20140335 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20200128

ID#* 20140335 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/28/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/28/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20140335
Existing IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
Alamance
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: AycockSprings_96312_MY4_2020-01-14.pdf 20.14MB
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

YEAR 4 (2019) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRINGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No. 96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT No. 5791
NCDWR PROJECT No. 20140335
USACE ACTION ID No. SAW-2014-01711
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03 03 0002
Data Collection — May -November 2019
PREPARED FOR:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
January 2020

January 14, 2020
Jeremiah Dow
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Subject: Draft Monitoring Year 4 Annual Monitoring Report
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS #96312)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 005791
Mr. Dow,
Below is the response from Restoration Systems to all comments received on the Draft Aycock Springs Yr.
4 (2019) 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,
Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems
Comments Received & Responses
1. Title Page
a. Please add the following:
i. DMS Pro] ect Number: 96312
ii. NCDWR Pro] ect Number: 20140335
iii. USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2014-01711
These items were added to the title page(s).
2. Section 2.3
a. Please add a sentence to this section discussing the surface water gauge results for MY3.
The following was added to section 2.3: "Tributary 3 exhibited evidence of channel formation
during year 4 (2019). Additionally, the surface water gauge documented 145 consecutive days
of flow."
3. Appendix B
a. Figure 2 — Please update the CCPV to differentiate between Restoration, Enhancement II, etc.
Also, the surface water gauge for UT3 is not shown on the map.
The stream layer was updated to differentiate between mitigation types. The surface gauge is
also now visible.
4. Appendix E
a. Stream Gauge Graphs — Please correct the title on the graph (currently reads "Year 1").
The graph title has been corrected.
b. Groundwater Gauge Graphs —Please add the graphs, they were not included in the Appendix.
The groundwater gauge graphs have been included.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

5. Digital data and drawings
a. Wetland restoration feature in the DMS geodatabase does not match creditable acreage
reported in the asset table. Please provide DMS with a spatial feature for the restoration
wetlands that accurately characterizes the acreage of the creditable assets (some of the
inaccuracy may be from the fact that the polygon we have on file does not appear to remove
stream footprint or all wetland enhancement areas from the wetland restoration polygon).
The wetland restoration shapefile in the digital submittal (Wetland rest.shp) shows 0.527 acres,
and the asset table claims 0.5 acres.
b. CVS entry tool file is missing x, y coordinates for certain plots, and in some cases x, y coordinates
exceed the bounds of the selected plot dimensions. Please resolve these errors and resubmit to
DMS.
The CVS entry tool has been updated with plot coordinates.
c. Please make note of the gauge type (e.g. transducer, RIDS, etc.) used in the Excel data file. Please
also label any probe or benchmark elevations, the raw and corrected readings of the water
elevations, and any offsets applied. The DMS Excel template is an example of what is needed
for reference.
The relevant information was added to the excel file containing the raw hydrology data, based
on the DMS excel template.
Page 2 of 2

YEAR 4 (2019) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRINGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No. 96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT No. 5791
NCDWR PROJECT No. 20140335
USACE ACTION ID No. SAW-2014-01711
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03 03 0002
Data Collection — May -November 2019
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
January 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
2.0 METHODOLOGY ......
2.1
Streams .................................
2.2
Vegetation ............................
2.3
Wetland Hydrology ..............
2.4
Biotic Community Change ...
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN .............
3.1
Stream ..................................
3.2
Vegetation ............................
4.0 REFERENCES ....................................
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Site Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 10. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA (NOTE: Yr. 4 (2019) Stream Monitoring Not Required)
MR 0 - 3 Cross-section Plots
Table I Ia-I Ie. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a-12f Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 13. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graph
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
APPENDIX F. BENTHIC DATA
Results
Habitat Assessment Data Sheets
APPENDIX G. MISCELLANOUS
2019 Herbicide Application Forms
.1
.6
.7
.7
.8
.8
.9
.9
.9
10
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Table of Contents page i
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) encompasses approximately 13 acres located
roughly 1.5 miles north of Elon and Gibsonville in western Alamance County within 14-digit Cataloging
Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030010 of the Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 1, Appendix B
and Table 4, Appendix A). Prior to construction, the Site consisted of agricultural land used for livestock
grazing, hay production, and timber harvest. Streams were cleared, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically
and laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock and timber harvest activities.
Stream impacts in Travis Creek also occurred due to a breached dam that impounded water during storm
events. In addition, streamside wetlands were drained by channel incision, soil compaction, the loss of forest
vegetation, and land uses. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts,
and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
Positive aspects supporting mitigation activities at the Site include the following.
• Streams have a Best Usage Classification of WS-V, NSW
• Located in a Targeted Local Watershed and within the NCDMS Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance
Local Watershed Planning (LWP) Area
• Travis Creek is listed on the NCDENR 2012 303(d) list for ecological/biological integrity
• Immediately south and abutting the Site is a property identified in the Little Alamance, Travis, &
Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008) as a target property for wetland
restoration and streambank enhancement/conservation
• Immediately west of the Site is a large tract associated with Guilford County open space
Based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Report 2009 (NCEEP 2009) and the Little
Alamance, Travis, & Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008), Targeted Local Watershed
03030002030010 is not meeting its designated use of supporting aquatic life. Agricultural land use appears
to be the main source of stress in the Hydrologic Unit, as well as land clearing and poor riparian management.
This project will meet the eight priority goals of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Local Watershed Plan
(LWP) including the following.
1) Reduce sediment loading
2) Reduce nutrient loading
3) Manage stormwater runoff
4) Reduce toxic inputs
5) Provide and improve instream habitat
6) Provide and improve terrestrial habitat
7) Improve stream stability
8) Improve hydrologic function
The following six goals were identified by the Stakeholder group of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP
Phase I assessment which address the water quality impacts and watershed needs in all of the Little Alamance,
Travis, Tickle watersheds in 2006.
1) Increase local government awareness of the impacts of urban growth on water resources
2) Strengthen watershed protection standards
3) Improve water quality through stormwater management
4) Identify and rank parcels for retrofits, stream repair, preservation, and/or conservation
5) Assess aquatic health to identify stressors that are the most likely causes of poor biological conditions
6) Meet requirements of outside funding sources for implementation of projects
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page I
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

