20170921 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2019 (S&W)_20200123

ID#* 20170921 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/27/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/23/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
LINDSAY CROCKER
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170921
Existing 1W
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Major Hill
County: Alamance
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: Major Hill_100015_MY1_2019.pdf 7.78MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* LINDSAY CROCKER
Signature:*

MONITORING REPORT
2019 (Year 1)
MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2019 — November 2019
Submission: January 2020
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

January 23, 2020
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Subject: Major Hill —Year 1 (2019) Monitoring Report
Cape Fear 02 River Basin, Contract 007193, Alamance County, DMS Project No. 100015
Ms. Crocker,
Below is the response from Restoration Systems to all comments received from DMS regarding the Year
1, 2019, Heron Monitoring Report. DMS comments are in black, and our responses are in blue. Please do
not hesitate to reach out if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
000r. !✓
Worth Creech
Project Manager
Comments Received & Responses
Electronic Deliverables:
• Calculation of BHR (using a fixed AB Bankfull Area), XSA, and Max depth are to completed using
TOB in keeping with methods specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup memorandum based
on the current year's low bank height. Please review morph data from compliance and
consistency with these methods.
Bank height ratio calculations were reviewed and are all being calculated using the methods from
the Industry Technical Work Group memorandum. To be consistent with other 2019 DMS
monitoring reports, a row showing LTOB Elevation was added to the cross-section summary data
on the cross-section graphs.
• Include a footnote upon verification to the effect, "Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the
As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the
NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018)."
This footnote was added to tables 12A and 1 ?C
• The other parameters can be left blank or the basis for their calculation needs to be clearly
footnoted.
In a 1/17/20 phone discussion with DMS project manager, Lindsay Crocker, it was determined
that the above footnote regarding bank height ratio would be sufficient, and that other
parameters may remain in the table.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

General Report and Riparian Buffer Appendix:
• Although the vegetation changes from MYO to MY1 appear normal, there are some trees that
increased from MYO to MY1 (hornbeam, persimmon, water oak). DMS understands that this is
likely due to mis-ID that occurs in dormant season at MYO or further refinement of species (oak
spp being IDed as water oak), but if this is the case please add a footnote under table 8 for
reviewer clarity.
A footnote was added that reads the following: "The increases in stem counts of species such as
Carpinus caroliniana, Diospyros virginiana, and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during
MYO (dormant season) monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring."
• Table 2. Be prepared with exact dates for MYO and MY1 vegetation monitoring. The IRT will be
checking to ensure at least 6 months of growing season between monitoring.
Asbuilt and MY1 stream and vegetation monitoring dates were added to table 2.
• Although it is explained well and understood the issues with RIDS gauges, be prepared to explain
this to IRT at credit release. It was prudent to replace gauges for future years.
We will be prepared to explain the data loss, and the gauges will be replaced prior to the 2020
growing season.
The mitigation plan states that soil temperature data is required to use the March 1 growing
season. Please provide this data or describe results in the monitoring report to justify.
The footnote below the Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year table
was revised to read the following: "An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches
below the ground surface read 47.9OoF on March 1, and the soil temperature remained well
above 41oF thereafter."
• Table 10 and Table 5 of the riparian buffer appendix has a column called 'tract mean.' Suggest
removing this column. The vegetation plot that is not meeting is 1 stem short of meeting riparian
buffer success and 2 stems short of meeting stream and wetland project success and that number
may be misleading.
The "Tract Mean" column was deleted in table 10 of the main document and table 5 of the riparian
buffer appendix.
Page 2 of 2

MONITORING REPORT
2019 (Year 1)
MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2019 — November 2019
Submission: January 2020
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
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
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................................I
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Background................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Project Components and Structure.........................................................................................................3
1.4 Success Criteria......................................................................................................................................3
1.4.1 Stream Success Criteria............................................................................................................4
1.4.2 Wetland Success Criteria.........................................................................................................4
1.4.3 Vegetation Success Criteria.....................................................................................................4
2.0 METHODS........................................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Stream Monitoring.................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Wetland Monitoring...............................................................................................................................6
2.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................7
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D. Monitoring Data (Dimensional Morphology Summary & Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross -Section Plots
Substrate Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14A. UT Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B. UT Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix F. Riparian Buffer MY1 (2019) Monitoring Report
Appendix G. Miscellaneous
Herbicide Application Forms
Remedial planting plan
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Table of Contents page i
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
and on -site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field investigations. The
Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP report documents
benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good -Fair" possibly due to cattle, dairy, and poultry operations.
The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, RBRP goals are
addressed by project activities as follows with Site specific information following the RBRP goals in
parenthesis.
1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (reduction of 10.0 tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removal from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application, and marsh treatment areas may result in a direct reduction of 852.4 pounds of nitrogen
and 70.6 pounds of phosphorus per year);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas.
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
existing and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see Table 1).
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page I
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

tream/Wetland Tar etecl r unctions
Targeted Functions
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -Stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation Composition
and Objectives
Goals
• Attenuate flood flow across the Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding to
the maximum extent possible.
• Connect streams to functioning
wetland systems.
• Increase stream stability within the
Site so that channels are neither
aggrading nor degrading.
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant
inputs from the Site and reduce
contributions to downstream waters.
Objectives
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface
roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• Install marsh treatment areas
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Improve instream and stream -side •
habitat.
Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows and plant woody riparian buffer
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
Compatibility of Success Criteria
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 1.4 or greater
• < 10% change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in -stream structures.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 10001 S) page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.2 Project Background
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line (Figure 1, Appendix B).
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been relocated to
the floodplain edge, ditched, impounded, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures. Approximately
60 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from the Site resulting
from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside wetlands were cleared and
drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in degraded water
quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel
characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to
channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle -pool morphology aiding in energy
dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and will greatly reduce sediment loss from
channel banks.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Site restoration activities generated 3058 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.76 Wetland Mitigation
Units (WMUs) as the result of the following:
• 1738 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 3299 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level 11)
• 0.54 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.44 acre of riparian wetland enhancement
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of a marsh treatment area to treat drainage prior to entering UT I.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing, removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 8.11 acres of the Site with 8600 stems (planted species and densities by zone are included
in Table 5 [Appendix Q.
• Removing a small, abandoned farm pond by 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the dam
to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that was unsuitable for channel
bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel
construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with
coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.
Site design was completed in February 2018. Construction started on July 25, 2018 and ended within a final
walkthrough on September 6, 2018. The Site was planted in December 2018-January 2019. Completed
project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.4.1 Stream Success Criteria
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 vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria.
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• 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.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-section.
• BHR and ER 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 separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
1.4.2 Wetland Success Criteria
The following summarizes wetland success criteria.
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches ofthe soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent
of the growing season, during average climatic conditions
According to the Soil Survey ofAlamance County, the growing season for Alamance County is from April
17 — October 22 (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the
Piedmont region; therefore, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using
data from March 1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity. Based on
growing season information outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps ofEngineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE 2010), this will be confirmed
annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches depth and/or bud burst.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored period
(March 1-October 22), during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used for comparison to the Site; however, reference
gauge data will not be tied to success criteria. These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation.
If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional
determination will be performed. The jurisdictional determination will not supersede monitoring data, or
overturn a failure in meeting success criteria; however, this information may be used by the IRT, at the
discretion of the IRT, to make a final determination on Site wetland re-establishment success.
1.4.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
The following summarizes vegetation success criteria.
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; 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.
• 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.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems within any vegetation plot.
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Water Quality
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross -sections and substrate on riffles and pools
(Figure 2, Appendix B). Data presented in graphic and tabular format include 1) cross -sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width -to -depth ratio. Longitudinal profiles
were monitored for as -built; however, profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring
demonstrates channel bank or bed instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the
USACE along reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.
Stream Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
All restored stream
required)
channels
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
10 cross -sections
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream
channels
Only if instability is
Channel Stability
Bank Pins
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
Only if instability is
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
Two gauges on UT 1
Continuous monitoring
Continuous recording
(upstream and
Stream Hydrology
water level gauges and/or
through monitoring period
downstream) and one
trail camera
trail camera on UT 1
downstream
Water Quality
Water samples
Yearly
Two locations
Macroinvertebrates
Qual 4 sampling
Years 3, 5, and 7
Two locations
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
page 5
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2020

