF SDG IS NOT PERMITTED
cD
CD
CO
w
0
w
Q
cr
CO
o
,1;'
.
•I
1-
m
co
W
z
UNION COUNTY, NC
SYMBOLOGY
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
AB-02

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
7
7
CE CE
i
SURVEY INFORMATION PROPERTY/
EASEMENT PROVIDED BY:
K2 DESIGN GROUP, P.A.
5688 U.S. HIGHWAY 70 EAST
GOLDSBORO, NC 27534
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Parkwood School Rd
1146
es •► R
200' 100' 0
EELLE
SCALE: 1"= 400'
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
CROSSING
1131
60' WIDE NON—EXCLUSIVE ACCESS EASEMENT
i
200' 400'
J
a
0
0
c
0
co
Z
0 21122 SL'NGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A. THIS DRAWING AND ALL REPRODUCTIONS OF IT ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SDG. REPRODUCTION OR OTHER USES OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF SDG IS NOT PERMITTED
a
cD
CD
CO
w
0
w
Q
cr
CO
o
,1;'
1-
m
W
Z
UNION COUNTY, NC
EASEMENT
PROJECT +�
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
AB-03

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
EAS MENT LINE
\2
RICHARDSON JAMES A
START RESTORATION
STA 0+77 -GLEN-
CE
f
PERMANENT
CHANNEL FORD
-9£9
3D
LIMITS OF
GRADING
EASEMENT LINE
Ov
N
N
3J
EASEMENT LINE
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
CE
3J
CROSS
VANE (TYP)
LIMITS OF
GRADING
<v=
Sv
E
PROP
BANKFULL
0,
oo
TIT
3D
GLE
TI
CE
SCALE: 1"=50'
£8 CVN
RECORD DRAWING
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
421,847.05
1,504,567.15
631.45
631.30
CROSS VANE
421,701.08
1,504,569.32
631.00
630.88
640
7
5
635
630
Akd
TA
n
E
1-
L
1
E
V
AN
(,1
6
N
3
2
L
N
5
1
AT
EXST COU NII
PROP THAlWG
/
•
T
I4A
LW
E
s
O
625
62Q
S
TART RFSTORAT
FA 0+77 -CLEN-
EL
EV .3
AS
BU
LT
E
E
L
E
J
z
635
630
625
N GROUP, PA
Q
0
O
CD
CO
w
o
w
QCD
I �I
Cl� •
1-
m
N
W
Z
UNION COUNTY, NC
REVISIONS:
0
+50 01 +50 02 +50 03
+50
04 +50
05
SHEET NO.
AB-04A

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
640
635
630
625
670
CE
s
ccl
cP
s �
'o 4\h,
0
-7 T
\ J -,9 N
N
17C9
30
PROP
BANKFULL
TIT
LIMITS OF
GRADING
CROSS c?
VANE (TYP) EASEMENT LINE
2 2 o CE
CE ,'>) ,»00
)0 CE CE2
v,
cp
^ 631 / c_D
T
SCALE: 1"=50'
RECORD DRAWING
C _ /^... N
bx ai / -\ N.-- —7, ..,<_.-- ---.1- -777 o c°'
\_�
r317
��6ws 01/
L.
v
EASEMENT LINE
30
3D
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
teg
LIMITS OF
GRADING
STREAM PLUG
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
,-DgquSig4iebyciAR�44ZF.A zz
-F44i
'O89A 8C199C ;
\� T-TT
= 2697I = _
yUq 6 9 P\7
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
421,649.30
1,504,531.06
630.52
630.64
CROSS VANE
421,548.54
1,504,443.25
629.65
629.77
CROSS VANE
421,445.17
1,504,395.08
628.88
628.80
CROSS VANE
421,395.15
1,504,354.34
628.33
628.47
CROSS VANE
421,338.52
1,504,345.58
628.05
628.10
LE
640
A
EXST
PRO'
G
RO
TH
LI ND
ALWEG
635
r
-r
s
i
1
630
625
P
R
0
P
T
A
LW
E
AS-B U
ILT
CE
NT
E
RL
NE
620
N GROUP, PA
Q
0
0
O
CD
L.L_I
CI
LL_I
Q
CD
*1
1-
m
N
W
z
UNION COUNTY, NC
REVISIONS:
05
+50
06
+50
07
+50
08
+50
19
+50
10
SHEET NO.
AB-04B