The following table summarizes the project goals/objectives and proposed functional uplift based on
restoration activities and observations of two reference areas located in the vicinity of the Site. Goals and
objectives target functional uplift identified in the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP and based on
stream/wetland functional assessments developed by the regulatory agencies.
Project Goals and Objectives
Project Goal/Objective
How Goal/Objective will be Accomplished
IV Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Building a new channel at the historic Foodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Restore Stream Stability
Providing proper channel width and depth, stabilizing channel banks,
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
providing gravel/cobble substrate, planting a woody riparian buffer, and
Dominated Streams
removing cattle
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Building a new channel at the historic Foodplain elevation restoring
overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying compacted soils, and
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
planting woody vegetation
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Raising the stream bed elevation and rip compacted soils
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Increase Thermoregulation
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, planting with
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
retention, and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
Increase Energy Dissipation of
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, and planting
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater Runoff
with woody vegetation
ME
Restore Habitat
Restore In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
Restore Stream -side Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Project construction was completed April 6, 2016 and planting was completed April 8, 2016. Site activities
included the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels, enhancement (Level II) of perennial
stream channel, and re-establishment of riparian wetlands. Priority I restoration of intermittent channels at
the Site is imperative to provide significant functional uplift to Site hydrology, water quality, and habitat, in
addition to restore adjacent streamside, riparian wetlands. A total of 3581.1 Stream Mitigation Units
(SMUs) and 0.5 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) are being provided as depicted in the
following table.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Stream
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Stream Mitigation Type
Ratio
Mitigation
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
Units
Restoration
3147
90
1:1
3237
Restoration (see Notes below)**
122
1:5:1
81.3
Enhancement (Level II)
657
--
2.5:1
262.8
TOTAL
3804
212
3581.1
Riparian Wetland
Wetland Mitigation Type
Acreage
Ratio
Mitigation Units
Riparian Re-establishment
0.5
1:1
0.5
Riparian Enhancement
1.5*
--
TOTAL
2.0
0.5
* Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters
of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam
footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to the stream channel on jurisdictional
wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve the
violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches and
wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
In addition, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-B V-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of
UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio (1.5:1). On -site visits conducted with USACE representatives determined that
the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives. 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 related to goals
and objectives.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Stream Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Stream Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period.
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Cross -sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
Restore Stream Stability
built measurements to determine channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology.
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Convert stream channels from unstable G- and F-type
channels to stable E- and C- type stream channels.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Two overbank events will be documented, in separate years,
during the monitoring period and documentation of an elevated
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
groundwater table (within 12 inches of the soil surface) for
greater than 10 percent of the growing season during average
climatic conditions.
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
Dominated Streams
conditions of gravel and cobble.
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections
2.3 and 2.2
Increase Thermoregulation
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2).
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Criteria Section 2.2
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Documentation of two overbank events in separate monitoring
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
years and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria Section 2.2
Restore Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
Restore In -stream Habitat
pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
conditions of gravel and cobble, and attaining Vegetation
Success Criteria Section 2.2
Restore Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring years.
Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems per acre in year 5,
and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. In addition, planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in
each plot at year 7 since this Site is located in the Piedmont. Volunteer stems may be considered on a case -
by -case basis in determining overall vegetation success; however, volunteer stems should be counted
separately from planted stems.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 4
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Wetland Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for wetland re-establishment should relate to project goals and objectives.
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 wetland success criteria related to
goals and objectives.
Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Wetland Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Criteria.
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Documentation of two overbank events in separate
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore
Habitat
Restore Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
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
February 1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity. This will be confirmed
annually by soil temperatures and/or bud burst. The growing season will be initiated each year on the
documented date of biological activity. Photographic evidence of bud burst and field logs of date and
temperature will be included in the annual monitoring reports.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored period
(February 1-October 22), during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of
reference). 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.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 5
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst
Monitoring Period Used
10 Percent of
Documented
for Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2016 (Year 1)
_
April 17*-October 22
19 days
(198 days)
Bud burst on red maple (Acer
February 28-October 22
2017 (Year 2)
rubrum) and soil temperature of 58-F
(237 days)
23 days
documented on February 28, 2017
2018 (Year 3)
Bud burst and soil temperature of
March 6-October 22 (231
23 days
44-F documented on March 6, 2018
days)
2019 (Year 4)
March 20, 2019**
March 20-October 22
(217 days)
21 days
2020 (Year 5)
-
-
-
2021 (Year 5)
-
-
-
2022 (Year 5)
-
-
-
*Gauges were installed on May 5 during year 1 (2016); therefore, April 17 was used as the start of the growing season
(MRCS).
**Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in tables and figures within
this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports
can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan
(formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from NCDMS upon
request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the latest guidance by US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) in April 2003 (Stream Mitigation Guidelines) will be followed and are briefly outlined below.
Monitoring data collected at the Site should include reference photos, plant survival analysis, channel
stability analysis, and biological data, if specifically required by permit conditions.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years (years 1-7). Riparian vegetation
and stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with measurements
completed in years 1-3, year 5, and year 7. Monitoring reports for years 4 and 6 will include photo
documentation of stream stability and wetland hydrology monitoring data. If monitoring demonstrates the
Site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been identified, Restoration Systems (RS) may propose to
terminate monitoring at the Site and forego monitoring requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will
only be provided through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (NC IRT). Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc (AXE). Annual monitoring
reports of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 6
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2.1 Streams
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross -sections and substrate on riffles and pools.
Data to be presented in graphic and tabular format will include 1) cross -sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3)
average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth ratio, 6) bank height ratio, and 7) entrenchment ratio.
Longitudinal 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.
Visual assessment of in -stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the
channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. In addition, visual assessments of the
entire channel will be conducted in years 1-3, 5, and 7 of monitoring as outlined in NCDMS Monitoring
Requirements and Reporting Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Areas of concern will be
depicted on a plan view figure identifying the location of concern along with a written assessment and
photograph of the area.
Year 4 (2019) stream measurements were not required per the mitigation plan. As a whole, monitoring
measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross -sections as compared to as -built data during Year 3
(2018) monitoring. The IRT visited the Site on May 3rd, 2018. A copy of the site visit notes are provided in
Appendix G.
Immediately after construction, before ground cover was fully established, multiple heavy rain events (2+
inches) caused some sedimentation in the streambed. This aggradation can be seen in several Year 1 (2016)
cross -sections, and it appeared to be reduced and stabilized during Years 2-3 (2017-2018).
The year 1 (2016) measurements for cross -sections 9 and 10 on UT-1 showed stream bed erosion when
compared with as -built data. Stream bed erosion was noted shortly after as -built measurements were taken,
and were the result of the above mentioned rain events. It was evident bed material used during construction
in this area was finer than it should have been. Two riffles showed bed erosion, totaling approximately 50
feet in length (approximately 1 percent of the project length). RS created and implemented a remedial action
plan during late winter of 2016/2017 (see Section 3.0 and Appendix G). These repairs appear stable during
Year 4 (2019) monitoring, and they will continue to be monitored during subsequent monitoring years.
Across the site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No stream areas of concern
were identified during Year 4 (2019) monitoring; however, three small areas of bank erosion were observed
in the Enhancement (Level II) reach of Travis Creek. The pre -construction condition of Travis Creek
included some stream bank erosion, and with the large amount of rainfall the Site received during Year 3
(2018), some of this erosion became more apparent. These areas will continue to be monitored for any
significant change, but the erosion is not expected to cause any major stream stability problems. Additionally,
several monitoring cross -sections (Travis Creek XS-2, Travis Creek XS-4, UT1 XS-2, UT2 XS-5, and UT2
XS-8) are showing Bank Height Ratios of <1. The bank height ratios were calculated based on fixing the
cross -sectional area from last year's data, in accordance with the 2018 NCDMS "Standard Measurement of
the BHR Monitoring Parameter" guidance. Each of these cross -sections exhibited a small amount of
aggradation during Year 3 (2018). It is expected that this aggradation is the product of natural sediment
transport and will not cause any long-term stream issues. Tables for annual quantitative assessments are
included in Appendix D.
2.2 Vegetation
After planting was completed on April 8, 2016, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and additional Site
modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 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). In each sample plot, vegetation 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.
Working with Carolina Silvics, RS planted 1030 containerized trees consisting of 755 1-gallon pots and 275
3-gallon pots during the week of December 20t'', 2016, which included the following species: Betula nigra,
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occiendentalis, Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris,
Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra. A remedial planting plan report detailing location of planting and
density is provided in Appendix G.
Year 4 (2019) stem count measurements were performed in October 2019 and indicate an average of 387
planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site; therefore, the Site is meeting vegetation success
criteria. Ten of the fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone.
When including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American sycamore
(Plantanus occidentalis), Plots 2, 3, 9 and 13 were above success criteria. Year 4 (2019) vegetation plot
information can be found in Appendix C.
2.3 Wetland Hydrology
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
were performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, a surface water
gauge was installed in Tributary 3 to monitor flow regime of the tributary. Approximate locations of gauges
are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix A).
Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy
jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, an on -site rain gauge will document
rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and floodplain crest
gauges will confirm overbank flooding events. Two of the three groundwater gauges were successful in year
4 (2019) (Appendix E). The groundwater gauge deemed unsuccessful was due to a three-day period where
the groundwater dropped below 12 inches. Tributary 3 exhibited evidence of channel formation during year
4 (2019). Additionally, the surface water gauge documented 145 consecutive days of flow.
2.4 Biotic Community Change
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored. In -stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during the monitoring period.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ protocols found in the Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (NCDWQ 2001). Biological sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates will be used to compare preconstruction baseline data with postconstruction restored
conditions.
Two benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations will be established within restoration reaches.
Postrestoration collections will occur in the approximate location of the prerestoration sampling. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using the Qual-4 collection method.
Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs, and visual
searches. Preproject biological sampling occurred on June 26, 2014; postproject monitoring will occur in
June of monitoring years 2-5.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Identification of collected organisms will be performed by personnel with North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) or by a NCDWR certified laboratory. Other data collected will include D50
values/NCDWR habitat assessment forms. Biological sampling for year 4 (2019) occurred on June 12, 2019.
The samples were sent to Pennington and Associates, a NCDWR certified laboratory, for identification and
analysis. Results and Habitat Assessment Dataforms are included in Appendix F.
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan was developed in order to address stream and vegetation problem areas observed
during Year 1 (2016) monitoring. The completed remedial action report can be found in Appendix G.
3.1 Stream
The degradation observed during Year 1 (2016) in and adjacent to cross -sections 9 and 10 on UT-1
encompasses approximately 12 linear feet and 15 linear feet of stream, respectively (<1 percent of the project
length). As noted above, bed material placed during construction was too fine. All of UT-1 used bed material
harvested on -site. The material used along these stream reaches was too fine and washed from the riffles
during heavy rainfall events, resulting in minor bed scour and a small, less than 6 inch head cut beginning to
develop at the top of riffle. Suitable sized channel bed material was installed on February 23, 2017 at the
proper elevation in the two riffles within UT-1. Bed material was installed such that bank toe protection is
provided and planting with willow stakes will occur. Bank toe protection designates that channel bed material
will extend up the lower one-third of the bank. This will be monitored by existing established cross -sections
9 and 10.
3.2 Vegetation
Multiple factors were contributing to poor vegetative success in Year 1 (2016) including a later than desired
initial bare -root planting, heavy herbaceous competition primarily from fescue (Site was previously a cattle
pasture), and sporadic rain events, which left upland areas of the site dry for extended periods of the growing
season. Greater survival of planted species was observed within riparian areas. Upland areas of the site had
the lowest survival rates.
The remedial action plan supplemented the bare -root planting over 5.44 acres with 1030 additional trees (755
1-gallon pots and 275 3-gallon pots). The remedial action plan figure (Appendix G) details the areas that
received remedial planting along with density and number of species being placed into vegetation plots.
Working with Carolina Silvics, RS acquired and re -planted identified areas during the week of December
20', 2016. Species of planted tree included Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occiendentahs,
Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra.
Treatment of invasive plant species continued during 2019 throughout the Site, and Restoration Systems will
continue to treat and monitor the site for invasive species throughout the monitoring period. Previous
treatments on the small patch of cattails at the confluence of UT-1 and UT-2 was successful. However, in the
Spring of 2019, cattail regeneration was noted within the area of concern. Treatment was conducted in July
2019 and will continue as needed. Additional dense herbaceous vegetation within UT-2, was noted during
the spring 2019. The vegetation appeared to be impeding the natural hydrology of the stream. Treatment was
conducted July 2019 and will continue as needed. See Appendix G (Herbicide Application Forms) for
detailed account of site -wide treatments.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Engineer
Research and Development Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
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 Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 40I/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS 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
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.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MIST). EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 10
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX A
PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Directions to the Site from Interstates 40/85 in Burlington/Eton, NC:
,,--------,----,- ; �- ! . - Exit onto University Drive 140/85 Exit 140 and travel north toward Elon
z +- y - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
0 D - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
U zz - Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) Axiom rnvimnmenls,. Inc.
m - Travel north for 0.7 mile and Site is on the right
Prepared for:
CL
.use: ] - {`J• « - • :
_ y ,. , - r
S' f ;pyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, it ¢ -�, �,ry �, O
i ubed =+_ w ,
Project:
-------I dmae>:: r �
Mountain Se ---- +
�:. Aycock Springs
Stream and
Aitamah,w ,f x:� --rr
"�' ; - '';; .:� ^ ' � Wetland
Lekevlew ��,ry �: + ;1 _ �: I c ;: _ 1� _ Mitigation
--..... Site
Morgantown ]
Burlhgtan F., rr I,,r .�Fr cockSprings - :� flr s :� A
I Y��• � .. s V �' i < <x_•- -.- ;
Stream and Wetland
■ �c `• i 4 i Alamance County, NC
Mitigation Sites = �� r. ✓, �'' �" ''.
lxl�aanai `�� �, __ , I ��'�[-,� t� -'j i ': f`:r,-� �. •�._ �- �. ?` �-- ,� ,�_� i ,f � �- � � . . ���: ,�.. - Title:
- J sw!p PFc.n: He 1. �—I J 1 1-r
36.7271 N } ,� I r.
-79.525214 W
A - - a`' _ U Project
MOLR#b 8' •`_=d:td�.a laW a. C -i y- L ., h L =s.r-- _
� I - � , �• r � � ' + � -� "�_ � Location
i i ,� � [-_ ` '• �fr � is �'. ��I r :� � _ � ,�;i � � -'!., S�"�_
f ��• r
----I Snaw Camp:. , •. "' ram: _ f .r� �, ` � ' ` :'..
• r, m:J f { Ir u 1• _ . \; �. _ Notes:
—_—_—_—_—_ Background Imagery sources
Copyright:©2014 DeLorme GIBSONVILLE `t, ,• l f"
- �' L (provided by ESRI Data and
Maps):
1•i�l. yi • 4 rJ'
1. Physical Map of the United
States (2009) created by the
U.S. Park Service (upper inset).
Goal' 2. Delorme World Basemap
- �.�' � � �' -�'=, � '.;�a�,� � =� I --' -- ' •! � ,� ' digital mapping (2010, lower
BURL'INGT.ON inset).
3. Burlington, NC 1980
Lake Burlington, NC 1969
Gibsonville, NC (1970), and
;a; ;L , . {� jl 1 �� .: K •�'y` Ossipee, NC (1970) 7.5-
^T.' -Ya+ e�.¢• `-.. .-S`e �k . ,,e ti+ � Ii++' - --�'.$ - - fill .1 -= Spa T •
minute topographic
Imo.?lf ELON;f } quadrangles provided by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
• �"1� 1. �,'_r I ,,.. - • � - __ �`rr •� �-- �
- WHITSETT�� �• - -6 r -`: - _ :; _ ,
1- al3Llf?iifl[G-I t)h -~ `"¢6 ' • • •; -
.y .'", Drawn by:
SG D
Date: May 2016
Legend f � Y - 3 Scale: As Shown
I � '
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site �b - s, :,+ i �r a Project No.: 14-006
3,4_,
__ I �•�:r -:-�-. •S• -' - fir: - •
County lines r= —
---- I h4C
- FIGURE
1 0.5 0 1 2 3 �_ :•.';: �� ./ - ° �`; ,i: ` s :::.
Miles
Copyright:© 2013 N:a.tib_na�G.e.ogr-aphirc=Ss iety;-i=ctiW'd