All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 1 (2019)
monitoring. Stream morphology and water quality data is available in Appendix D.
2.2 Wetland Monitoring
Six groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the drained pond area and the remaining wetland
restoration areas to take measurements after hydrological modifications were performed at the Site (Figure
2, Appendix B). Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the entire year at intervals necessary to
satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria. In addition, an on -site rain gauge will document rainfall
data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and a trail camera was
installed to confirm overbank flooding events. Growing season soil temperatures will also be documented
using a continuously logging soil temperature probe, this data will be provided with wetland hydrology
data.
Wetland Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected
6 gauges spread
Soil temperature at the
Wetland
Groundwater
As -built, Years 1, 2,
throughout
beginning of each monitoring
Restoration
gauges
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
restored
period, groundwater and rain
wetlands
data for each monitoring period
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1)
March 1, 2019*
March 1-October 22
(235 days)
24 days
*An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 47.90°F on March 1, and the soil
temperature remained well above 41OF thereafter.
Four of the 6 groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2019) monitoring period. The gauges
that were installed onsite are RDS data loggers, which require a proprietary data shuttle called a Meazura.
Twice during the growing season, the Meazura data shuttle failed after downloading gauge data, resulting
in the loss of a large amount of data. RDS has recently closed, and the gauges and data shuttles are no
longer being manufactured or supported. The gauges have been replaced with Hobo data loggers and are
functioning properly. Based on rainfall and hydrology data that was not lost, all gauges would have likely
met success criteria had the loss of data not occurred. Year 1 (2019) groundwater gauge data and graphs
are located in Appendix D.
2.3 Vegetation
Planting occurred in December 2018-January 2019 within 8.11 acres of the Site and included 8600 stems
(planted species and densities by zone are included in Table 7 [Appendix Q. After planting was completed,
an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition
and density.
During the 2020 planting season, RS will conduct a supplemental planting of 1,700 bareroots including the
following species: Alnus semulata, Castanea pumila, Celtis occidentalis, Crataegus marshallii,
Liniodenron tulipifera, Malus angustifolia, Monus, rubra, Platanus occidentalis, and Quercus phellos
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

within areas that recorded low densities. A remedial planting plan report detailing location of planting and
density is provided in Appendix G.
An assessment was made during the early Fall 2018 to treat fescue within the Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory
Forest planting zones to reduce competition with planted stems. Treatment was conducted December 2018
and will continue as needed. Treatments of invasive plant species continued during 2019 throughout the
Site. Japanese Stiltgrass and Tree -of -Heaven were high priority during the 2019 invasive treatment season.
Restoration Systems will continue to treat and monitor the site for invasive species throughout the
monitoring period. See Appendix G (Herbicide Application Forms) for a detailed account of site -wide
treatments.
Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected
Permanent vegetation
Species, height,
plots 0.0247 acre
As -built, Years 1, 2,
8 plots spread
location, planted vs.
(100 square meters)
3, 5, and 7
across the Site
volunteer, and age
Vegetation
V
in size
establishment and
vigor
Random vegetation
plots, 0.0247 acre
As -built, Years 1, 2,
2 plots randomly
Species and height
(100 square meters)
3, 5, and 7
selected each year
in size
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 8 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). Measurement also included two random sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter). Measurements of all
10 plots resulted in an average of 506 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes. Additionally, all plots met
success criteria except permanent plot 1. Year 1 (2019) vegetation data is in Tables 8-10 (Appendix C).
3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omemik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
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 Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Available: https:// https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8, 2016]. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Ouality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016 final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_libraKy/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&.groupId=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_ library/get file?uuid=
864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
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.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits - Major Hill Restoration Site
Stream
Existing
MitigationConstructed
Restoration or
Reach
Plan
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing/
Footage/
Footage/
Restoration
Comment
ID
Footage/
Level
Ratio
Credits
wetland Type
Acreage
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
UT 1
00+00 to 16+99
1829
1699
1699
Restoration
1699
1:1
1699
UT 1
16+99 to 27+96
1097
1060
1097
EII
1097
2.5:1
439
UT 2
00+00 to 01+68
168
168
168
EII
168
2.5:1
67
UT 2
01+68 to 02+07
39
43
39
Restoration
39
1:1
39
80 if and 40 if of UT3 are not
credit generating due to
crossings and drainage
UT 3
00+00 to 22+98
2298
2197
2298*
EII
2298-80-144-
2.5:1
814
easement. 144 if are not
40=2034
credit generating due to lack
of control of south bank and
drainage easement.
Wetlands
RiparianRiverine
--
0.54
0.54
Restoration
0.54
1:1
0.54
Wetland Restoration
Wetlands
RiparianRiverine
0.52
0.44
0.44
Enhancement
0.44
2:1
0.22
Wetland Enhancement
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 1 continued. Proiect Components and Mitigation Credits - Maior Hill Restoration Site
Length & Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
1738
0.54
Enhancement (Level I1)
3299*
--
Enhancement
--
0.44 * *
* An additional 264 linear feet of stream enhancement (level I1) is proposed outside of the easement (at road crossings), or the sponsor controls only one bank of
the stream, and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**Approximately 0.08 acre of existing, degraded wetland will not be enhanced as the result of the design channel crossing the wetland area.
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category
Overall Credits
Stream
3058
Riparian Riverine Wetland
0.76
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History - Major Hill Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal Issue Date (RFP No. 16-006990)
September 16, 2016
September 16, 2016
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 7193)
--
May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan
--
February 2018
404 Permit Date
--
June 28, 2018
Construction Plans
--
July 2018
Site Construction
--
July 25-September 6, 2018
Planting
--
December 2018-January 2019
Asbuilt Stream Data Collection
September 19, 2018
--
Asbuilt Vegetation Data Collection
January 8, 2019
--
Asbuilt Baseline Monitoring Report
--
March 2019
MY (2019) Vegetation Data Collection
September 9, 2019
--
MY1 (2019) Stream Data Collection
September 10, 2019
--
MY1 (2019) Monitoring Report
October 2019
November 2019
Table 3. Project Contacts Table - Major Hill Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems
Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Erosion Control Plans
Sungate Design Group, PA
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Planting Contractor
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Mary -Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
As -built Surveyor
K2 Design Group
5688 US Highway 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 4. Proiect Attribute Table - Maior Hill Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name
Major Hill Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
16.7
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.873206,-79.360906
Planted Area (acres)
8.11
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03030002050050
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
17 to 445
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious
<2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover & Mixed Upland Hardwoods
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
Length of reach (linear feet)
2796
207
2298
Valley Classification & Confinement
Alluvial, moderately confined to confined
Drainage Area (acres)
71.7
17.2
444.7
NCDWR Stream ID Score
20.25 — 33.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent/Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg5
C4/5
C3
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)
C/E 4
C4/5
C3
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
III/IV
III
I
Underlying Mapped Soils
Efland silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Orange silt
loam, Worsham sandy loam, Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class
Well -drained, well -drained, well -drained, poorly drained, well -drained,
poorly drained, respectively
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric, hydric,
respectively
Slope
0.0241
0.0256
0.0130
FEMA Classification
NA
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
45% forest, 35% agricultural land, 20% low density
residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock Reference
Channel)
65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low density
residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 4. Project Attribute Table - Major Hill Restoration Site (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
0.54 acre drained or impounded & 0.44 acre degraded
Wetland Type
Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham and Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Restoration Method
Hydrologic, vegetative
Enhancement Method
Vegetative
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