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
LOG VANE
421,288.32
1,504,286.87
627.51
CROSS VANE
421,244.86
1,504,257.11
627.26
627.47
CROSS VANE
421,210.94
1,504,223.69
626.70
626.64
CROSS VANE
421,154.68
1,504,216.66
626.43
CROSS VANE
421,021.64
1,504,200.78
625.46
625.41
CROSS VANE
420,974.54
1,504,199.01
625.20
625.23
0.0
LOG
VANE (TYP)
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
LIMITS OF ,/
GRADING ,'
EASEMENT LINE
\j
T
BLiFORD/ TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BKe7279 PGe643
PROP
BANKFULL
cFwc6jjCE
7-77
9Z9
9
LIMITS OF
GRADING
END ENHANCEMENT I,'
TART RESTORATION
STA 14+15 -G
25' 12.5' 0
25' 50'
TIT
SCALE: 1"=50'
RECORD DR/
D
CROSS
VANE (TYP)
EASEMENT LINE
END RESTORATION
START ENHANCEMENT I
STA 13+52 -GLEN-
/sx
Co
DocuSgnoilby: R
j547�� CC6,v
10S9ADSO14994C3 / 0�
7Z SEAL 7.
_ = 26971 = _
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
LE
635
7
635
63
a
C
P IpALWEG
-r
-r
630
625
62Q
615
AT
P
F
X,St
RO?
G
O
R
hlf)
TI-IALW
EG
AS—
B
LT
CEN
TE
FINE
S
TA
R
\IUR
t
ETA
_STO NATI O N
ANCEMFN 1
43 52 -OL
ELEV 625.46
FNIf) _NHANCFMENT
STAR - RESTOPATION
STA 14-15 -
EN-
z
625
620
615
E_EV
.90
+50 12 +50 13
7
H
E-
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
N GROUP, P.,
z
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET No.
AB-04C

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
PROP BANKFULL
T=EASEMENT
LINE,'
CE
START DROP
6YRU CTU RE
_"-- R28--
STR. TYPE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
CROSS VANE
N.- :_c___
TVs
'c,
-UT 1- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
DROP STRUCTURE
420,738.10
1,504,243.50
624.08
624.02.
DROP STRUCTURE
420,724.87
1,504,226.51
622.92
CE
.GE
-UT 1- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
CC
NORTHING
420,825.34
420,812.27
420,786.94
1111111111
EASTI NG
1,504,316.94
1,504,290.44
1,504,262.35
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
625.20
624.83
624.46
11
i■iiii111i11111iii`"" �'llllil 1111111
■ 1�1111111■11 ■itii`'Sfii i■11 u1111111
11�111�111:11 ��1■1��I�111�
625.32
624.93
624.51
E.rOR4T !1
g'I�TJIIIIIIIIII_A IIIIIIiui: !IIII
■c. u.v�c�� r .. ou.r u... o...
r4u.ti mrew .a.mrmmo
Baca-.uueMn
ME =EMMEN=
■-; L.111■11
ME
__.._...■11
PROP BAN
END RESTORATION
STA 9+80 -UT1-
TA 16+ 2 -GLEN-
ND DROP
STRUCTURE _ _
LL
LIMITS OF
GRADING
z
w
J
EASEMENT LINE-
BL]FORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
LIMITS OF
GRADING
CROSS
VANE (TYP)
211111-----MIME IM1111111■■1IIion•a1�.■1
...�i�i T—ilj■°-���M11■IM■w�� ■1
Ill�i�� 1 ilII`m11I��_ l .�rGI
mom mm
...= WWI .11.M1=1.1•.....M - irk..=MO ME= ME
...rr. rrrr. rr_rr•..rrrrrr- rr-ME
MM
rr.
15 +50 16
+50 17
I;U
r
+50
25' 12.5' 0
SCALE: 1"= 50'
EASEMENT
LINE
24-
Peg -----
�DocuSiRneiftiy:
R
�'1089 D$�149 4C3... 0
_ S-SL
26971 =
loillwo
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
RECORD DRAWING -
-GLEN-AS-BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,858.18
1,504,193.38
624.35
614.19
CROSS VANE
420,811.13
1,504,206.43
623.79
623.71
CROSS VANE
420,777.11
1,504,223.41
623.56
623.54
CROSS VANE
420,698.11
1,504,206.85
622.92
622.80
CROSS VANE
420,646.00
1,504,206.84
622.65
622.54
CROSS VANE
420,594.61
1,504,183.26
622.10
622.06
CROSS VANE
420,545.73
1,504,062.30
621.19
621.15
18
+50
19
+ 50
20
r
1
1_
PROJECT .
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,527.20
1,504,014.02
620.61
LOG VAN E
420,090.67
1,504,039.62
618.74
618.48
-G\O
BOG
P 2� Gq0 o -
�� G�SEE S\-\ V" , o�
..1*
CROSS
VANE (TYP)
STREAM PLUG
EASEMENT
LINE
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
TI I
SCALE: 1"=50'
RECORD DRAWING
Z
w
g EASEMENT LOG (TYP)
2 LIMITS OF + LINE J
��� GRADING ` PROP BANKFULL o
,X
_ C6 CE C'
3
p
,ti�s �-
10� =2 _62 __
y
i��_ Al _ . ___--
2zs, - ��
/,,Z9
J
\� •MW-5 ������
LIMITS OF
GRADING
3D
BUFORD TOWNSHIP v
FARMS LLC
BK:779 PG:643 v�
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
3J
3J �
(.-D74Sig nd br A /i,/
±.144j5;14,01 /
1089A114994C3... /�
_ = 2697I
227
6 /2
7U4 6 P�
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
LE
N
z
z
630
C
r
Q
AT
XST
PRO
GRO
u
THALW
EG
ur
Lw
r
Q
Q
625
620
A
LT
E
NTERL
E
15
610
5
20
+50
21
+50
22
+50
23
+50
24
+50
25