Table 1. Proiect Components and Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Nonriparian Wetland
Restoration
Enhancement
Re-establishment
Re-establishment
3237
344.1
0.5
--
Projects Components
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Comment
Approach
Ratio
Credits
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
1317-24=
241f of UT 1 is located outside of
UT 1 Station 10+04 to 23+21
1173
PI
Restoration
1293
1:1
1293
easement and is not credit generating
UT 2 Station 10+00 to 16+75
723
PI
Restoration
675
1:1
675
* * * The upper 122 linear feet of
channel is in a violation area and is
UT 3 Station 10+00 to 11+22
147
PI
Restoration
122
1.5:1
81.3
generating credit at a reduced ratio of
1.5:1
UT 3 Station 11+22 to 12+12
16
PI
Restoration
90
1:1
90
****The upper 107 linear feet of
UT 4 Station 10+00 to 14+13
448
PI
Restoration
413-107=
1:1
306
channel is in a violation area and is not
306
credit generating
Travis Creek
578-20=
The upper 20 linear feet of Travis
578
EII
2.5:1
223.2
Creek is within a powerline easement
Station 10+00 to 15+78
558
and is not credit generating
Travis Creek
274
PII
Restoration
209
1:1
209
Station 15+78 to 17+87
Travis Creek
99
EII
99
2.5:1
39.6
Station 17+87 to 18+86
Travis Creek
936
PI
Restoration
664
1:1
664
Station 23+71 to 30+35
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Nonriparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
3237
0.5
--
Enhancement (Level 1)
122
--
--
Enhancement (Level I1)
657
--
Enhancement
--
1.5 * *
Totals
4016
--
--
Mitigation Units
3581.1 SMUs
0.5 Riparian WMUs
0.00 Nonriparian WMUs
**Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
***Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to streams draining to Jordan
Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1. On -site visits conducted
with USACE representatives determined that the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
**** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States. Fill resulted
from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to
the stream channel on jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve the
violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches and wetland areas associated with the
violation area have been removed from credit generation — UT 4 begins credit generation at Station 11+07).
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 2. Proiect Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Stream
Monitoring
Complete
Vegetation
Monitoring
Complete
All Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No.
16-005568
--
--
--
October 2013
DMS Contract No. 5791
--
--
--
February 2014
Mitigation Plan
--
--
October 2014
May 2015
Construction Plans
--
--
--
June 2015
Construction Earthwork
--
--
--
April 6, 2016
Planting
--
--
--
April 8, 2016
As -Built Documentation
Apri16, 2016
April 13, 2016
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 18, 2016
October 13, 2016
October 2016
December 2016
Supplemental Planting
--
--
--
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
April 19-20, 2017
July 25, 2017
October 2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
April 16-17, 2018
July 19, 2018
October 2018
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
N/A
October 2019
October 2019
January 2020
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
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
Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh, NC 27603
Edenton, NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Mary -Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and
As -built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans
K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA
5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Project Information
Project Name
Aycock Springs Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
15
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
36.1272710N, 79.525214°W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03030002030010
NCDEQ Sub -basin for Project
03-06-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
26-3008
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<2%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Travis Cr
UT 1/UT2
UT 3
UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
1550
1966
212
413
Valley Classification
alluvial
Drainage Area (acres)
3008
68
26
119
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
--
30.75/25.5
26.75
27.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg 5/6-, Eg 5-, and Fe 5-type
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
IV
IV
III
III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Cecil, Helena, Mixed Alluvial Land, Severely Gullied
Land, Worsham
Drainage Class
Well -drained, moderately well -drained, poorly drained,
variable, poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric and Hydric
Slope
0.0023
0.0249
0.0153
0.0093
FEMA Classification
AE
Special Hazard Flood Area
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
42% forest, 53% agricultural land, <5% 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%
Table 4. Project Attribute Table (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
1.6
Wetland Type
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham and Mixed 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
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Resolved
404 Permit
Waters of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Resolved
401 Certification
Endangered Species Act
No
--
CE Doc.
Historic Preservation Act
No
--
CE Doc.
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
--
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
In progress
CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
--
NA
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Tables 5A-5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 5A
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs - Travis Creek
1550
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
1 As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - 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
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
9
9
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
9
9
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
F
9
9
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
3
117
o
96/0
96%
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
3
117
96%
0
0
96%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%
9
9
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
9
9
°
100/o

Table 513
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT1
1317
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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - 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
45
45
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
44
44
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
44
44
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
44
44
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
44
44
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.
13. 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.
10
10
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
100%

Table 5C
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT2
675
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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - 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
25
25
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
24
24
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
24
24
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
24
24
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
24
24
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.
13. 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.
6
6
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
6
6
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
6
6
100%

Table 5D
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT3
212
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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - 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
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
8
8
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
$
$
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
8
8
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.
13. 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.
1
1
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
100%

Table 5E
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT4
413
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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - 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
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
8
8
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
$
$
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
8
8
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.
13. 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.
5
5
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
5
5
100%

Table 6
Planted Acreage'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Aycock Springs
11.9
Vegetation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% Of
Planted
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
1550
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
13.3
% Of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polvaons
Acrea a
Acrea e
Management of Chinese privet and multiflora rose is active and ongoing along Travis Creek. There is also
4. Ongoing Invasive Species Management Areas4
ongoing treatment for cattail along UT1 and UT2. 2017-18 invasives management has improved
1000 SF
yellow hatch
3
2.46
18.5%
vegetation condition in these areas, however treatment is ongoing.
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.

Aycock Springs
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2019
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
Year 4 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2019
(continued)
Yya! s
r Via,
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 7. Ve etation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
MY 4 (2019)
Planted Stems
MY 4 (2019)
All Stems
Tract Mean
1
Yes
768
1174
2
No*
283
445
3
No*
283
688
4
Yes
364
1416
5
Yes
404
526
6
Yes
607
688
7
Yes
485
526
8
Yes
364
485
71.4%
9
No*
242
323
10
Yes
364
971
11
Yes
404
688
12
Yes
364
404
13
No*
121
445
14
Yes
364
485
Total =
387
662
*These plots did not meet success criteria based on planted stems only; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) these plots were above
success criteria.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
10/31/2019 8:58
database name
RS-A cock 2019-v2.3. Lmdb
database location
S:\Business\Projects\14\14-006 Aycock Springs Detailed\2019 YEAR-04\CVS
computer name
PHILLIP-LT
file size
56627200
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
14-006
project Name
Aycock Springs
Description
River Basin
Cape Fear
len h(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (s m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
14
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems
Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0001
14.006-01-0002
14.006-01-0003
14.006-01-0004
14.006-01-0005
14.006-01-0006
14.006-01-0007
14.006-01-0008
14.006-01-0009
14.006-01-0010
PnoLS
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
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
4
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
3
9
1
1
27
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
10
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
3
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
4
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Stem coun
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species co
Stems per ACRE
19
19
29
7
7
11
7
7
17
9
9
35
10
10
13
15
15
17
12
12E364.21
12
6
6
8
9
9
24
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
4
4
5
4
4
5
3
3
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
3
4
6
6
6
6
6
7
5
5
6
768.9
768.9
1174
283.3
283.3
445.2
283.3
283.3
688
364.2
364.2
1416
404.7
404.7
526.1
607
607
688
485.6
485.6
485.6
242.81242.81323.71364.21364.21
971.2
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. Planted and Total Stems (continued)
Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0011
14.006-01-0012
14.006-01-0013
14.006-01-0014
MY4 (2019)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
PnoLS
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
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
2
2
9
5
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
4
2
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
7
7
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
6
6
7
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
48
48
49
46
46
46
49
49
49
52
52
52
57
57
57
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
6
13
13
80
13
13
36
10
10
31
5
5
13
3
3
5
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
4
1
1
1
7
7
16
7
7
10
7
7
9
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
5
5
5
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
18
18
18
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
16
16
17
14
14
16
12
12
12
11
11
11
13
13
13
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
2
6
3
3
3
7
7
7
11
11
11
62
62
62
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
3
Stem coun
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
10
10
17
9
9
10
3
3
11
9
9
12
134
134
229
128
128
158
131
131
171
115
115
141
205
205
216
1
1
1
1
14
14
14
14
14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
6
6
7
6
6
7
3
3
6
4
4
4
16
16
20
15
15
16
17
17
23
15
15
20
14
14
16
404.7
404.7
688
364.2
364.2
404.7
121.4
121.4
445.2
364.2
364.2
485.6
387.3
387.3
662
370
370
456.7
378.7
378.7
494.3
332.4
332.4
407.6
592.6
592.6
624.4
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

APPENDIX D.
STREAM SURVEY DATA
(NOTE: Yr. 4 (2019) Stream Monitoring Not Required)
MR 0 - 3 Cross-section Plots
Table 1la-1le. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a-12f Monitoring Data
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.90
4.1
594.93
8.2
595.00
9.6
594.45
11.1
593.87
12.4
593.25
13.7
592.75
15.2
592.07
16.5
592.20
18.1
592.04
19.6
592.24
21.0
592.41
22.0
592.49
22.6
592.41
24.1
592.48
25.7
592.51
26.7
592.65
27.6
592.80
28.2
592.93
30.0
592.91
31.9
593.0
33.2
593.5
34.8
593.9
36.9
594.3
40.8
594.9
43.7
594.8
46.5
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
40.1
Bankfull Width:
27.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type linnC/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
597
________________________________________________________________
596
595
ea
0
594
W
593
----Ban dull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
592
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
591
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.00
1.7
595.12
3.3
594.45
5.9
593.68
6.8
593.41
8.9
593.36
11.0
593.30
12.3
593.32
13.0
593.16
14.0
593.01
14.8
592.67
16.5
592.62
18.2
592.61
19.6
592.40
21.4
592.26
23.1
592.51
23.9
593.59
25.0
594.02
26.5
594.48
27.9
594.94
30.0
595.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
41.6
Bankfull Width:
25.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00
Stream Type IL C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
598
597
596
m
595
0
m
W
592
MY-03 4.16.18
0 5 10 15 20 25
35
Station (feet)
___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________ ___

1
i
a,
y;
'-
i.
,_...._ .
-.
Stream Type C/E
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.2
5.0
595.1
8.9
594.8
12.5
594.5
15.4
593.8
17.0
593.8
18.3
593.7
19.2
593.6
20.3
592.8
22.6
592.6
24.8
592.3
26.1
591.8
27.4
591.8
29.3
591.5
30.1
592.0
31.3
592.3
31.9
592.5
32.7
593.2
33.6
593.6
36.0
594.2
38.1
594.8
41.1
595.3
43.0
595.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
57.2
Bankfull Width:
39.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfu
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
595
----------------------------------------------
----
w
594

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
1%'"
,MM
>i
°.,
_f
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
599
598
597
m
596
0
595
ti
W
594
593
592
0 5
10
15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.71
1.8
595.33
3.9
594.66
4.9
594.35
5.9
593.73
6.9
593.27
8.2
592.85
10.6
592.97
12.8
592.61
14.5
592.85
14.8
592.83
15.8
593.65
16.7
593.72
17.3
593.55
18.7
593.51
19.2
593.75
20.0
593.88
20.4
593.87
21.7
593.67
22.8
593.58
24.0
593.5
25.7
594.3
26.8
594.8
28.3
595.2
30.2
595.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
43.8
Bankfull Width:
28.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.0
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
- - - -Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
�-oz a/zo/n
MY-03 4/16/18