5-4
4"
. � �0
C
1�+J - •�r� _ Ire
Co'p�y&,JI r phiSocie
r- �-
�- - �•�rate � r �;� y - •-�--�� TMajor;Hill. ads
e r_Q -� _' � �° t•� - ,N. '` �;- - • ,"- -_�'`� � � '� �' .4 'tea � C
rn
, �' �,�• '= yam." 1 � 't-,, s- u �; � � � 'f� / �_ i vJ � I r•�
Axiom Environmental, mc.
Prepared for:
Project:
MAJOR HILL
STREAM AND
WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
1� ree`bor°O
��" �' - S• jrl �._—r Title:
• a.. I .. �/
h� h'a p.e7 Qad-�
Snow._ Camp �� _ .. f`�� I .__F =x ;
ell
_��_-_ '--��- _ � .Lim--'.-_�I� �6
��- r �' od
- 3 - - = p:: f o dV.
� �a1 11 _ •F � j J ^� ...:./ �1 r.I G110.
6
ro
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
o - Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,
Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,
-, •v<:. x'. � _ �-o - After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,
After 5.8 miles, Castle Rock Farm Road becomes Old Switchboard Road,
3 f - Continue for2.1 miles, turn right onto Lindley Mill Road,
r 1. -
r r 'Z' After 0.5 mile, turn left onto Major Hill Road,
' f Y `'-~ '- �• - Site can be accessed from Burnett Church Road which is on the left after 1 mile.
Site Latitude, Longitude 35.873206,-79.360906 (NAD83/WGS84)
Copyright:©.2013 National Geographic
"a•,' s ISoc iety, i=cubed, U. S. Geological Survey -
_ N.ational.Geospatial Program. Data USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Saxapahaw, Silk Hope, Snow Camp, and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quads)
`-Refre`'shed October, 2'017 •L
PROJECT
LOCATION
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
NOV 2017
Scale:
1:20,000
Project No.:
17-009
FIGURE
1

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Major Hill UT-1
Assessed Length 1699
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
71
71
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
70
70
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
70
70
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
70
70
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
70
70
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
26
26
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
26
26
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
26
26
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
26
26
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
26
26
o
100/o

Table 513 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Major Hill UT-2
Assessed Length 39
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
2
2
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
2
2
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
2
2
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
NA
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
NA
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
NA
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
NA

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Major Hill
Planted Acreage' 8.1
Ve etation Cateciory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De fiction
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acrea a
% of
Planted
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 16.7
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vecietation Cateciory
Definitions
Threshold
De fiction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
none
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.

Major Hill Year 1 Vegetation Plots
Photos Taken September 2019
-1 Plot-1
Plot-7
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation — Major Hill Restoration Site
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak[Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
sseemblambla a
Ass
Assemblage
Total
Acres
1.1
5.5
0.01
1.5
8.11
Alnus serrulata
5
20
25
Asimina triloba
200
200
Betula nigra
100
200
300
Carpinus caroliniana
600
600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
5
20
25
Cercis canadensis
500
500
Cornus amomum
95
5
800
900
Diospyros virginiana
450
450
Fraxinus americana
100
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
750
900
Liriodendron tulipifera
75
75
Nyssa sylvatia
600
600
Platanus occidentalis
120
780
900
Quercus nigra
110
790
500
1,400
Quercus phellos
100
700
400
1,200
Salix nigra*
400*
400
Sambucus canadensis
11
14
25
TOTALS
750
3,740
26
4,084
8,600
Stems/Acre
682
680
2600
2722
1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.009. Project Name: Major Hill
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
17.009-01-0001
17.009-01-0002
17.009-01-0003
17.009-01-0004
17.009-01-0005
17.009-01-0006
17.009-01-0007
17.009-01-0008
MY1(2019)*
MYO(2019)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
9
9
9
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
11
31
3
3
6
6
6
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
14
14
14
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
3
3
3
8
8
8
14
14
14
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
5
5
5
Fraxinus
ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
10
10
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
7
7
8
7
7
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
23
23
23
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
20
20
20
10
10
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
16
16
16
18
18
18
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
6
6
6
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
5
5
5
10
10
10
14
14
14
16
161
16
10
10
10
141
14
15
16
16
16
181
181
23
103
103
109
129
129
129
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
41
41
41
61
61
6
71
71
7
91
9
9
51
51
5
7
7JF6;n7
9
9
9
7
7
9
15
15
17
16
16
16
202.3
202.3
202.3
404.7
404.7
404.7
566.E
566.E
566.E
647.5
647.5
647.5
404.7
404.7
404.7
566.E
566.E
647.5
647.5
647.5
728.4
728.4
930.8
521
521
551.4
652.E
652.E
652.6
*The increases in stem counts of species such as Carpinus caroliniana, Diospyros virginiana, and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during MYO (dormant season) monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data — Major Hill Restoration Site
Species
50m x 2m Temporary Plot (Bearing)
T-1 (1790)
T-2 (3400)
Asimina triloba
Betula nigra
2
Carpinus carohniana
1
Cercis canadensis
1
Cornus amomum
1
Diospyros virginiana
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2
2
Nyssa sylvatia
Platanus occidentahs
2
6
Quercus nigra
1
1
Quercus phellos
1
Total Stems
10
12
Total Stems/Acre
405
486
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals — Major Hill Restoration Site
Plot #
Success Criteria
Met?
MY 1 (2019)
Planted Stems/Ac
MY 1 (2019)
All Stems/Ac
1
No
202
202
2
Yes
404
404
3
Yes
566
566
4
Yes
647
647
5
Yes
404
404
6
Yes
567
607
7
Yes
647
647
8
Yes
728
930
T-1
Yes
405
--
T-2
Yes
486
--
Average Planted
Stems/Acre
Yes
509
551
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendix
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2020

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 1IA- 11B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D. Monitoring Data (Dimensional Morphology Summary & Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross -Section Plots
Substrate Plots
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT 1 Upstream)
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition (UT 1
Upstream)
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design (UT 1
Upstream)
Monitoring Baseline (UT 1 Upstream)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
E .
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
3.8
5.6
6.4
8.0
9.6
12.1
5.6
6.4
6.0
6.0
10.9
11.8
3
Flood rove Width (ft)
11.0
27.0
48.0
15
75
140
20
60
40
23
40
40
3
BF Mean Depth ft
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
3
BF Max Depth ft
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.7
2.0
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.1
3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.6
8.0
11.4
14.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
3.0
3.5
7.1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
13.4
27.0
8.0
9.6
15.1
12.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
19.6
33.9
3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
5.8
12.6
1.9
7.1
13.0
3.6
9.3
6.6
3.4
3.7
3.8
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.4
1 1.7
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.0
1.3
1.2
1 1.0
1.0
1.3
3
Profile
Riffle length ft
5
16
47
3
Riffle slope ft/ft
0.0100
0.0207
0.0576
0.0268
0.0401
0.0357
0.0000
0.0252
0.0539
3
Pool length ft
4.0
13.0
28.0
3
Pool Max depth ft
1.5
2.3
2.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
1.3
2.0
2.5
3
Pool spacing (ft)
22.0
40.8
81.0
18.0
48.0
24.0
18.0
24.0
48.0
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
17
26.3
38
18
36
24
18
24
36
Radius of Curvature ft
9
23.6
113
12
60
18
12
18
60
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
0.8
2.4
10.3
2
10
3
2
3
10
Meander Wavelength ft
10
65.7
116
36
72
51
36
51
72
Meander Width ratio
1.5
2.7
4.7
3
6
4
3
4
6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 5
Eb 5
E/C 4
E/C-type
Bankfull Velocity s
Bankfull Discharge cfs
9.5
28.8 - 60.6
9.5
9.5
Valley Len ft
Channel Thalweg Length ft
Sinuosity
1.07
1.2 - 1.46
1.08
1.08
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0225
0.0053 - 0.0258
0.0223
0.0195
BF slope ft/ft
Bankfall Flood lain Area acres
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo 'cal or Other