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
V,
.S;
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
419,962.76
1,503,860.41
618.01
617.69
CROSS VANE
419,907.35
1,503,702.20
617.26
617.08
CROSS VANE
419,878.66
1,503,624.97
616.63
616.55
EASEMENT
LINE
k \ FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
CROSS
VANE (TIP)
EASEMENT
LI/NE
BUFORO TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BA:7279 PG:643
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
1. RECORD DRAWING
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
LIMITS OF
GRADING
CE
>.6/9 1 \•
LIMITS OF�
GRADING
\ ZZ9
ZZ9
z
w
J
CD
I CD
0 0
0'
+ m
0 <
rsn
aw
to
ww
zw
J �
(_)
DocuSigrl�r5 \by: l RI l l
N FAO /'%
—108JADC14994C3...
_ = 2697I =
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
LE
N
630
625
620
615
h1Q
0
J
5
r
A
P
E
R
ST
R
TH
UND
ALWEG
AS—B
L
CE
E
RLI
NE
R
U
P
THA WE
G
25 +50 26 +50 27 +50 28 +50 29 +50 30
r
630
625
620
615
610
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
z
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET No.
AB-04F

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
630
625
1,20
615
h1Q
c
u
w
w
(,.
LL
A
P
T
FIB
START DROP
TRUCTURE
CROSS \A%
VANE
1TYP
UT2
D RFSTORATJ
STA
E
ROP THALWEG
XST GR UND
OP THAI WFC
AS -BUILT
CENTERLINE
3+00
LEV
L
61
5
T
2
tit
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
419,844.28
1,503,581.33
616.38
616.26
CROSS VANE
419,743.25
1,503,399.45
615.16
614.96
CROSS VANE
419,636.42
1,503,318.18
614.35
614.14
FILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
PROP
BANKFUL
z
LIMITS OF
GRADING
i
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
K27279 PG:643
EASEMENT
LINE
PROP
BANKFULL
9D
D RESTORATIONS
STA 3+09 -UT2- i CROSS
S1A30+89 -GLEN- VANE (TYP)
END DROP\STRUCTURE
02 +50 03 30 +50
AT
PRO'
E�l
ST
ST
EL
loROU
NL)
THALW
EG
EST R
A 3+
A
3
EV
AT
-UTL
09 -6
b15tI2
LIMITS OF
GRADING
r
L9
MW-3
J
LC
N
25' 12.5' 0
25' 50'
TTTT
SCALE: 1"= 50'
RECORD DRAWING
FEMA 0 YR
LEN
AS-
31 + 50 32 +50
LT
P
R
Do7Sjghil' e i i
BAR,
.13 .,, 'au /
1 9AD 1 94C3...0
,oTTo�-
_ = 2697I = _
11
/s, G'AF-�Qo� oillwo\\\
oq 69P'
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
CE
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
-UT 2- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
419,943.76
1,503,533.96
617.83
617.72
CROSS VANE
419,920.55
1,503,546.20
617.46
617.52
CROSS VANE
419,893.06
1,503,549.12
617.09
617.00
CROSS VANE
419,871.59
1,503,553.93
616.69
616.73
DROP STRUCTURE
419,861.22
1,503,552.69
616.39
DROP STRUCTURE
419,842.67
1,503,543.17
615.82
EN
T
TE
ALW
RLI
E
NE
z
0
-5
33 +50 34 +50 35
0
J)
630
625
620
6
15
610
1-
m
w
z
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
AB-04G