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
4.3
595.3
6.5
594.6
8.2
594.2
9.3
593.6
10.8
592.8
11.7
592.3
13.4
592.0
14.8
591.9
16.3
591.9
18.3
591.9
20.1
591.8
21.0
592.1
22.2
592.6
24.3
592.9
25.9
593.5
27.8
594.0
28.9
594.2
31.3
595.3
32.3
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
52.3
Bankfull Width:
25.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
596
595
-----------------------------------------------------
AO--
594
0
593
----Bankfull
W
Flood Prone Area
592
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
591
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment Deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.09
3.3
595.61
5.5
594.93
6.8
594.30
9.4
594.46
11.0
594.50
12.6
594.52
13.4
593.52
16.1
593.57
18.7
593.25
20.6
593.01
23.3
593.18
24.4
593.73
26.2
594.84
28.7
595.95
29.8
596.20
31.0
596.54
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
50.3
Bankfull Width:
28.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.1
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
600
599
598
w
597
2
596
595
----B.khll
W
Flood Prone Area
594
MY-oo 4/6/16
my-ol 10/18/16
593
MY-oz 4/20/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
3.6
596.0
6.2
595.4
7.3
595.2
8.9
594.8
9.9
594.4
11.0
594.0
12.1
593.7
13.6
593.3
14.2
593.2
15.8
593.2
16.9
593.1
18.2
592.9
19.5
593.0
20.9
592.9
21.7
592.6
22.4
592.8
23.5
592.9
24.4
593.4
25.7
593.5
26.0
593.9
27.0
594.3
28.5
595.0
30.4
595.7
32.1
595.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
44.9
Bankfull Width:
25.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596
595
w
m
594
0
- - - - BankfWl
W593
----Flood Prone Area
M1-00 4/6/16
592
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
591
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment Deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.49
2.4
596.25
4.8
595.54
6.5
594.70
8.4
593.25
11.1
592.95
13.0
593.07
14.8
592.90
16.2
593.11
16.8
593.62
19.1
593.29
20.5
593.51
21.7
594.56
23.4
594.42
25.4
594.39
27.2
595.06
29.5
595.96
30.7
596.37
31.6
596.78
32.6
597.17
34.5
597.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
58.3
Bankfull Width:
28.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
W / D Ratio:
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
600
............................................................
599
598
ti
597
596
-----------------------------------------------
------
2
___•Ban fiu
595
Flood Prone Area
594
MY-00 4/6 16
MY-01 10/18/16
593
MY-oz 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
592
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
2.0
596.2
4.1
595.8
5.4
595.4
6.6
595.3
7.4
594.9
8.6
594.3
9.4
593.5
11.1
592.8
13.1
593.0
14.3
592.8
15.7
592.5
17.3
592.5
19.1
592.2
20.8
592.1
22.1
592.4
23.2
592.5
23.9
593.2
24.8
593.7
25.6
594.1
27.2
594.7
28.9
595.2
30.6
595.5
31.8
596.0
33.5
596.3
35.4
596.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
60.8
Bankfull Width:
27.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.05
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
598
597
596
___-------------------------------------------
w
m
595
0
594
W 593
_ _ _ . Bankhll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
592
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
591
My-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.6
6.5
596.5
9.9
595.9
12.2
595.6
14.1
595.6
16.4
595.1
17.9
594.4
19.1
594.4
20.4
594.2
21.4
593.7
22.1
593.5
23.3
593.4
24.1
593.3
25.3
593.0
26.7
592.9
28.2
592.8
29.7
592.6
31.0
592.6
32.2
592.6
33.5
592.7
34.2
592.9
34.8
593.3
35.8
593.9
36.7
594.5
38.4
595.5
39.4
596.0
40.2
596.2
41.6
596.8
43.2
597.1
44.5
597.3
46.2
597.7
48.0
597.9
49.6
597.9
51.3
598.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
87.5
Bankfull Width:
37.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
599
598
597
--------------------------------------------------
w
m
596
0
595
W
___.Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
594
MY-00 4/6/16
593
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 10 20 30 40
U 60
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.55
2.7
597.37
4.0
596.73
5.9
596.52
7.9
595.87
9.4
595.10
10.5
594.67
11.2
594.17
12.3
593.30
14.3
593.19
16.3
593.06
19.2
593.01
20.7
593.39
21.9
593.30
23.4
593.77
25.0
594.10
27.0
594.19
28.6
594.50
31.0
594.79
32.5
595.39
33.8
596.0
35.5
596.7
37.6
596.9
41.8
597.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
69.6
Bankfull Width:
30.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.3
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
601
600
________________________________________________________________
599
598
m
m
597
596
>0
Bankhll
W 595
_.Flood Prone Area
594
MY-oo 4/6/16
593
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-oz 4/20/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.42
4.5
598.06
7.9
597.38
10.5
596.75
12.3
596.02
13.4
595.39
14.4
594.87
16.6
594.58
18.0
594.64
20.3
594.63
21.1
594.46
22.0
594.53
23.1
594.44
24.0
594.65
24.8
594.82
25.8
595.23
27.4
595.19
28.4
595.40
30.1
595.72
32.1
596.27
34.3
597.1
37.3
598.4
39.5
598.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
67.9
Bankfull Width:
31.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.5
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
14.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.03
Stream Type linnC/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
602
601
..............................................................
600
599
m
598
0
0 597
----aanklbu
W 596
.Flood Prone Area
595
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
594
MY-oz 4/20/17
593
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.6
1.8
597.6
3.5
597.1
6.1
596.3
7.5
595.8
8.4
595.5
9.1
595.0
10.4
594.3
11.6
594.1
13.5
594.2
15.2
594.4
16.4
594.5
17.9
595.0
18.9
595.3
19.8
595.7
20.5
596.1
22.9
596.4
24.6
596.9
26.6
597.1
28.5
597.3
30.0
597.9
30.7
598.1
32.7
598.6
34.7
598.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
48.2
Bankfull Width:
27.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
600
599
598
597
0
596
2
W 595
Bankroll
Flood Prone Area
111-00 4/6/16
594
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
593
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment Deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.4
599.16
0.8
599.15
3.4
598.09
5.8
597.18
7.1
596.61
8.2
596.51
9.3
595.99
10.3
595.56
10.9
594.93
12.6
594.82
13.7
594.80
14.5
594.59
15.4
594.37
16.1
594.37
16.9
594.74
17.8
594.77
19.1
594.58
20.1
594.67
20.6
595.02
21.3
595.36
21.6
595.7
22.7
596.0
23.5
595.9
24.4
595.8
25.6
595.5
26.3
595.5
27.3
595.7
28.4
596.1
29.3
596.4
30.9
597.3
32.0
597.8
33.5
598.6
35.2
599.2
37.7
599.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
94.6
Bankfull Width:
33.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
603.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
W / D Ratio:
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
605
604
603
-----------------------------------------------------------------
602
601
m
600
0 599
598
�i 597
----BankMll
- -� - Flood Prone Area
596
MY-00 4/6/16
595
MY-01 10/18/16
595
MY-024/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
593
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)

4
Aw",
...
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
593
_____________________________________________________________
ea 592
--------------------------------
-------------
W 591
___•Bankhll
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
59Q
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.42
1.4
591.44
2.9
591.25
3.9
591.00
4.5
590.84
5.4
590.71
6.2
590.64
6.7
590.70
7.2
590.80
7.8
590.66
8.5
590.72
9.0
590.85
9.4
590.93
10.0
591.15
10.8
591.48
11.8
591.72
12.5
591.75
13.2
591.75
14.3
591.84
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Banlcfiill:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
18.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.68
1.4
591.51
2.1
591.51
3.0
591.47
3.7
591.22
4.3
591.16
5.1
591.04
5.5
591.04
6.3
590.95
6.8
590.98
7.3
590.96
7.8
590.98
8.2
591.03
8.4
591.05
9.1
591.08
9.6
591.14
10.2
591.14
10.6
591.35
11.3
591.46
12.3
591.45
13.7
591.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
28.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.8
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
7
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.3
592.2
1.2
592.2
2.3
592.1
3.1
591.9
3.7
591.6
4.2
591.3
4.5
591.3
5.0
591.1
5.7
590.7
6.2
590.5
6.6
590.6
7.0
590.7
7.4
590.8
7.8
590.9
8.3
591.0
8.5
591.1
9.2
591.2
9.9
591.3
10.5
591.5
11.2
591.6
11.7
591.9
12.4
591.9
13.2
592.0
14.5
592.00
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Bankfull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.97
1.3
591.85
2.2
591.63
3.3
591.46
4.2
591.29
4.9
591.21
5.8
591.11
6.5
591.11
7.2
591.02
7.7
591.02
8.6
591.01
9.3
591.44
9.9
591.68
10.6
592.01
11.2
592.18
11.9
592.29
12.8
592.27
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.7
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
18.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.42
1.0
592.50
2.0
592.27
3.0
591.95
3.9
591.65
4.6
591.46
5.0
591.39
5.8
591.42
6.6
591.41
7.0
591.24
7.5
591.13
7.9
591.12
8.4
591.13
8.7
591.52
9.2
591.37
10.1
591.53
10.6
591.74
11.5
592.15
12.2
592.31
13.0
592.40
13.7
592.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.8
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
594
593
------------------ ----------------------------------------
w
m
2
592
___________________________________________ ___
Bankfull
W
_ .Flood Prone Area
591
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
590
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.79
0.9
592.84
1.7
592.84
2.3
592.59
2.8
592.34
3.9
592.26
4.5
592.19
5.3
592.22
6.0
592.29
7.0
592.28
8.1
592.20
8.8
592.46
9.4
592.69
10.1
592.69
11.0
592.62
11.8
592.60
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
593.15
1.2
593.26
1.7
592.93
2.3
592.78
3.0
592.71
3.9
592.71
4.8
592.53
5.1
592.38
5.5
592.39
6.1
592.29
6.9
592.38
7.0
592.38
7.5
592.60
8.3
592.93
8.9
593.05
9.8
593.23
11.4
593.23
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
1
I
Stream Type linnC/E
594
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
--------------------------------------------------------
m
0
593
-- - - Bankfull
w
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)

7
r V
I
i
1
4
` -
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
594
--------------------------------
---------
0 593
tl
_ _ _ • Bankroll
WFlood
Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added by hand in this reach.
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
1.3
593.2
2.3
593.3
3.0
593.1
3.4
592.9
4.1
592.4
4.6
592.3
4.9
592.4
5.7
592.2
6.1
592.2
6.8
592.2
7.2
592.5
7.8
592.9
8.4
593.2
9.2
593.3
9.8
593.5
11.3
593.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
6.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station A
Elevation
0.0
594.89
1.3
594.85
1.9
594.64
3.3
594.64
4.0
594.53
4.5
594.39
4.9
594.27
5.5
594.42
5.8
594.06
6.4
594.19
7.1
594.36
7.5
594.58
8.3
594.68
9.2
594.95
10.5
594.83
11.6
594.82
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
e
a
µ; ,.
{ cF
Stream Type I C/E
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added by hand in this reach.

t.
_a
}
.';
_
rites' -
w_ �^
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -10, Pool
596
595 ______________
- -------------------
-
_______________
0
- - - - BankfWl
W594
----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
593
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10
12 14
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
595.7
0.7
595.6
1.6
595.5
2.4
595.3
3.1
595.1
3.6
594.7
4.3
594.3
4.9
593.9
5.8
593.5
6.5
593.5
7.0
593.5
7.5
593.6
8.0
593.7
8.5
594.0
8.9
595.0
9.6
595.4
10.2
595.5
11.1
595.6
12.5
595.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.5
Bankfull Width:
5.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.14