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT 1 Downstream)
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition (UT 1
Downstream)
Reference Reach(es) Data
I
Design (UT 1
I Downstream)
Monitoring Baseline (UT 1 Downstream)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
E .
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
4.9
6.7
8.7
8.0
9.6
12.1
6.8
7.8
7.3
8.6
10.3
11.8
3
Flood rove Width (ft)
9.0
14.0
21.0
15
75
140
25
75
50
22
40
40
3
BF Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
3
BF Max Depth ft
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.7
2.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.2
3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.8
3.8
3.8
8.0
11.4
14.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.5
5.8
7.5
3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.1
13.1
21.8
8.0
9.6
15.1
12.0
16.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
21.0
3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
2.2
4.3
1.9
7.1
13.0
3.7
9.6
6.9
2.6
3.4
3.9
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
2.2
1 2.8
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.0
1.3
1.2
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
3
Profile
Riffle length ft
5
16
47
1
Riffle slope ft/ft
0.0100
0.0207
0.0576
0.0000
0.0297
0.0264
0.0000
0.0252
0.0539
1
Pool length ft
4.0
13.0
28.0
1
Pool Max depth ft
1.5
2.3
2.7
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1
Pool spacing (ft)
22.0
40.8
81.0
21.9
58.4
29.2
18.0
24.0
48.0
1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
17
26.3
38
21.9
43.8
29.2
22
29
44
Radius of Curvature ft
9
23.6
113
14.6
72.9
21.9
14
22
73
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
0.8
2.4
10.3
2
10
3
2
3
10
Meander Wavelength ft
10
65.7
116
43.8
87.5
62
44
62
88
Meander Width ratio
1.5
2.7
4.7
3
6
4
3
4
6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 5
Eb 5
E/C 4
E/C-type
Bankfull Velocity s
Bankfull Discharge cfs
14.2
28.8 - 60.6
14.2
14.2
Valley Len ft
Channel Thalweg Length ft
Sinuosity
1.26
1.2 - 1.46
1.12
1.12
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0147
0.0053 - 0.0258
0.0165
0.0195
BF slope ft/ft
Bankfall Flood lain Area acres
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo 'cal or Other

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Cross Section 1 (UT 1 Downstream)
Cross Section 2 (UT 1 Downstream)
Cross Section 3 (UT 1 Downstream)
Cross Section 4 (UT 1 Downstream)
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Dimension
tO.6
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
M (0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width (ft)11.2
8.6
7.4
13.0
12.5
10.3
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)40.0
22.0
22.0
NA
NA
40.0
40.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.7
1.7
1.6
0.9
1.1
Low Bank Height
1.2
1.3
0.7
0.8
1.7
1.7
0.9
1.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (fe)
7.5
7.5
3.5
3.5
8.4
8.4
5.8
5.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
16.7
21.1
15.6
NA
NA
18.3
1 18.6
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
1 3.6
2.6
1 3.0
NA
NA
3.9
3.8
Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
25.4
1 33.0
25.4
1 33.0
25.4
33.0
25.4
33.0
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Baseline (UT 1 Downstream)
MY-1 (UT 1 Downstream)
MY-2 (UT 1 Downstream)
MY-3 (UT 1 Downstream)
MY-5 (UT 1 Downstream)
MY-7 (UT 1 Downstream)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
8.6
10.3
11.8
3
7.4
10.4
11.2
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
22
40
40
3
22
40
40
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
0.6
3
0.5
0.6
0.7
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.9
1.2
3
0.7
1.1
1.2
3
BF Cross Sectional Area (fte)
3.5
5.8
7.5
3
3.5
5.8
7.5
3
Width/Depth Ratio
18.0
18.0
21.0
3
15.6
16.7
18.6
3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.6
3.4
3.9
3
3.0
3.6
3.8
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
1.0
1.1
1.1
3
Profile
Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period are not required, unless evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed and the data is requested by the IRT.
Riffle length (ft)
5
16
47
1
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0252
0.0539
1
Pool length (ft)
4.0
13.0
28.0
1
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.7
1
Pool spacing (ft)l
18.0
24.0
48.0
1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
22
29
44
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
22
73
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2
3
10
Meander Wavelength (ft)
44
62
88
Meander Width ratiol
3
1
1 4
6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E/C type
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0195
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Cross Section 5 (UT 1 Upstream)
Cross Section 6 (UT 1 Upstream)
Cross Section 7 (UT 1 Upstream)
Cross Section 8 (UT 1 Upstream)
Riffle
Pool
Pool
Riffle
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width (ft)
11.8
11.8
8.9
9.9
7.4
9.5
6.0
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
40.0
40.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
23.0
23.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.6
1.2
0.5
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.2
1
1 2.0
2.1
1
1
2.5
2.4
1
0.8
1 0.9
Low Bank Height
1.1
1.2
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.5
0.8
0.9
BF Cross Sectional Area (fte)
7.1
7.1
9.1
9.1
11.7
11.7
3.0
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
19.6
19.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.0
10.8
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
3.4
1
1
1
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.8
4.0
Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
1.0
1
1
1
1
1
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
d50 (mm)
25.4
33.0
1
1
1
1
1
1 25.4
33.0
25.4
1 33.0
25.4
1 33.0
Parameter
Cross Section 9 (UT 1 Upstream)
Cross Section 10 (UT 1 Upstream)
Pool
Riffle
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width (ft)
7.0
9.4
10.9
11.2
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
NA
NA
40.0
40.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1
1 0.7
0.6
Low Bank Height
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
BF Cross Sectional Area (fe)
4.9
4.9
3.5
3.5
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
33.9
35.8
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
3.7
3.6
Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
25.4
33.0
25.4
33.0
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Baseline (UT 1 Upstream)
MY-1 (UT 1 Upstream)
MY-2 (UT 1 Upstream)
MY-3 (UT 1 Upstream)
MY-5 (UT 1 Upstream)
MY-7 (UT 1 Upstream)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
BF Width (ft)
6.0
10.9
11.8
3
5.7
11.2
11.8
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
23
40
40
3
23
40
40
3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.5
0.6
3
0.3
0.5
0.6
3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.8
1.1
3
0.6
0.9
1.2
3
BF Cross Sectional Area (fte)
3.0
3.5
7.1
3
3.0
3.5
7.1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
19.6
33.9
3
10.8
19.6
35.8
3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
3.7
3.8
3
3.4
3.6
4.0
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.3
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3
Profile
Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period are not required, unless evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed and the data is requested by the IRT.
Riffle length (ft)
5
16
47
3
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0252
0.0539
3
Pool length (ft)
4.0
13.0
28.0
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.3
2.0
2.5
3
Pool spacing (ft)
18.0
24.0
48.0
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
18
24
36
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
18
60
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2
3
10
Meander Wavelength (ft)
36
51
72
Meander Width ratio
3
4
6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E/C type
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1.08
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0195
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%B%BE%
d 16/d35/d5O/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other!