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
c�
0 O
X
Q ✓
-----91.9-
CROS_S_ _
_ _ - - - - VANE (TYP)
81,9 3D LIMITS OF
30 GRADING
FEMA 100 YR ASE
---
FEMA
100
Y
EASEMENT
LINE
LIMITS OF
GRADING
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
e7 9 PG2643
w
CE CE — o CE P •CE
c £ BANIkFt1LL ,
M _ 616-_ tiG
3D
LOG VA
—
I
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
TTTT
SCALE: 1"=50'
RECORD DRAWING
60' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE
ACCESS EASEMEN��
_/ 100 YR
START DROP
NO3
STRUCTURE
CDs
00
k
6M
37 , 90
FE AA 100 YR
-GLEN- AS -BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
CE
• MW
CE
DocuignOilA yi:1 1 1 1 1// T
1.0- 9(ba 49 3... 0' / %
,0
SSSL-57-----
= 2697I = _
yVq G9P\-
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
STR TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
419.568.41
1,503,191.67 613.69
613.49
LOG VANE
419,441.39
1,503,030.54 612.96
612.36
CROSS VANE
419,400.14
1,502,957.46 612.68
612.43
DROP STRUCTURE
419,327.09
1,502,880.74 612.37
612.16
625
620
615
610
605
IIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII
IIII
11111111111
z
IFT
615
c
AT
EXST
PRO'
ROU
ALWEC
-r
610
J
f
✓'
615
—
-
AS
P
R
P
TH
AL
WEG
'10
605
35 +50 36 +50 37 +50 38 +50 39 +50 40
c�
7
0
0
0
00
0
0
N GROUP, P.,
z
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BYr
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET No.
AB-04H

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
62
5
620
615
610
605
m
LIM
END DROP
STRUCTURE
LIMITS OF
GRADING
EASEMENT LINE
P
P
P
60' WIDE NON-EXCLUSIVE
ACCESS EASEMENT
T
A
LW
E
E
X
ST
AT
P
G
RO
P
U
T
ND
ltALWE
END
5
1
A
A
S-13
ES
4
1
9
LOG VANE
(TYP)
PROP
BANKFULL
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
LT
RAT
L
E
E
E
L
E
1
LEN
MN
I RECORD DRAWING
END RESTORATI®N
STA 41+92 -GLEN-
oocuS�ign�il�11 1 /
L240476(At z/
1b896819940'3.0' -7
O
= 26971 = _
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
-GLEN-AS-BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
DROP STRUCTURE
419,319.49
1,502,740.15
609.99
610.56
LOG VANE
419,332.39
1,502,698.02
610.37
625
615
605
N GROUP, PA
O
CD
CO
w
o
w
QCD
I �I
*1
1-
m
N
W
z
UNION COUNTY, NC
REVISIONS:
E
L
E
V
6
40 +50 41 + 50 42 + 50 43 +50 44
SHEET NO.
AB-04I