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.08
1.1
596.08
1.6
596.08
2.6
595.82
2.9
595.74
3.4
595.74
3.8
595.17
4.5
595.32
5.4
595.22
5.7
595.47
6.3
595.57
7.0
595.41
8.2
595.81
8.9
595.90
10.1
596.06
11.1
596.17
12.0
596.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

1
�+ F
».
Stream Typeiiijilir
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -12, Riffle
599
________________________________________________________________
ea 598
0
_ . Bankroll
w 597
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
596
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.82
0.9
597.78
1.8
597.49
2.2
597.29
3.0
597.23
3.5
597.12
4.1
597.07
4.5
597.04
5.3
597.04
5.7
597.13
6.6
597.19
6.9
597.32
7.4
597.31
8.1
597.37
8.8
597.65
9.5
597.76
11.2
597.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
19.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

7
.P ..
._-
r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -1, Pool
594
---------------------------------
0 593
Bankroll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
5 c92
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
593.3
1.3
593.5
2.2
593.3
3.0
593.0
3.3
592.9
3.8
592.8
4.3
592.8
5.0
592.8
5.6
592.9
6.5
593.0
7.1
593.3
7.9
593.3
8.9
593.4
9.6
593.4
10.2
593.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.01
1.0
594.06
2.1
594.08
2.7
593.95
3.4
593.90
4.2
593.75
4.7
593.84
5.5
593.81
6.2
593.85
7.2
593.93
7.9
594.08
9.2
594.20
10.1
594.20
11.2
594.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
31.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
6
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
595
________________________________________________________________
°m
------------------------ ----------------
0
d - - - - Bankfull
w
-Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
594 MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 12
Station (feet)

t
L
`ll
1
Sp
r
I
V.
y
'•:i'.:
.
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
596
-------------------------------------------------------------
2 595
--------------------------
___________----l3ankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
594
MY-03 4/16/1s
0 2
4
6
8 12
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.76
1.5
594.84
2.1
594.67
2.6
594.51
3.5
594.37
4.1
594.60
4.9
594.49
5.5
594.50
6.6
594.53
7.3
594.65
7.9
594.87
8.6
594.92
9.3
594.99
10.6
594.91
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
595.33
1.6
595.40
3.1
595.33
3.7
595.18
4.3
595.04
5.1
595.01
5.7
595.05
6.4
595.13
7.3
595.12
8.0
595.11
8.8
595.28
9.6
595.38
10.7
595.44
12.0
595.35
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
0.9
Bankfull Width:
5.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
32.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
A
o
y
m ,
a.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
598
----------------------------------------------------------------
m
-----------------------------------------
- -
0 597
a
--aanl�,u
W
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
596
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
12
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
Riffle
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.31
1.8
597.03
2.9
596.89
3.6
596.66
4.4
596.72
5.1
596.59
5.9
596.64
6.7
596.61
7.6
596.65
8.3
596.86
9.0
596.99
9.8
597.05
11.1
596.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
9.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
33.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.1
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.96
1.3
597.96
2.3
597.86
2.8
597.67
3.4
597.59
3.8
597.63
4.4
597.73
5.3
597.72
6.4
597.53
7.3
597.55
8.2
597.74
9.1
597.85
9.7
597.91
10.6
597.91
11.2
597.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
6.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
41.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
.k,
s
,MN.
Stream Type C/E
599
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
w
m
--------- -------------------------------------------------------
598
2
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
597
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8
10 12
Station (feet)

7
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
--------------------------------------
----
0 598
Bankroll
Flood Prone Area
,y
W
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
597
MY-03 4/16/48
0 2
4
6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.2
598.5
1.5
598.4
2.7
598.2
3.8
597.8
4.2
597.6
4.7
597.6
5.3
597.5
5.9
597.5
6.2
597.3
6.8
597.5
7.4
597.7
8.0
597.8
8.5
597.8
9.0
597.9
9.8
598.1
11.1
598.3
12.1
598.4
13.0
598.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.30
1.3
601.24
2.0
601.14
3.0
601.18
3.8
600.99
4.5
600.95
5.3
600.87
6.0
600.83
6.6
600.99
7.3
600.85
8.4
600.85
9.3
601.18
10.0
601.31
11.4
601.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
10.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
36.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.9
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
12 -
k i
F �
s- _`
0t'
NIS
. .
O
Stream Type E I C/E
602
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------ ---
0
601
N----Bankhll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
600
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
604.69
1.1
604.83
1.7
604.76
2.3
604.54
3.2
604.15
3.6
604.15
3.8
603.96
4.2
604.19
4.6
604.26
5.1
604.22
5.6
604.10
5.9
604.14
6.8
604.13
7.5
604.26
8.6
604.54
9.2
604.82
10.2
604.97
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
.�l�
�a'°
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
7
UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.6
1.1
605.6
2.0
605.5
2.8
605.5
3.6
605.1
4.2
604.9
4.9
604.6
5.3
604.4
5.7
604.5
6.6
604.6
7.1
604.7
7.6
604.6
8.2
605.0
8.7
605.2
9.3
605.4
10.0
605.7
10.7
605.9
11.7
606.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E

7
i
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -11, Pool
607
0606-------------
-------------------------
?�?
Bankroll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
605
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 11, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
606.3
1.4
606.3
2.7
606.0
3.5
605.7
4.3
605.3
4.8
605.4
5.5
605.4
6.0
605.2
6.5
605.4
7.0
605.5
7.8
605.7
8.6
606.0
9.5
606.3
10.1
606.3
10.8
606.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.5
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station A
Elevation
0.4
608.25
1.5
608.24
2.3
608.28
3.2
608.04
4.2
607.80
4.8
607.56
5.4
607.77
6.3
607.37
6.7
607.42
7.1
607.47
8.0
607.63
8.9
607.51
10.2
607.48
11.4
607.85
12.1
607.96
12.8
608.03
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
27.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
1
• 'ti,
��•�,����fi �.
' �:l.y.... _
r�11.9��*y�
�°tip ;, y�. �
err �� �����,i�: �' `
. .:
Stream Type C/E
609
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -12, Riffle
--------------------------------------------------
ea
0
608
w
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
607
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)

J.
i.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -13, Riffle
610
ea ----------------------------------------------------
0 609
Bankroll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/19/17
608
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
608.91
1.7
608.97
2.7
608.90
3.1
608.71
3.8
608.67
4.6
608.72
5.6
608.52
6.5
608.52
7.4
608.52
8.4
608.65
9.1
608.84
10.1
609.14
10.9
609.18
11.6
609.19
12.5
609.18
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.8
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
609.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
24.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

+
I,
r
rti.
r
..
Nip,
-,
:'t n
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
599
ea 598
0
W 597
----Bankroll
______________
____________________________
________
___-Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
596
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10
12
16
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Riffle
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.98
1.4
597.74
3.1
597.15
3.8
596.83
4.7
596.54
5.4
596.65
6.6
596.58
7.3
596.66
7.8
596.37
8.2
596.47
8.9
596.24
9.5
596.57
9.9
596.55
10.8
596.90
12.3
597.55
13.2
597.79
13.9
597.90
15.0
598.14
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.65
2.1
597.49
3.9
597.34
5.2
596.69
5.8
596.60
6.3
596.57
6.8
596.43
7.1
596.38
7.6
596.45
8.2
596.42
8.8
596.56
9.7
596.90
11.3
597.58
12.8
598.05
14.9
598.71
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
5.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
8.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
7
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.1
596.9
0.9
596.8
2.5
596.7
3.2
596.2
3.7
596.1
4.2
596.0
4.9
596.0
5.4
595.9
5.8
596.0
6.4
595.9
7.1
596.2
7.6
596.7
8.2
597.1
9.4
597.8
11.3
598.5
12.4
598.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type _MENNEELC/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
599
598
m
597
0
,�
-------------------------------------------
Banklbll
Flood Prone Area
596
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
595
MY-03 4/16ns
0 2 4 6 8 10 4
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.3
597.11
1.9
596.89
2.7
596.78
3.4
596.84
4.7
596.97
5.1
596.74
5.8
596.64
6.2
596.64
7.3
596.73
7.6
596.81
8.3
597.08
9.4
597.19
10.7
597.31
' 1 S
Is se y i
i
�•:.
I'd gar
�+ ►
�;•'9t i
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
598
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 597------------------------------------
--
- - Bankfull
w Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
596 MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
7.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Banlcfiill:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
33.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.21
1.3
597.06
2.1
597.00
2.7
596.84
3.3
597.02
4.1
597.11
4.7
596.81
5.4
596.78
6.5
596.73
7.0
596.98
8.0
597.39
8.7
597.58
9.7
597.58
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull-
0.2
W / D Ratio:
35.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
598
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
w
---------------------------------------------- ______
m
---------------------------------------
2
597
W
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
596
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8
10 12
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.14
2.0
599.91
3.9
599.68
5.0
599.36
6.0
599.18
6.6
599.01
7.2
599.08
7.7
599.17
8.6
599.28
9.3
599.26
10.2
599.16
10.9
599.18
11.5
599.11
12.3
599.31
13.0
599.42
13.8
599.90
14.2
599.98
15.5
600.11
16.7
600.10
{
r
'i i 1C
�• Y
•• _ `
Y . _
r,
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
601
------------------------------------------------------------
ea
600
0
------------------------------------------- _____________
W 599
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
598 MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 18
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.2
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Banlcfiill:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
7
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.2
1.4
600.2
2.5
600.0
3.4
599.8
4.4
599.7
5.2
599.5
6.0
599.3
6.7
599.2
7.2
599.1
7.7
599.1
8.3
599.0
8.9
598.9
9.6
598.9
10.4
598.9
10.9
599.0
11.6
599.1
11.9
599.0
12.6
599.9
13.7
600.1
15.4
600.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.8
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
IEV
Stream Type I C/E

s�
L
L.
-i •
r' t...- x5 yid.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
---------------------------------------------------------------
2 600
------------
-------------------------------
------- - - -- Bankroll
w
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
599
--03 4/16/18
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.02
1.8
599.98
3.7
599.85
4.5
599.76
5.2
599.53
5.6
599.31
6.3
599.23
7.4
599.38
8.9
599.38
10.3
599.22
11.2
599.38
12.0
599.55
12.7
599.72
13.6
599.99
14.6
599.88
15.6
600.17
16.5
600.19
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.4
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
7
UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
600.3
2.1
600.4
3.6
600.3
4.4
600.1
5.2
599.8
5.7
599.6
6.2
599.4
7.0
599.1
7.8
599.2
8.4
599.0
9.1
599.0
9.7
599.2
10.4
599.6
11.0
600.0
11.6
600.1
12.8
600.1
14.2
600.1
15.1
600.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
10.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
600.34
1.7
600.34
2.8
600.26
3.7
599.89
4.4
599.58
5.0
599.45
5.9
599.41
6.9
599.54
7.7
599.50
8.4
599.35
9.2
599.48
9.8
599.49
10.2
599.65
11.0
600.02
12.1
600.24
13.1
600.24
14.5
600.21
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.8
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
601
w
m
0 600
W
599 J,
0
Stream Type linnC/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
------------
Banklbll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)