Table 13. Maior Hill Water Oualitv Data — Maior Hill Restoration Site
Preconstruction
Year 1 (2019)
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
Downstream
Parameter
7/28/17
8/14/17
7/28/17
8/14/17
11/20/19
11/20/19
TDS (ppm)
110.1
147
62.6
86.8
394
179
TDS (mg/1)
109.1
149
64.6
83.5
397
179
Conductivity (m/s)
159.2
215
92.1
128.3
557
252
Temperature (°C)
25.4
22.6
24.6
22.1
8
6.9
DO (mg/1)
-
1.93
-
3.06
-
-
DO (ppm)
-
1.06
-
2.53
-
-
pH
6.61
6.37
6.65
6.22
7
6.58
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Site
Major Hill-21
is
t
.
-
i - .
Stream Type
C/E
Major Hill,
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
519
518-------------------------------------------------------------
0 517
W
516
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
515
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
516.97
2.0
516.78
4.4
516.75
6.9
516.84
7.8
516.83
8.6
516.77
9.5
516.59
10.0
516.28
10.5
516.15
11.0
515.84
11.6
515.61
12.3
515.62
13.3
515.46
14.0
515.67
15.0
515.75
15.8
515.83
16.5
516.07
17.3
516.25
18.2
516.37
19.4
516.56
20.4
516.77
21.9
516.9
23.2
517.0
24.2
517.0
25.3
517.1
26.4
517.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
516.7
LTOB Elevation:
516.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.5
Bankfull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
517.9
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
16.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

Site
Major Hill
H�
�. fl
p�
:c. � ..r .. .. .p,
h
_4
Stream Type C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
519
518
°' --- ---------------------------------------------------
0
-------------------
- ---------------- --------------------
W 517
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
� MY-Ol 9/10/19
516
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.2
518.23
1.2
518.05
2.6
517.79
3.7
517.83
4.9
517.68
6.0
517.32
7.3
517.23
8.4
517.30
9.3
517.17
10.2
516.80
11.0
516.68
11.7
516.59
12.3
516.53
13.4
516.52
14.4
516.51
15.3
516.69
15.9
517.03
16.6
517.23
17.6
517.38
18.7
517.47
19.8
517.54
21.1
517.6
22.5
517.7
24.2
517.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
517.2
LTOB Elevation:
517.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
517.9
Flood Prone Width:
22.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
15.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

Site
Major Hill
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.2
520.9
1.7
520.7
3.6
520.5
5.3
520.4
6.2
520.1
6.9
519.8
7.7
519.5
8.0
518.9
8.8
518.6
9.4
518.6
10.3
518.7
10.9
518.8
11.8
519.4
12.6
519.7
13.6
519.7
14.7
519.7
16.1
519.9
17.5
520.1
19.1
520.2
20.4
520.3
22.2
520.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
520.2
LTOB Elevation:
520.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.4
Banld'ull Width:
12.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BanIkfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Stream Type I C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
522
521
0 -------------------------------------------------
520
w- - - • Bankfull
519
MY-00 9/19/18
--G-- MY-01 9/10/19
518
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Major Hill
�a
r=
A, <_
Stream Type C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
522
--------------------------------------------------------------
521
o--------------
--------------------------
--
ti
W 520
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
519
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
521.03
1.5
521.07
3.0
521.17
4.5
520.89
5.7
520.52
6.6
520.48
7.4
520.27
8.2
520.14
8.5
519.93
9.1
519.75
9.9
519.74
10.8
519.51
11.7
519.50
12.7
519.62
13.3
519.85
14.0
520.11
14.6
520.34
15.4
520.50
16.6
520.61
18.0
520.56
19.4
520.63
20.6
520.7
21.6
520.7
22.5
520.8
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
520.6
LTOB Elevation:
520.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.8
Bankfull Width:
10.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
521.7
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Major Hill
�_
Stream Type C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
526
------------------------------------------------------
525
°----------
----------------------------
ti
W 524
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
� MY-Ol 9/10/19
523
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
525.33
1.3
525.14
2.2
525.00
3.3
524.55
4.2
524.50
4.9
524.56
5.8
524.47
6.4
524.05
6.9
524.02
7.4
523.68
7.8
523.42
8.5
523.38
9.0
523.40
9.9
523.32
10.5
523.44
11.0
523.67
12.2
523.86
13.2
523.90
14.1
524.04
15.8
524.29
17.5
524.49
19.5
524.7
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
524.5
LTOB Elevation:
524.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.1
Bankfull Width:
11.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
525.7
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Major Hill
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.6
525.9
1.7
525.9
2.4
525.6
3.9
525.4
4.9
525.2
6.1
525.1
7.0
524.8
7.4
524.4
8.0
522.7
9.4
523.0
10.4
523.1
11.2
523.3
12.0
524.2
12.8
524.4
13.9
524.7
15.3
524.7
16.4
524.9
17.2
525.0
18.4
525.0
19.3
525.0
20.5
525.0
21.4
525.0
22.3
525.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
524.9
LTOB Elevation:
525.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.1
Banld'ull Width:
9.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BanIkfull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
527
526
525
------------------------------------ ----
0
524
w---•BanUull
MY-00 9/19/18
523
--m- MY-01 9/10/19
522
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Major Hill
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.1
529.8
1.6
529.9
2.8
529.9
3.7
530.0
4.7
529.8
5.6
529.7
6.7
529.8
7.5
529.4
8.5
529.0
9.0
527.9
9.7
527.2
10.6
527.3
11.8
527.1
12.7
527.1
13.3
527.3
13.7
529.1
14.8
529.5
15.9
529.4
17.0
529.6
18.4
529.6
19.6
529.9
21.0
530.1
21.9
530.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
529.5
LTOB Elevation:
529.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.7
Banld'ull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BanIkfull:
2.4
Low Bank Height:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type IC/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
531
530
529
------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------
0
528
w-
- - • Bankfull
527
MY-00 9/19/18
--m- MY-01 9/10/19
526
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Major Hill
t ..
Stream Type
C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
531
--------------------------------------------------------------
530
-------------------
0
------------- -----------------------
ti
W 529
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
� MY-Ol 9/10/19
528
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
530.26
1.4
530.26
3.1
530.08
4.0
530.07
5.0
530.03
6.2
530.00
7.0
529.83
8.0
529.65
8.4
529.37
9.0
529.25
9.5
529.17
9.8
528.90
10.4
528.75
11.1
528.80
11.7
528.83
12.3
529.09
13.2
529.40
14.2
529.78
15.2
529.91
16.8
530.28
18.1
530.22
19.1
530.3
20.0
530.2
20.9
530.3
22.5
530.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
529.6
LTOB Elevation:
529.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
530.5
Flood Prone Width:
23.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
10.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Major Hill
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
539.1
1.5
539.3
2.7
539.4
4.0
539.2
5.6
539.1
7.0
538.9
8.2
538.8
8.6
538.7
8.9
538.4
9.6
538.3
10.3
538.2
11.0
538.0
11.8
538.4
12.6
539.0
13.3
539.3
14.8
539.3
16.3
539.2
18.1
539.2
19.4
539.3
20.6
539.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
539.3
LTOB Elevation:
539.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9
Banld'ull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BanIkfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
+
;4All,
{
5,
Stream Type IC/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 9, Pool
540
-- ---------------------------- - - - - - dg%ftW-.MM
539
0
W 538
- • sanxlun
MY-00 9/19/18
--m- MY-01 9/10/19
537
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Major Hill
Stream Type C/E
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 10, Riffle
542
--------------------------------------------------------
0 541
ti
W
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
� MY-Ol 9/10/19
540
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 10, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
9/10/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.1
541.34
1.4
541.29
2.6
541.20
3.8
541.01
5.1
541.11
6.4
541.12
7.5
540.87
8.2
540.39
9.0
540.40
9.7
540.44
10.8
540.42
11.6
540.55
12.5
540.57
13.0
540.83
14.1
540.90
15.2
540.67
16.5
540.85
17.7
540.96
19.0
541.03
20.2
540.97
20.3
541.01
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
541.0
LTOB Elevation:
541.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Banld'ull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
541.6
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
35.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Project Name: Major Hill
UT Reachwide
All Features
2019
Cumulative Percent
Description
Material
Size min
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Si]VClay
silt/clay
0.062
15
15%
36%
100%
very fine sand
0.125
10
10%
44%
90%
fare sand
0.250
6
6%
48%
80%
Sand
medium sand
0.50
8
8%
48%
70%
coarse sand
1.00
1 6
6%
56%
very coarse sand
2.0
4
4%
60%
50%
very fine gravel
fine gravel
line gravel
4.0
5.7
8.0
4
3
4
4%
3%
4%
68%
72%
84%
40%
30%
v
20%
10%
medium gravel
11.3
2
2%
92%
Gravel
medium gravel
16.0
5
5%
92%
0%
course gravel
22.3
6
6%
96%
course gravel
32.0
8
8%
96%
Particle Size
—MYO-2019 —MY1-2019 —MY2-2020 —MY3-2021 —MY4-2022 :MY5-2023
very coarse gravel
45
6
6%
96%
very coarse gravel
64
5
5%
100%
small cobble
90
1
1%
100%
Individual Class Percent
Cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
128
180
2
0
2%
0%
100%
100%
very large cobble
256
2
2%
100%
100%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
90%
Boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
512
1024
0
0
0%
0%
100%
100%
80%
70%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
a 60%
Bedrock bedrock
4096
0
0%
100%
50%
U
40%
TOTAL % of whole count
97
100%
100%
30%
Summary Data
�a 20%
D50