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
-UT 1-AS-BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,726.60
1,504,929.62
629.04
628.97
12
1,601,870.08
628.02
R VANE
,C06.78
CROSS VANE
420,658.38
1,504,831.71
628.79
628.92
CROSS VANE
420,646.52
1,504,764.22
628.65
628.74
CROSS VANE
420,671.66
1,504,705.11
628.52
628.63
CROSS VANE
420,731.32
1,504,654.49
628.35
628.44
RECORD DRAWING
k\ORS 6170
P' � v' v 6639 - g
STA 3+14 -UT1A-
r
— 632 z 3*00 634,E
/' ,63A— / �_�
PONDER, BILLY JOE �'), T/ ,7 �;
& LORETTA H o / / �' l. - \
�' 6
PRo BANKFUOLL // ,' �/� — \ \ �''�� 0��,
0
SG� / ,� - v vI
CROSS VANE NOT CONSTR �' TED / � �' �� �V 6
DUE TO FIELD CONDI IONS \ \� Ski F
END ENHANCEMENT II
RAHTES, LORI A
BK27378 PG20773
LIMITS OF
GRADING
START ENHANCEMENT I
STA 0+00 -UT1-
EASEMENT
LINE
CROSS
VANE (TYP)
START RESTORATION
STA 2+53 -UT1-
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
63
EASEMENT
LINE
aX
<oX °o
Docu i ne� by: / /T i
C.: 4. s
108 Ap 49994C3...
2697I ' '
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
UT
A
T
1
635
630
625
62Q
615
i
f
EXST
AT
P
GROU N D
P
THALW
END
FN HA
STA 3
ELEV
EG
F
44
6
M
U
6
F
T
9
N
1
T
A-
11
STA
C
TA
LC
RT
V
AT
E>\
+0
62
H
-U
1
EXST
G
PROP T
ANCEM
T1
5
R
UN
HALWEG
NT
AS-BU
ILT
E
NT
-ld
L
E
EN
EN
S
HA
A
N
3+
TA
2
1
ME
-U
NT
T
END ENHANCE�MEIJT I
START RE.S ATI
STA 2 53 UT
E tV b28.4O
_nQ
7-
I
J)
1635
30
625
615
N GROUP, PA
1-
N
w
z
UNION COUNTY, NC
REVISIONS:
+50 03 +50 0 +50 01 +50 02 +50 03 +50 04 +50 05
SHEET NO.
AB-04J

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
a
a
-UT 1-AS-BUILT STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
STR. TYPE
NORTHING
EASTING
Prop Elevation
AB Survey
Elevation
CROSS VANE
420,845.31
1,504,339.96
625.70
CROSS VANE
420,788.20
1,504,570.84
628.11
628.27
CROSS VANE
420,853.55
1,504,541.68
627.63
627.73
CROSS VANE
420,877.08
1,504,526.39
627.25
627.47
CROSS VANE
420,871.67
1,504,440.70
626.69
626.34
CROSS VANE
420,864.90
1,504,402.19
626.25
626.04
6,9n
EASEMENT
LINE
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
PE NENT
CHANN , FORD
00
END ENHANCEMENT II
START RESTORATION
STA 7+45 -UT1-
IMITS OF GRADING
00
CROSS
VANE (TY C 9
632 - , /'
n41 � 6?-9 - - �
LIMITS OF
GRADING
7\W/11 ILIIIN
lJWW7R�
— — PROP
BANKFULL�
END RESTORATION
START ENHANCEMENT II NN
STA 6+34 -UT1NN
-
25' 12.5' 0
TIT
c T�MR �cy<
/1/F
T1
:rvIraT.
yNly\■ •1N�_
_/A
JET
N-MyT_H<i�•i=
i
A
LWE
25' 50'
SCALE: 1"=50'
2
RECORD DRAWING
:iiiii
DocvG ,r ,. a �y:C A R /T,
,,
�"108 AD$�1C44 C3...� 0
= SEAL 7,7-= _
= 26971
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
615
05
+50
06
+50
07
+50
08
+50
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
a
ti
r
0= CE
START ENHANCEMENT II
STA 0+00 -UT1A-
PONDER, BILLY JOE
& LORETTA H
EASEMENT
LINE
CE
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
TIT
SCALE: 1"=50'
RECORD DRAWING
0
Fri r
mz
= cn
mom,
——_T/Th,——fir
D
oLP I
LC
I D
PONDER, BILLY JOE
& LORETTA H
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
UT1 A
64b
540
63$
635
2C
630
62�
VI0,1
IRbIViTL•1151•J►L
rJrrm11
!WM
i.117Mewit Rile
Yd�l� 1
J.'J•1JM
I
_LIKI
\R R�
MOP
625
•
7
a
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
N GROUP
z
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
+ 50 01 + 50 02 +50
AB-04L