i
•.
�;
....1
•stu; yy
:.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
602
w601 -----------------------------------------------------------
0
W 600
----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-024/20/17
599
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.65
1.3
600.54
2.7
600.50
4.2
600.26
4.9
599.86
5.6
599.56
6.2
599.86
6.8
599.95
7.0
599.89
7.5
599.60
8.2
599.69
9.3
599.81
9.8
599.89
10.7
599.74
11.2
600.09
11.9
600.19
12.7
600.27
13.2
600.55
14.1
600.64
15.3
600.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.0
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
21.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.97
1.4
600.90
3.0
600.93
4.1
600.74
4.8
600.36
5.6
600.10
6.5
600.05
7.3
600.16
7.7
600.06
8.4
600.06
9.3
600.05
9.9
600.11
10.8
600.06
11.7
600.30
12.8
600.36
13.5
600.55
14.0
600.78
14.8
600.69
15.8
600.78
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.0
Bankfull Width:
9.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.4
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
19.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
:.� u•; L.S.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.19
1.7
601.12
2.5
600.74
3.3
600.64
4.1
600.57
4.8
600.67
5.5
600.60
5.8
600.45
6.5
600.41
7.1
600.36
7.9
600.36
8.3
600.41
9.0
600.41
9.8
600.59
10.5
600.70
11.1
600.90
12.4
601.09
13.1
601.16
14.1
601.26
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
S ! I
1
'^-;; _ .•Y.�,, ,.r•.
•.i. _ 1.
�y'aixk�!:: _1-:'I�'.'.�2�s �;_ d_. ,sa •.� ., It �._ _ ...-.
� :�-'_��=a..✓.� }:
Stream Ty jNE C/E
602
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
-------------------------------------------------------------
m
2
601
_________________________________________
_
Bankfull
W
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
111-024/20/17
600
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)

Table 11A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 1
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
3.8
9.6
6.7
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
7.2
8.3
7.8
6.4
9.6
8.0
Flood rove Width (ft)
8
73
30
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.3
8
5.9
4.3
3
6.6
3.9
BF Mean Depth ft
0.8
1
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
8
15.1
10.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
11
19
15
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
2.6
9
6.4
9
14
11.3
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.8
1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
23
47
31
23
47
31
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
14
31
23
14
31
23
Meander Wavelength ft
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
47
94
66
47
94
66
Meander Width ratio
2.4
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
9
70
16
Riffle slope ft/ft
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
2.77%
6.47%
4.16%
0.01%
4.33%
2.23%
Pool length (ft)
=__
___
__=
4
23
9
Poolspacing ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
23
62
31
23
62
31
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Len ft
Sinuosity
1.02
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.37%
3.61 %
2.58%
0.50%
1.27%
3.35%
1.89%
BF slope (ft/ft)
==_
i
i
i ==_
i
i
i ==_
i
i
i ===
i
i
I
Rosgen Classification
CgI
I
I E
I
I
I E
I
I
I E/C
I
I
IE/C

Table 11B. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 2
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
(ft/ft)
3.8
9.6
6.7
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
7.2
8.3
7.8
4.8
8.6
7.2
Floodprone Width ft
8
73
30
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
90
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.3
8
5.9
4.3
1
4.2
2.3
BF Mean Depth ft
0.8
1
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.3
BF Max Depth ft
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8
15.1
10.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
12
32
22
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
2.6
9
6.4
11
19
13
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.8
1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
23
47
31
23
47
31
Radius of Curvature ft
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
14
31
23
14
31
23
Meander Wavelength ft
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
47
94
66
47
94
66
Meander Width ratio
2.4
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
9
23
14
Riffle slope ft/ft
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
2.77%
6.47%
4.16%
0.00%
5.24%
2.88%
Pool length ft
=__
___
__=
5
17
10
Poolspacing ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
23
62
31
23
62
31
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valle Len h ft
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
1.02
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.37%
3.61 %
2.58%
0.50%
1.27%
3.35%
3.01 %
BF slope
Rosgen Classification
Cg
E
E
E/C
If
E/C
Note: U T 2 is characterized by a spring seep, with a very small wa ershed. he cnannel was constructed with a smaller b nKTU11 Cross SectIona area o account or e
smaller stormwater pulses and controlled discharge. In addition, the lower reaches of the channel are low slope wetlands that elevate the width -to -depth ratio in post
construction measurements.

Table 11C. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 3
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
4.1
5
4.5
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
7.2
8.3
7.8
4.7
7
5.9
Flood rove Width (ft)
7
18
12
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
10
20
20
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.2
8
5.9
4.3
1.2
2.7
2.1
BF Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.1
1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
12.5
9.9
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
12
26
20
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
3.6
2.5
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
2.6
9
6.4
2
4
3.3
Bank Height Ratio
1
3
2
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
No pattern of riffles and
pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
23
47
31
23
47
31
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
14
31
23
14
31
23
Meander Wavelength ft
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
47
94
66
47
94
66
Meander Width ratio
2.4
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length ft
No pattern of riffles and
pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
8
24
14
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
2.77%
6.47%
4.16%
0.52%
2.54%
1.71%
Pool length (ft)
=__
___
__=
6
10
8
Poolspacing (ft)
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
23
62
31
23
62
31
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Len ft
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1.01
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.53%
2.58%
0.50%
1.27% -
3.35%
0.92%
BFslope (ft/ft)
___
___
___
===
i
i
Rosgen Classification
Eg
E
E
E/C
I
IE/C
Note: UT 3 is characterized by a pond in the headwaters; therefore, the channel was constructed with a smaller Bankfull Cross Sectional area than other tributaries
associated with the project.

Table 111). Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 4
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
4.8
11.7
8.3
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
8.7
10
9.4
8
10.9
8.5
Flood rove Width (ft)
8
70
39
15
25
18
150
150
150
70
200
150
50
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
6.3
8
5.9
6.3
3.5
5.6
4.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth ft
0.9
2
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
0.8
1.1
1
0.6
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7
23.4
12.4
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
16
22
19
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
11.5
4.9
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
7.5
21.3
16
5
6
6
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
2.4
1.8
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
28
56
38
28
56
38
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
17
38
28
17
38
28
Meander Wavelength ft
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
56
113
80
56
113
80
Meander Width ratio
2.4
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
12
35
16
Riffle sloe ft/ft
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
1.12%
2.60%
1.67%
0.61%
2.42%
1.28%
Pool length (ft)
=__
___
__=
14
42
22
Poolspacing ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
28
75
38
28
75
38
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.93%
2.58%
0.50%
0.93%
0.66%
BF sloe ft/ft
Rosgen Classification
Eg
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 11E. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs Travis Creek
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
30
51.7
41.4
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
25.7
29.6
27.7
25.2
30.3
26.7
Floodprone Width ft
68
160
122
15
25
18
150
150
150
200
300
250
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
54.9
8
5.9
54.9
41.3
73.9
51.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.8
1.4
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.9
2.1
2
1.6
2.4
2
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.3
4.1
3.7
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
2.7
3
2.8
2.3
3.4
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.7
47
32.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
12
16
13
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
5.3
3.2
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
7.2
10.8
9
5
6
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.1
1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles and
pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
83
166
ill
83
166
ill
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
55
ill
83
55
ill
83
Meander Wavelength (ft)
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
166
332
236
166
332
236
Meander Width ratio
2.4
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles and
pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
16
87
54
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
0.28%
0.64%
0.41%
0.00%
0.70%
0.19%
Pool length (ft)
=__
___
__=
27
70
43
Poolspacing ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
83
222
ill
83
222
ill
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Len ft
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1.05
1.2
1.22
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
NA
2.58%
0.50%
0.23%
0.10%
BF slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Fc
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 12A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (Downstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 2 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 3 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 4 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 5 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 6 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
26
26.7
26.4
27.3
25.2
26.2
26.3
28.3
33.7
33.2
35.4
39
25.5
27
26.5
28.4
26
26.7
26
25.7
27.3
27.7
26.8
28.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
41.3
40
40.1
40.1
47.5
47.4
47.9
47.9
58.7
55.8
57.2
57.2
47.2
44.6
43.8
43.8
61.4
58.1
52.3
52.3
54.9
50.6
50.3
50.3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1 1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
2
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.7
BE Max Depth (ft)F27.127.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
3.7
3.5
3.7
3.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
4
3.7
3.2
3.3
3
2.9
2.8
3
Width/Depth Ratio
17.4
18.6
13.4
14.5
14.4
16.7
----
----
----
----
13.8
16.3
16.0
18.4
----
----
----
----
13.6
15.2
14.3
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio
5.7
5.5
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.3
----
----
----
----
5.9
5.6
5.7
5.3
----
----
----
----
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.04
<1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.04
1.04
<1
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.2
28
26.4
27.5
27.3
29.5
34.8
34.4
36.4
40.2
26.6
28
27.5
29.6
27.6
28.2
27.3
26.9
28.7
29.1
27.9
30.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.7
Substrated50
(mm)----
----
----
----
---
---
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
Parameter
XS 7 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 8 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 9 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 10 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 11 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
25.9
27.7
25.7
25.1
28.1
28.5
28.6
28
29.3
29.1
29.7
27.8
38.6
38.6
39.1
37.5
30.3
29.8
30.5
30.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
60
45.8
44.9
44.9
64.6
57.4
58.3
58.3
65.9
63.1
60.8
60.8
100.1
91
87.5
87.5
73.9
66.6
69.6
69.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
1 1.7
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.9
2.8
2.5
3
3.3
3.1
3.1
1
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.8
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.3
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
12.2
14.2
14.0
13.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.4
13.3
13.4
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.00
1.06
1.06
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.5
29.1
26.8
26.2
29.5
29.7
29.8
29.8
30.6
30.3
30.8
29.4
40.2
40
40.4
39.1
31.8
31.4
32.1
32.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.0
2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.2
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
[ I
t:t
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
I ----
----
----
Table 12B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock Travis Creek (Upstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 12 Riffle (Travis Up)
XS 13 Pool (Travis Up)
XS 14 Riffle (Travis Up)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
29
29.6
29.7
31.3
26.9
26.9
27.8
27.8
32.8
32.3
31.9
33.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.7
66.4
67.9
67.9
64.0
50.3
51.9
48.2
104.5
92.4
94.6
94.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.7
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.8
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.5
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
13.2
13.0
14.4
----
----
----
----
10.295
11.29
10.76
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
5.1
5.1
4.8
----
----
----
----
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.03
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.4
30.8
30.9
32.5
2S.S
28.1
28.8
32.5
35.0
34.2
33.8
35.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.1
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.6
Substrate
d50 (mm)
---
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
---
---
----
----
---
---
---