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 14A. UTl Upstream Channel Evidence — Maior Hill Restoration Site
UTl Upstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
99
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation
and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
including hydrophytes)
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

30
28
26
24
22
20
—y 18
16
14
12
c
'0 10
c7 8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Major Hill Stream Flow Gauge UT1 Upstream
Year 1(2019 Data)
W 'Et 4Et
N (O N
\ \ \ \ \ \ F\-` \
3.0
2.5
2.0
Da
loss
1
1.0
99 Da
Vs
kut
0.5
1
0.0
Ln
Ln
Ol
Ol
V
V
V
00
00 l0 (D
\
V
\
N
\
A
\
\
N
\
F�
\
W
\
F�
\ \ \
N F� N
\
\
l0
l0
00
00
\
l0
Ol
O
W
V O A
00
N
\
(D
l0
l0
(D
l0
(D
l0
(D
l0
(D
(D (D (D
l0 l0 l0
(D
l0
c

Table 14B. UTl Downstream Channel Evidence — Maior Hill Restoration Site
UTl Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
52
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation
and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
including hydrophytes)
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

c
d
d
J
N
3
c
0
u,
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Major Hill Stream Flow Gauge UT1 Downstream
Year 1(2019 Data)
N W W W W A A A A A Ln Ln Ln Ln M M M M V V V V V W W W W l0 l0 l0 l0 F� F� F� F�
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O
N N Ln F� F� N Ln F� F� N N (O F� N W V F� N N A F� F� N N (O F� N W M F� N N W F� F� N \ \ \ --
Ln N (D \ N (O M\ N (O M\\ M W O\ A F� W\ F� W Ln \\ M W O\ W O V \ O V A F� 00 F� N
Ln N
l0 (D (D (D l0 (D (D F-� F-� F-� (D F-� F-� F-� l0 l0 F-� F-� F-� l0 F-� F-� F-� l0
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 (D
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
1.0
0.5

Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Photo
Date of Data
Date of
Method
(if
Collection
Occurrence
available
March 19,
January 13,
A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 1.10 inches of
1
2019
2019
rain was documented on January 13, 2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
March 19,
February 23,
A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 2.74 inches of
2019
2019
rain was documented between February 22-23, 2019 at an onsite
2
rain gauge.
April 13,
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 4.11
June 27, 2019
2019
inches of rain was documented between April 12-13, 2019 at an
--
onsite rain gauge.
September 9,
July 24, 2019
A bankfull event likely occurred after 3.02 inches of rain was
2019
documented between July 23-24, 2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
September 9,
August 1,
A bankfull event likely occurred after 1.96 inches of rain was
2019
2019
documented on August 1, 2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
AltY1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendix
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2020

Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data — Major Hill Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
1
No/14 days*
6.0 percent
2
No/19 days*
8.1 percent
3
Yes/25 days
10.6 percent
4
Yes/34 days
14.5 percent
5
Yes/l 19 days
50.6 percent
6
Yes/77 days
32.8 percent
* These gauges did not meet success criteria due to a data shuttle failure that resulted in the loss of data. Based on rainfall
and hydrology data that was not lost, all gauges would have likely met success criteria had the loss of data not occurred.
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c -2
-4
w -6
-8
m -10
12
3 14
16
c7
18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
nAminr Will r�rm InrhAI=tcr r�mi ioo 1
Year 1 (2019 Data)
MATv�
1. . ,ss
ISM
MEIN
0
IVE IS EK1
INIME
I1�101000
INIME■
ME=WlivINm
ININIME
ISMINE
INIM■
■
ENINEMUal ILI
IN
INIME
ISMINEINIM■■
TRIKIN ONE
m�
§NMIMMIMINNE_
r
■
�_
IMIMIMEII
■
IMME
�
ONEI
IMME
1110
EIS■
In
0011■0010111
0
ONE
SEEN
I
INE■SIN
■
ONE
011101111■
I
M■101111■■
IIOR
MEN
I
III
■
E
101111
'I■
■
N W W W W A A A A A Ln Ln Ln Ln M M M M V V V V V 00 00 00
F-A N h-A 0000 h-A N N O\l h-A N N W h-A F-A N h-A 0000 h-A N N Ln F-A I\-�
Ln Ln \ \ Ln N w \ W O V \ O V A \ \ Ln N w \ N w
UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c -2
-4
w -6
J -8
io -10
12
c 14
16
18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2019 Data)
N W W W W A A A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-�
N -A NJ NJ N N W F-A F-A N F-A F-A N N W F-A F-A N N NJ W \ \F-� \F-� \
W F-�
W N w \ W O V \ O V A \ \ W N w \ N w m \ \ m W O V F-A N N
\ \ \ F-A \ \ \ F-A \ \ \ F-A F-` \ \ \ F-A \ \ \ F-A F-A \ \ \ \ A N 00
F-A F-A F-A W F-A F-A F-A W F-A F-A F-A
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-� F-� F-�
3.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
Ris,
c

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2019 Data)
12
March 1
October 22
10
8
Growing Season
Growing Season
6
Start
End
4
2
—
_
0
-2
a
-4
6
8
(U
1�►
_i0
Data loss
C
0
14
25 Days
16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
— — — —
-40
N W W W W A A A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 0 0 0
N N N N N N W N N N N N N W
F
A F\-� F\-� F\-� W F_A m F_A F_A F_A F_z W F\-� W F\-� F\-� W F_A \ \ \
W \ F-� 00 W \ \ W N W \ W O V \ O V A \ \ W N W \ N W m \ \ m W O
l0 l0 l0 l0
\ F-� \ \ a
F_A F_A l0 F_A F_A F_A
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-� F-� F
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
v -4
cu� -6
v -8
3 -10
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 4
N W W W W A A A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F� F� F� F�
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F� F� F�
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
1.0
0.5
W

c
d
d
J
N
i+
3
r
c
3
0
u,
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 5
Ve-mr 1 t mi A mmi i
N W W W W A A A A A lfl lfl lfl lfl Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 0 0 0 0
W Ln N N O\l W IJ Ln N N l\fl m (D N N m N W
lfl F-� 00 lfl lfl N �O W O V O V A lfl N -O N -O Ol � Ol W O V r, N N
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
1.0
0.5

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
a -4
-6
a -8
3 -10
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 1 (2019 Data)
N W W W W A A A A A W W W Ul Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-� F-� F-� F-�
N A F-� F-� N F-� 00 F-� N N Ol F-� N N W F-� F-� N F-� 00 F-� N N W F-� F-� N N l0 F-� N W \ \ \ \
Ln \ F-A 00 w \ \ W N w \ WOV \ O V A \ \ W N w \ N w m \ \ m W O V F-A N N
\ \ F-` \ \ \ F-A \ \ \ F-A F-A \ \ \ F-` \ \ \ F-A F-A \ \ \ \ A N 00
F-A F-A l0 F-A F-A F-A W F-A F-A F-A
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-� F-� F-�
3.0
W
c
2.0
c
3
0
E
Q
1.5 c
to
Oc
1.0
0.5
AG

Appendix F.
Riparian Buffer Year 1 (2019) Monitoring Report
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

RIPARIAN BUFFER MYI (2019) MONITORING REPORT
MAJOR HILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin — Haw River Arm
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
November 2019
This project with conforms with the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B . 0295, effective November 1, 2015 and the Jordan Lake Buffer Protection Rule (15A
NCAC 02B . 0267 & I5A NCAC 02B . 0268)