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
LIMITS OF
GRADING
\ N
BUFORD TOWNSHIP
FARMS LLC
BK:7279 PG:643
O �
PROP L
BANKFULL
EASEMENT LINE —
CE
ZZ9---
--- -£Z9-
- i7Z9
3D
END ENHANCEMENT II
START RESTORATION
STA 1+12 -UT2-
LIMITS OF
GRADING
STARTEAIIANCEUE
AT
P
RO
T2
PR
P
25' 12.5' 0 25' 50'
TIT
SCALE: 1"=50'
£8�
RECORD DRAWING
—DocuSighl‘by�A���T //i
L
JO
1089A[T8C49 4C3... j�
SEAL
= 2697I =
;s o)
9/1/2022
DATE:
DOCUMENT NOT CONSIDERED FINAL
UNLESS ALL SIGNATURES COMPLETED
HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83 (2011)
VERTICAL DATUM: NAVD 1988
0
+50 01
+ 50 02
PROJECT n
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD

DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 FC76015-44FB-474D-ABCE-701 E6835D8D2
DESIGN PLANTING TABLE
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Mc kory Forest"
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
7.2
5
3.8
16
Species
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of total
# planted
River birch (Betula nigra)
245
5
--
--
1550
15
1795
Bittemut hickory (Carya cordiformis)
490
10
--
--
--
--
490
American elm (Ulmus americana)
245
5
170
5
--
--
415
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
510
15
--
--
510
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
245
5
--
--
2067
20
2312
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
--
--
510
15
--
--
510
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
490
10
--
--
517
5
1006
Green ash (Fraxinuspennsylvanica)
245
5
--
--
517
5
762
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
245
5
170
5
517
5
932
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
245
5
170
5
1550
15
1965
Red mulberry (Mores rubra)
--
--
170
5
517
5
687
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
734
15
680
20
--
--
1414
White oak (Quercus alba))
490
10
680
20
1034
10
2203
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
--
--
340
10
--
--
340
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
490
10
--
--
1034
10
1523
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
245
5
--
--
1034
10
1278
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
490
10
--
--
--
--
490
TOTAL
4896
100
3400
100
10336
100
18632
Planted at a density of 680 stems/acre.
** Planted at a density of 2720 stems/acre.
RECORD DRAWING
AS -BUILT PLANTING TABLE
Vegetation Association
Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest*
Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest*
Stream -side
Assemblage**
TOTAL
Area (acres)
7.2
5.0
3.8
16.0
Species
# planted*
% of total
# planted*
% of total
# planted**
% of total
# planted
River birch (Betula nigra)
250
5
--
--
1750
17
2000
Shagbark hickory (Carya cordiformis)
500
10
--
--
--
--
500
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
400
8
--
--
600
6
1000
Red bud (Cercis canadensis)
--
--
600
18
--
--
600
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)
350
7
--
--
2150
21
2500
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
--
--
500
15
--
--
500
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
200
4.5
--
--
700
7
900
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
200
4.5
150
4
650
6.5
1000
Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
--
--
150
4
350
3
500
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
300
6
--
--
950
9
1250
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
400
8
150
4
1700
16.5
2250
White oak (Quercus alba)
200
4.5
150
4
650
6
1000
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
1000
20
1000
30
--
--
2000
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
200
4.5
--
--
800
8
1000
Red oak (Quercus rubra)
--
--
500
15
--
--
500
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
600
12
--
--
--
--
600
American elm (Ulmus americana)
300
6
200
6
--
--
500
TOTAL
4900
100
3400
100
10300
100
18600
0 21122 SL'NGATE DESIGN GROUP, P.A. THIS DRAWING AND ALL REPRODUCTIONS OF IT ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF SDG. REPRODUCTION OR OTHER USES OF THIS DRAWING WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF SDG IS NOT PERMITTED
a
0
(D
to
w
w
1-
m
N
W
z
UNION COUNTY, NC
AS -BUILT PLANTING LIST
PROJECT +�
DRAWING NAME:
DATE:
2022
DRAWN BY:
JRH
REVIEWED BY,
JGD
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
AB-04N