Table 12C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-1 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 3 Pool (UT 1)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
9.3
9.2
9.7
9.1
8.8
9.3
9.2
10.2
8.4
8.4
9.3
9.5
9.3
9.7
9.3
10.2
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
4.7
4.4
4.4
4.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
6.7
5.6
6.4
6.4
6.2
5.5
5.7
5.7
6.6
5.9
5.8
5.8
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1
1
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
18.0
21.4
18.8
16.8
23.4
22.9
28.1
----
----
----
----
14.0
17.1
15.2
18.4
14.0
15.3
14.9
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.3
9.9
10.2
9.7
9.8
8.8
----
----
----
----
9.7
9.3
9.7
8.8
9.4
9.5
9.7
9.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
9.4
10
9.3
9
9.4
9.4
10.3
8.9
8.9
9.8
10
9.7
10
9.6
10.5
10
10
9.8
9.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 7 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 8 Pool (UT 1)
XS 9 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 10 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.9
7.5
6.7
6.9
7.5
7.2
7.3
6.7
7.8
8.7
7.2
6
7.9
7.2
7.6
6.7
7.6
7
6.9
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
1.9
2.2
2.2
3.9
2.4
2.4
2.4
5.7
4.1
3.6
3.6
3
4.1
1.6
1.6
4.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1
0.9
1
0.7
1.1
0.4
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
29.6
20.4
21.9
14.4
21.6
22.2
18.9
----
----
----
----
20.8
12.6
36.1
28.1
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
12.0
13.4
13.1
12.0
12.5
12.3
13.4
----
----
----
----
11.4
12.5
11.8
13.5
----
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.2
7.6
6.8
7
7.8
7.3
7.5
6.9
8.3
9.1
7.5
6.6
8
7.8
7.7
7
8
7.7
7.7
6.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
---
Parameter
XS 11 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 13 Pool (UT 1)
XS 14 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 15 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
7.4
7
7.8
8.4
8
7.4
6.4
7.3
8.6
8
8.3
8.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.3
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
6.5
4.3
4.7
4.7
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
4
3.3
2.4
2.4
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
1 0.4
0.4
0.5
1 0.4
0.4
1 0.4
0.8
0.5
1 0.6
1 0.6
1
0.5
1 0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
1 0.4
0.4
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.4
19.8
17.3
19.6
14.6
18.8
----
----
----
----
13.2
14.2
14.2
14.0
12.6
15.7
16.5
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.5
10.8
11.3
12.2
14.1
12.3
---
----
----
----
14.1
14.3
14.3
14.4
12.7
12.5
14.3
16.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.1
8.9
8.5
7.6
6.6
7.5
9.2
8.5
9.0
9.0
6.8
6.5
6.6
6.5
7.4
7.6
6.6
6.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
---
----
---
----
----
----
---

Table 12C continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-1 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 16 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 17 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 18 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 19 Pool (UT 1)
XS 20 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
BF Width (ft)
9
8.3
8.5
8.8
8.5
8.1
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.9
7.6
7.7
8.1
8.1
9.1
8.5
8.7
9.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
6.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.4
4.9
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.3
1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
26.5
25.8
27.6
18.5
18.2
14.8
14.5
14.4
15.2
12.5
13.5
----
----
----
----
15.6
16.4
15.4
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio
10.0
10.8
10.6
10.2
10.6
11.1
12.2
12.2
12.7
12.5
13.4
13.0
----
----
----
----
9.9
10.6
10.3
9.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.14
1.11
1.0
1.16
1.33
1.22
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.4
8.7
9.0
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.4
8.2
8.3
8.7
8.6
9.4
8.7
9.0
9.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
---
Parameter
XS 21 Pool (UT 1)
XS 22 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 23 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 24 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.3
8.2
9.7
8.4
7.2
7.5
7.3
6.4
7.6
6.8
7
7
8
7.7
7.6
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
9.3
5.9
5.4
5.4
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3
3
4
3.2
3.4
3.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.4
1.3
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
14.4
16.5
16.1
12.4
18.1
14.5
16.3
16.1
16.0
18.5
17.0
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
12.5
12.0
12.3
14.1
11.8
13.2
12.9
12.9
11.3
11.7
11.8
11.6
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.17
1.10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.5
9.2
10.4
10
7.5
7.8
7.5
6.8
9.3
7.0
7.2
7.4
9.3
7.8
7.8
8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84(mm)
----
----
---
----
----
----
----

Table 121). Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-2 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Pool (UT 2)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 3 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 6 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 7 Pool (UT 2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
BF Width (ft)
6.5
6.3
6.9
7.3
4.8
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.3
5.8
5.8
6.4
5.7
5.4
5.4
8.4
7.7
8.5
9.9
6.9
7
6.8
6.4
8.3
9.4
8.2
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.8
2.1
3.2
2.2
1
1.1
1
1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.2
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.3
1.4
1
1
5.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
23.0
28.5
30.3
32.3
19.1
20.1
28.0
26.9
41.0
36.1
32.4
33.0
22.8
21.2
24.9
33.2
20.7
35.0
46.2
40.5
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
18.8
16.1
16.4
16.2
15.8
17.0
15.5
15.6
14.1
15.8
16.7
16.7
10.7
11.7
10.6
9.1
13.0
12.9
13.2
14.1
----
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.9
6.5
7.2
7.4
4.9
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.4
6.0
5.9
6.5
5.7
5.5
5.5
8.6
7.9
8.6
10.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.4
8.8
9.5
8.4
8.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
---
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
-
---
Parameter
XS 8 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 9 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 10 Pool (UT 2)
XS 11 Pool (UT 2)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 13 Riffle (UT 2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.6
8.3
8.3
10.1
7.4
7.9
7.9
8.5
7.5
7.8
7.6
6.7
6.2
6.4
5.6
5.8
8.3
9.2
7.7
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.4
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
3.1
2.8
2.8
4.2
3.8
4.4
4.4
5.2
4
4
4
3.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.2
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
22.2
24.6
36.6
13.0
16.4
14.2
16.5
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
21.5
36.8
31.2
27.4
24.7
34.0
30.4
24.8
Entrenchment Ratio
10.5
10.8
10.8
8.9
12.2
11.4
11.4
10.5
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
10.8
9.8
11.7
12.5
12.5
11.8
12.2
13.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.8
8.5
8.6
10.3
7.7
8.1
8.2
8.5
8.1
8.2
8.0
7.2
6.6
6.6
5.8
6.1
8.6
9.3
8.0
7.4
7.3
7MO.20.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0Substrated50
(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
-d84
(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
--
-

Table 12E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-3 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 3 Pool (UT 3)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 3)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
6.5
6.9
6.7
7.2
4.7
5.2
5.2
5.1
5
5.4
5.2
5.7
7
6.8
6.9
7.5
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
11
11
11
20
8
8
8
----
----
----
----
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.9
1.9
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
BE Max Depth (ft)[6.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.7
18.7
21.8
11.6
16.9
14.2
13.9
----
----
----
----
22.3
24.3
28.0
33.7
23.4
28.5
28.0
35.4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1.6
1.5
4.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
----
----
----
----
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.1
6.9
7.5
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.7
5.8
5.7
6.2
7.1
6.9
7.0
7.7
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Substrate
d50 (mm)
---
d84 (mm)
---
Table 12F. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-4 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 2 Pool (UT 4)
XS 3 Riffle (UT
4)
XS 4 Pool (UT 4)
XS 5 Riffle (UT
4)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
8.3
9.4
8.8
9.1
8.5
9.1
9.5
9.2
8.6
8.7
8.4
9
8.5
10.6
10.7
10.5
8
8.3
7.8
7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
----
----
----
----
50
50
50
50
----
----
----
----
50
50
50
50
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
4.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
6.2
5.2
5.6
5.6
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.8
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.5
1
1.1
1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
1
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
26.8
23.5
25.2
----
----
----
----
17.2
22.3
20.2
23.2
----
----
----
----
14.9
16.8
16.0
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio
6.0
5.3
5.7
5.5
----
----
----
----
5.8
5.7
6.0
5.6
----
----
----
----
6.3
6.0
6.4
6.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.6
9.5
9.0
9.3
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.8
9.0
8.8
8.6
9.1
9.1
10.9
11.1
11.0
8.3
8.5
8.1
8.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
5.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
---
---
---
---
---
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 7 Riffle (UT
4)
XS 8 Riffle (UT
4)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BE Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
8.9
8.4
9.9
11.7
9.1
9.8
10.9
11.1
11
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
5.6
4.9
5
5
5.6
4.9
4.9
4.9
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
24.0
21.7
17.5
27.9
16.6
19
21.2
25.1
24.7
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.6
5.9
5.1
4.3
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4
9.0
9.0
8.9
10.2
11.9
9.4
10
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
---
---
---
---
---

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 13. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 13. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
37
110
276
145
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
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
Yes
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root
systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
No
Other:
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
8.0
16
a
6.0
i
4.0
3
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT-3
Year 4 (2019 Data)
F� F-� F-� F-� N N N N W W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 0 0 0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O
\ \ F4 N N 0 w N Ol 41 N W V w N F-� w F-� N N F-� w N A Fj NJ NJ ww N N Ol 41 N W \ \ \
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 F-� F-�
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
N
C
7
2.0 £
a
16
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo
Collection
(if available)
Wrack, laid-back vegetation, sediment, and standing
May 5, 2016
May 3, 2016
water observed in the floodplain after 1.55 inches of rain
1
documented* on May 3, 2016 at a nearby rain gauge.
October 13, 2016
September 28, 2016
2.05 inches of rain was recorded on September 28, 2016
at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of bank
October 13, 2016
October 8, 2016
after 3.05 inches of rain was recorded on October 8,
2
2016 at an onsite rain gauge.
June 15, 2017
April 25, 2017
4.66 inches of rain was recorded between April 23 and
25, 2017 at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid back vegetation observed in the
October 27, 2017
June 19, 2017
floodplain of Travis Creek after 1.93 inches of rain was
3
recorded on June 19, 2017 at an onsite rain gauge
October 24, 2018
September 17, 2018
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Florence on
--
September 15-17, 2018.
October 24, 2018
October 11, 2018
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Michael on October
--
11, 2018.
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred
October 16, 2019
July 7, 2019
after 1.82 inches of rain was recorded on July 7, 2019 at
an onsite rain gauge.
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred
October 16, 2019
July 23, 2019
after 1.35 inches of rain was recorded on July 23, 2019
at an onsite rain gauge.
November 21, 2019
October 22, 2019
Visual as well as onsite rain gauge data indicated that a
4
bankfull event occurred after 1.8 inches of rain fell
*The onsite rain gauge was installed on May 18, 2016, therefore rain data from a nearby Site (Abbey Lamm Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Site) was used to confirm this bankfull event.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

�*��LF'
� - r'
- �� •:fir._, '
.+,
* r,
7. '
w. Bankfull Photo 1:
Wrack, laid-back vegetation,
and sediment in
the floodplain of Travis Creek
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 3: Wrack and laid-back
vegetation around a cross-section marker in
the floodplain of Travis Creek
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
.IF—. 2
4
W
-6
W
m -8
10
C
'o -12
c7 -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 4 (2019 Data)
w w w w w � � � � to to to to to m m m m V V V V w w w w w io io io io N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O N
F� 00 N N lf1 FA FA N W FA N W V I--` N N lf1 l0 N W Ol N N \ \ \ \ \
\ \ Ln N W \ N W Ol W Ol \ \ a) W O \ W
h-A pp Ln \
W W F-� F-� F-� W F-� F-� F-� W F-� F-� F-� F-� W F-� F-� F-� W F-� F-� F-� W W F-� F-� F-� W 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-� l0
Date
Oul
2.5
c
N
2.0 ,
1.0
0.5

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
.°-. 2
-4
6
L -8
Y
3 -10
v
3 -12
° -14
c7
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 4 (2019 Data)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o 0 0 o h
I� W Ili Ili Ili lD I N W I--� I--� N W V I--� Ili Ili I--� I--� N N lD I--� N W Ol Ili N Ln \ \ \ \ \
\ \ U'7 IlilD \ N Ol \ O V A I--� \ A I--� 00 \ N lD Ol \ \ Ol W O W \ W O V A I--� m Ln
lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD I--� I--� I--� lD
Date
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
3
°
1.0
0.5
Q