Table of Contents
1.0
MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY.......................................................................................1
2.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................................2
3.0
RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN.....................2
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities....................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Site Preparation...........................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Planting....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities ................................................ 4
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities................................................................................... 5
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area............................................................................................................. 5
4.0
ANNUAL MONITORING............................................................................................................. 5
4.1 Monitoring............................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Performance Standards............................................................................................................ 6
4.3 Results and Discussion............................................................................................................ 6
4.4 Maintenance and Management................................................................................................ 6
5.0
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8
Table 1.
Buffer Project Attributes .....................
Table 2.
Buffer Project Areas and Assets .........
Table 3.
Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 4.
Riparian Buffer Monitoring ................
Table 5.
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals......
Table 6.
Total Stems by Plot and Species.........
Attachment 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Tables
.......................................................................................1
....................................................................................... 3
....................................................................................... 4
....................................................................................... 5
....................................................................................... 6
....................................................................................... 7
Attachments
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Table of Contents
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line. Project attributes are included in the following table.
Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name
Major Hill
Hydrologic Unit Code
3030002050050
River Basin
Cape Fear
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.873206,-79.360906
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
(2789, 896), (2514, 756), (3143, 270), (3150, 920)
Total Credits (BMU)
402,837
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation
Mitigation Plan Date
Apr-18
Initial Planting Date
Dec 2018-Jan 2019
Baseline Report Date
Mar-19
MY Report Date
Nov-19
MY2 Report Date
MY3 Report Date
MY4 Report Date
MY5 Report Date
The Site drainage area is primarily composed of pasture, forest, agriculture land, and sparse residential
property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream land surface.
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of pasture, hayfields, disturbed forest, and agricultural land
used for livestock grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, and stream
banks were eroded vertically and laterally and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs. Riparian
zones in the upper reaches of UT 1 were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that was sparse and
disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land -management activities. The downstream
reaches of UT 1 and all of UT 3 were primarily wooded with livestock disturbance to stream channels. UT
2 was the lone tributary not subjectto continuous, unrestricted livestock access. Riparian areas immediately
adjacent to UT 2 were forested with a fence to protect this area from livestock access.
The riparian areas were restored in concurrence with the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
(NC DMS Project ID 10015, SAW-2017-01472) and involved restoring riparian buffers adjacentto restored
streams to help reduce non -point source contaminant discharges to downstream waters in the Haw River
sub -watershed of Jordan Lake. All riparian areas were assessed by DWR (Katie Merritt and Sue
Homewood) during an onsite visit February 20', 2018 to determine viability for buffer mitigation.
The Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Riparian restoration, enhancement, and
preservation area widths adjacent to restored streams extend out to a maximum of 200 feet from the top of
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page I
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

stream banks with a minimum width of 50 from the top of banks. Riparian buffer enhancement and
preservation credits generated on this Site are allowed pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o). No riparian
restoration areas that are less than 20 feet wide from Top of Banks are used to generate riparian buffer
credit.
Riparian buffer mitigation credit was not generated in areas that are generating wetland mitigation credit.
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Credit determination for this Site follows the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015 (see Table 2 on the following page and Figure A,
Attachment 1).
3.0 RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN
This Site was also proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation project; therefore, restoration of riparian
areas was accomplished through the goals and methods outlined by the Major Hill Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan. All applicable federal, state, and local documentation, permits, and/or authorizations were
acquired as part of implementing the above -mentioned mitigation plan.
Primary goals focused on 1) improving water quality, 2) enhancing flood attenuation and hydrology, 3)
improving aquatic resources, and 4) restoring riparian habitat. Completed mitigation provides floodplain
connectivity, floodplain resistance, stream stability, sediment transport, surface and subsurface storage and
retention, in -stream habitat, riparian habitat and structure, thermal regulation, floodplain biogeochemical
processing, and pollutant filtration as well as remove sources of pollutants. The riparian area will be restored
through the revegetation of native plant communities.
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
3.1.1 Site Preparation
Soil grading occurred during stream restoration activities. Topsoils were stockpiled during construction
activities and spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade was established. The replaced topsoil will
serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of
planted species.
Farm Pond Removal
To complete the stream and wetland restoration activities and subsequent riparian buffer restoration, the
removal of a small farm pond, —0.58 acres occurred. Stream, wetland and riparian area restoration within
the abandoned pond included 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the dam to the elevation of the
adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4) backfllling
areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the
design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of
structures.
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
RIPARIAN BUFFER (15A NCAC
02B.0295)
Location
Jurisdictional
Restoration
Streams
Type
Subject &
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Subject &
Rural
Nonsubject
Restoration
Rural
Subject
Enhancement
Location Jurisdictional Restoration
Streams I Type
Rural Nonsubject Preservation
Rural Nonsubject Preservation
Initial
Final
o7a
Reach ID/
Buffer
Creditable
Credit
Credit
Full
Component
Width (ft)
Area (sf)*
Ratio
Ratio
Credit
(x:1)
(x:1)
1
0-100
213,290
1
100%
1.00000
2
101-200
40,976
1
33%
3.03030
3
0-100
341,433
2
100%
2.00000
SUBTOTALS
595,699
Initial
Final
o7a
Credit
Credit
Full
Ratio
Ratio
Credit
(x:1)
(x:1)
Riparian
Convertible to
Buffer
Nutrient
Credits
Offset (Yes or
(BMU)
No)
213,290.000
Yes
13,522.094
Yes
170,716.500
No
397,528.594
Riparian
Buffer
Credits
5 100% 5.00000 5,122.800
5 33% 15.15152 185.724
5,308.524
402,837.117
*Area eligible for preservation may be no more than 25% of total area, where total area is back -calculated with the equation R+E/0.75.
*Buffers must be at minimum 20' wide for riparian buffer credit, buffers must be 50' wide for nutrient offset credit
*When preservation areas exceed the total eligible preservation area, select the areas with the best credit ratios as the creditable areas.
ELIGIBLE
PRESERVATION AREA
198,566
Reach ID/
Component
Buffer
Width (ft)
Creditable
Area (sf)*
4
0-100
25,614
5
101-200
2,814
SUBTOTALS
28,428
TOTALS
624,127
If Converted to
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient
Offset: N
(lbs)
Nutrient
Offset: P
(lbs)
11129.775
716.842
2138.186
137.715
0.000
0.000
13,267.960
854.558
MYI (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) AppendixF: page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

3.1.2 Planting
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forests will be planted at a
density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the stream -side assemblage and
Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas were planted at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot
centers. The following table summarizes planted bare root stems within the Site.
Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak/Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
sseemblambla a
Ass
Assemblage
Total
Acres
1.1
5.5
0.01
1.5
8.11
Alnus serrulata
5
20
25
Asimina triloba
200
200
Betula nigra
100
200
300
Carpinus caroliniana
600
600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
5
20
25
Cercis canadensis
500
500
Cornus amomum
95
5
800
900
Diospyros virginiana
450
450
Fraxinus americana
100
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
750
900
Liriodendron tulipifera
75
75
Nyssa sylvatia
600
600
Platanus occidentalis
120
780
900
Quercus nigra
110
790
500
1,400
Quercus phellos
100
700
400
1,200
Salix nigra*
400*
400
Sambucus canadensis
11
14
25
TOTALS
750
3,740
26
4,084
8,600
Stems/Acre
682
680
2600
2722
1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities
Riparian buffer enhancement included permanently protecting existing riparian buffer from livestock via
exclusionary fencing, cutting, clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the
functionality of the riparian buffer. These areas are defined primarily as disturbed mixed hardwoods. Buffer
credits sought in the enhancement area are allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). The enhancement
AltY1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

area extends a maximum of 200 feet from the top of the bank with a minimum width of 20 from top of
banks.
A small portion of UT-3 is generating riparian buffer enhancement credit from only one side of the stream.
Prior to construction, cattle had access to the entire area; however, the only access point was from the
pasture on the northern side of the stream, the Parcel owned by Mr. Lamm. Once fencing was installed to
prevent cattle access from Mr. Lamm's parcel to the stream, cattle will no longer be able to access the south
side of the stream. This action will result in compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6), which states
that the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock must be done such that the livestock are fenced out of the
stream and its adjacent buffer. The southern parcel, which is not apart of the conservation easement, is
owned by the Caviness family and is a single-family home. Cattle will not be grazing within their parcel
post construction.
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities
Riparian buffer preservation includes permanently protecting existing riparian buffers from cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the functionality of the riparian buffer.
Areas specified for Preservation at the Site, in accordance with 15A NCAC 0213.0295, are defined primarily
as mixed hardwoods, with the number of high -value species above 200 per acre. They are areas where
livestock were fenced out prior to construction with little or no historical livestock access.
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area
A marsh treatment area was constructed to intercept surface waters draining through agricultural
areas before discharging into UT1. The marsh treatment area is excluded from credit calculations.
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING
4.1 Monitoring
Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the Site as per guidelines
established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008); this covers 3.4%
of the area generating riparian buffer restoration credit. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the
fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves for a period of five monitoring years
following planting. Parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph.
In addition, inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout the course of
the monitoring period.
The following table outlines riparian buffer monitoring for this project; monitoring parameter descriptions
follow.
Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Eight (8) plots
Vegetation will be monitored for five years or until
Yes
Vegetation
located across all
Annual
performance standards are met. Visual monitoring of the
restored buffer
site will be done all five years. Analysis of vegetation
zones.
will be recorded using level 2 CVS Monitoring protocol.
Yes
Project
NA
Annual
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary
Boundary
encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
MY] (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

4.2 Performance Standards
Performance standards were established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development and the maintenance of diffuse flow through the riparian buffer
in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC
0213.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers).
Performance standards are dependent upon the density and growth of at least four native hardwood tree
species where no one species is greater than 50% of the stems. After five years of monitoring, an average
density of 260 woody stems per acre, including planted shrubs (silky dogwood and blueberry), must be
surviving, and diffuse flow maintained. 15A NCAC 02b .0295 (2)(E) dictates that monitoring for planted
stems would also include the health of planted stems. Level 2 CVS monitoring protocol requires the vigor,
a determinant of health, of a monitored stem be recorded. If requested, RS will make available during the
monitoring years, planted stem health, e.g. vigor.
4.3 Results and Discussion
Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 511 planted hardwood tree
stems per acre (excluding livestakes, shrubs, pines, and vines) at year 1 (2019). In addition, all but 1
individual plot met success criteria. The following Table 5 summarizes riparian buffer success criteria and
Table 6 summarizes all vegetation data by species, plot, and year. Vegetation plot photographs are included
in Appendix B of the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Year 1 (2019) Annual Monitoring
Report.
Table 5. Ri arian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Plot #
Success Criteria
Met?
MY 1 (2019)
Planted Stems/Ac
MY 1 (2019)
All Stems/Ac
1
No
202
202
2
Yes
404
404
3
Yes
566
566
4
Yes
647
647
5
Yes
404
404
6
Yes
567
607
7
Yes
647
647
8
Yes
728
930
T-1
Yes
405
--
T-2
Yes
486
--
Average Planted
Stems/Acre
Yes
509
551
4.4 Maintenance and Management
No maintenance or management activities are currently planned for the coming year, and no remedial action
activities are necessary at this time.
MY-1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.009. Project Name: Major Hill
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
17.009-01-0001
17.009-01-0002
17.009-01-0003
17.009-01-0004
17.009-01-0005
17.009-01-0006
17.009-01-0007
17.009-01-0008
MY1(2019)*
MYO(2019)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
7
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
9
9
9
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
11
31
3
3
6
6
6
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
14
14
14
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
3
3
3
8
8
8
14
14
14
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
9
9
5
5
5
Fraxinus
ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
10
10
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
7
7
8
7
7
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
23
23
23
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
20
20
20
10
10
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
16
16
16
18
18
18
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
6
6
6
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
5
5
5
10
10
10
14
14
14
16
161
16
10
10
10
141
14
15
16
16
16
181
181
23
103
103
109
129
129
129
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
41
41
41
61
61
6
71
71
7
91
9
9
51
51
5
7
7JF6;n7
9
9
9
7
7
9
15
15
17
16
16
16
202.3
202.3
202.3
404.7
404.7
404.7
566.E
566.E
566.E
647.5
647.5
647.5
404.7
404.7
404.7
566.E
566.E
647.5
647.5
647.5
728.4
728.4
930.8
521
521
551.4
652.E
652.E
652.6
*The increases in stem counts of species such as Carpinus caroliniana, Diospyros virginiana, and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during MYO (dormant season) monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

5.0 REFERENCES
Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0267, 15A NCAC 02B .0268, and
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Version 4.2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities ofNorth Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
MY-1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

ATTACHMENT 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
AltY1 (2019) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Legend
Easement
New Fencing Installed for Cattle Exclusion
- Existing Fencing Left in Place for Cattle Exclusion t t
- Fencing Removed/Reworked for Cattle Exclusion 1 I
- Stream AsbuiltTOB-TOB i
® ) \
Marsh Treatment Area �1
Plot Origins
CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria MY1
CVS Plots Not MeetingSuccess Criteria MY1
- Wetland Restoration `,rl �•,y�t
Wetland Enhancement 7 (!
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Type
TOB - 100 ft. Restoration (1:1) - 213,290 sq ft S \ \ \ \ y
6
101 ft. - 200 ft. Restoration (1:1 but 33 k credit per Rule)-40,976 sq ft
TOB - 100 ft. Enhancement (2:1 Cattle Ex. per Rule) - 341,433 sq ft \ \ \ •`_- rr e.
TOB - 100 ft. Preservation (Non -Subject Stream 5:1) - 25,614 sq ft
14.
- 101 ft. -200 ft. Preservation (Non -Subject Stream 5:1 and 33k Credit per Rule) -2,814 sq ft
Non Credit Generating (Less than 20 ft.) A \ \ �� �_/ea+�•�'y`; '\
TOB to 50 feet
I— — 1100 foot Tine
— - l 150 foot line*J ` r
�— 200 foot Tine
I
\ � I
No credit is being
i �' I ,
generated within the �� �� / �'/2 j I'
Marsh Treatment Area.
- �'� j • 1� I .1 � / i 7
mom
IL
•'I
.... �.� � �' �-'-_ � �- -- a--� _ /' _ •.'[ice
\
This area is located
outside of the y j — -- -
i
easement and is � �•�UTc3.
i
not generating credit. ----- — 0 70 140 280 420 560
Feet
Dwn.'By:
FIGURE
Axiom Environmental Riparian Buffer Asset Map Date: CLF
`- 218 Snow Ave Ma or Hill Miti ation Site Nov 2019
Raleigh, NC 27607 1 g
'r [phone] Alamance County, North Carolina Project:
AXI0M Emlmnmmtal. Inc. 17-009

Legend
Easement
"
TT
Stream AsbuiltTOB-TOB
Stream Side Assemblage = 1.5 ac.
tr
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest = 1.1 ac E
- Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest = 5.5 ac
Marsh Treatment Wetland = 0.01 ac'
F '...
1 I
' Y.
n
r
i
�r
ti
% 4*
1
Al-
..G�c.
k.
Ap
T,
I,yCt.Y,c,
.4
. 4f — Y .J- '. ... ,. •, 'Y',' 3
s. °L3 ,�/� .nil. •�Y • .•J���`,,
•' ff
'.'��� `r _: g .,• . _ �:rt"• 8
.�..:
...
_{r- yob'.
A
y' 0
70 140
280 420 560
Feet
Dwn. By: FIGURE
Axiom Environmental
Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Date: KRJ
Snow Ave Ral
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Major Hill Miti ation Site
1 g
Alamanee County, North Carolina
Feb 2019 B
Project:
AXIOM Emlmnmmtal. Inc.
17-009