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
IF
-4
-6
i
w -8
16
3 -10
-12
° -14
c7
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 4 (2019 Data)
WI\-� Ili IliLn F-A F-A IliW F\-� F-A Ili W V I\-` Ili Ili Ln F\-� N N W I\-� IliW W I\-� N N \ \ \ \ \
\ \ Ln N W \ N W Ol \ O V A I--` \ A h-A 00 \ N l0 Ol \ \ p1 w O \ w O V A I--` I--` N
N N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ N 0p Ln \
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-� l0
UJ UJ UJ
Date
Oul
2.5
c
2.0
3
O
1.0
0.5
a

Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year P
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
1
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/58 days
Yes/40 days
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
(25.1 percent)
(18 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/65 days
Yes/67 days
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(28.1 percent)
(31 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/46 days
No/14 days
(23.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(6.5 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5, 2016; therefore, the growing season for Year
1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17. It is expected that all gauges would meet success criteria at the beginning
of the growing season.
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX F
BENTHIC DATA
Results
Habitat Assessment Data Sheets
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

AXIOM, AYCOCK, ALAMACE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES 6/12/2019.
PAI ID NO
52708
52709
52710
STATION
UT-1
UT-2
UT-4
DATE
6/12/2019
6/12/2019
6/12/2019
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
NEMATODA
CG
1
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium sp.
6.6
FC
7
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Lymnaeidae
SC
Fossaria sp.
CG
2
Pseudosuccinea columella
7.7
CG
1
1
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta
CG
Tubificida
Tubificinae w.h.c.
2
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
CG
1
2
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Amphipoda
CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
7.2
CG
5
1
Isopoda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea sp.
8.4
CG
5
14
2
Decapoda
Cambaridae
1
Insecta
Collembola
Isotomidae
1
1
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
CG
Procloeon sp.
1.9
2
Caenidae
CG
Caenis latipennis
6.8
CG
23
Caenis sp.
6.8
CG
2
Odonata
Aeshnidae
P
Aeshna sp.
P
3
Ischnura sp.
9.5
9
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 3 AXIOM Aycock 2019cl

AXIOM, AYCOCK, ALAMACE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES 6/12/2019.
PAI ID NO
52708
52709
52710
STATION
UT-1
UT-2
UT-4
DATE
6/12/2019
6/12/2019
6/12/2019
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
Coenagrionidae
P
Argia sp.
8.3
P
3
Ischnura sp.
9.5
11
1
Cord ulegastridae
P
Cordulegaster sp.
5.7
P
1
Corduliidae
3
2
1
Hemiptera
Veliidae
P
Microvelia sp.
P
1
1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
P
Chauliodes pectinicornis
1
Chauliodes rastricornis
P
1
Sialidae
P
Sialis sp.
7
P
4
1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.
6.6
FC
1
Coleoptera
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sexmaculatus
8.4
2
Hydrophilidae
P
5
Helochares sp.
P
1
Paracymus sp.
CG
2
Tropisternus sp.
9.3
P
2
1
Staphylinidae
P
1
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
P
1
Chironomidae
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
1
1
Polypedilum flavum
5.7
SH
1
1
Polypedilum illinoense gp.
8.7
SH
5
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gp.
6.5
FC
1
Culicidae
FC
Anopheles sp.
8.6
FC
6
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha clavipes
6
Sciomyzidae
1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
84
60
12
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
23
18
11
PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 3 AXIOM Aycock 2019cl

AXIOM, AYCOCK, ALAMACE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES 6/12/2019.
PAIID NO
52708
52709
52710
STATION
UT-1
UT-2
UT-4
DATE
6/12/2019
6/12/2019
6/12/2019
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
EPT TAXA
3
1
0
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES
7.97
7.82
7.93
PAI, Inc. Page 3 of 3 AXIOM Aycock 2019cl

3/06 Revision 6
'j` Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Q
p I{ /
Cdol 't ` _ � Mountain/ Piedmont Streams 4
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ JTOTALSCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream 4 14 V4 J 6 ('Ve R Location/road: s O- 9 (Road Name 4 wl �G :- County Af9/[
Date 4t CC# 0l 0300a Basin 64/9e Per(- Subbasmi Q3—a©— �'
Observer((s)) I� P. 0 L Type of Study: ❑ Fish *enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 071 Longitude y
� `6aI I UT Ecoregion: ❑ MT $,P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 10 %Forest %Residential �G %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : kForest Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream i 7 Channel (at top of bank) 6' Stream Depth: (m) Avg • I Max
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90'
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions : OH* h JXNormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear (Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? WYES ONO Details WL 1 1(5 R f 1 ao„y Isj e—
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ 19
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: cod t
Oc) Pl-(W l- Photos: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital ❑35mm
Remarks: /"?54f-rd e L.atA/^e I Smmrl adox,5 4 A du,.,4 I-eg,4 paG/115-
39

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 9—
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks - u wtiC k4-.0 VVLA LL Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
GRocks %-Macrophytes A- Sticks and leafpacks L Snags and logs (L, Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
1
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
Itg
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
� p ct G i
� ,�
Subtotal 16
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line? or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 2040%..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
6
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
Remarks
1 L
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 0
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<301/o of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent............................................................................................................................................ 010
Subtotal
❑ Pool bottom boulder -cobble --hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk *Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40

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

Afc,vull
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the, observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined Py adding the results from the different metrics.
Oco}k
Stream LT 4 Jr VA-) C Tee Location/road: A -v c c.1i /Ld (Road Name 1County__&Q 01 14e-
Date l q06 l CC#05"�3000a Basin6oe Pea,,' Subbasin O 7� ©�— 0 ON
Observer(s)tftL_ Type of Study: ❑ Fish kBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude36� 1 Longitude 7�`�`a ($�3 Ecoregion: ❑ MT l P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/l Conductivity (corn.)—AS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: 10 %Forest _%Residential 0 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ftorest *griculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal "operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream r 3 Channel (at top of bank) i - / Stream Depth: (m) Avg Q'�Max
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) S '
Bank Angle: L ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton owth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: 1 ❑Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High JNormal ❑Low
Turbidity: Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes) , Good o ential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? DYES ONO Details 7ircv • J k1p4rr�.rl IM lko [D„rc.
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ [�
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ _ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... I�
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: ( d d ( J pr Ca Photos: ❑N ❑Y ❑ Digital 1335mm
Remarks: 40kv-du j )PSQ 1cAJivw it �C�^L. 5 d L Dot ( W/W li
a4 d ^a-3 Ftetv1 — ilai ..0 G0dJe_. a,%-aGr f)-CO- 4d Ke __ Itec,4o4
39

h(OGIT- 4T-0\
I. Channel Modification core
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
'�-- Rocks 1� Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks fi Snags and logs C Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
We
16
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
0
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks___
T Subtotal
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40%..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
11
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly 1 silt/ clay .....................................
1
1
I
f...........................................................
Remarks Q G 0 �) i1 C C �q „ oc t. u! f� C r/ f a 0 w P.y �r5 y
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30"/0 of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent............................................................................................................................................ 0 / O
Subtotal c
❑ Pool bottom boulder -cobble --bard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
40
Page Total

�ycoc k W7 a
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition; Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score
Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... Q—
12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14
7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10
D. riffles absent................................................................................................................. 0
3
C
Channel Slope: Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream
Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left
Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable �
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion..Q L'J
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems .....................................
6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...........................
5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .................
3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow..
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ...........................................
2 2
0 0 (�
Total
Remarks i
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... /71
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading................................................................................
f Remarks �✓< ltdwy c k1JLt/,VJ _lecre4 k e Oc,, V d!s Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: 4Trees 4Shrubs kGrasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
5 5
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
® 9
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4 4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3 3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2 2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
3 3
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2 2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
1 1
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
0 00
Remarks
Total
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE
41

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is dete ed by addink the results from the different metrics.
.. PO S � 6, o5v vv: [ [Pi
Stream 4r id I rQr/L 5 C1-P{1 \' L2ocationlroad: C155 i r W- � (Road Name �Srm7e )County_ � l l etw ko/te
Date G q06 ` 0 CC# 0-50300a � Basin Crwe Peg, —Subbasin �-��_
Observer(s) Q . D L- Type of Study:: ❑^ Fish YBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Longitude ? I. 7 a1 /6 j Ecoregion: ❑ MT I(P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperatures °C DO � mg/l Conductivity (corr.) 1 µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: G 0 %Forest %Residential f0 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : *orest *griculture []Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream L- 5 Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max r �J
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: `"1 ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90' indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 900
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ❑N LAY: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Bemi/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High ormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? q-YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnonnal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: Coo 1-0J9,cal -f Photos: ❑N ❑Y ❑ Digital ❑35mm
Remarks: ✓ R 4�t ltri5 bee.✓" (g, � � aVffq -e 12`' Of- ��-
{'1P� ii
--
1d�5 0� S�a<< �wtpkl'p��5 c �l�.eurrti Ve(OCt�i a/af krs4
39

I. Channel Modification Srore
A: channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal 7
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay(notpiles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant.
C— Rocks (_ Macrophytes k Sticks and leafpacks 'LSnags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
1
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
No types present .......................
17
0
13
9
5
16
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
_
Subtotal
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 2040%..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 2040%.........................................................................................................
i
11
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
2
1
Remarks
Subtotal A_
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence.
Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders
or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present
Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...............................................................................................................
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................
�Q
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...............................................................................................................
6
b. pools about the same size......................................................................................................
4
B. Pools absent............................................................................................................................................
0
Subtotal
❑ Pool bottom boulder -cobble --hard KBottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks %7
Page Total V
40

krdc'lf'q 7- K
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined rifle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... M 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. rifle not as wide as stream and rifle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0 1
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal 1,
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank
Rt. Bank
Score
Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3
3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2
2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0
0 L
6
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
re
1
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ....................................
7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................
0
Remarks
Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
FACE
Dominant vegetation: Trees J4 Shrubs Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field []Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score
Score
A. Riparian zone ntact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
5
5
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
3
3
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
1
1
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
0
0
Remarks _
_ Total
[/
Page Total C
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE
41

APPENDIX G
MISCELLANOUS
2019 Year 4 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Remedial Action Update March 3, 2017
NC DMS Contract #5791

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
ReplanlRrea 7 -'
Denary: 120 Va. In 0 97 ac - 250 Trees r Ac
2 new panted stems added m ve9 plot f 3 .a
14
Replanl Rrea 3'
D—ty: 25 Lees In .22 ec -71 trees r AC.
V�� I
Replant Area 2.
Density. 170 trees m 1.S ac - 172 bees r Ac. - r
3ne,v Warred stems addadmveg plp$i2b id .p,r �!
r � +s4� •_ac
1 of j if i
Replan[Area4.
Deniii 25 bees in 0
.284c 5d Trees+Ac. ®r
12 new pwled uems added 10 veg pole 10 r y 41
Replant Area 6
DensO; 75 trees.n 032 ac - M Trees r Ac
5 n" planted aems'added Io reg plot 5
Map of Replant Areas- green dots indicate approximate location of where photos were taken.
Replard Rrea S
DWSity: 1BO usesm0.92ae 200 heed IAc
4 new Wanted stems added to veS pots 8 8 9
2 nerr planted stems added to reg Pbt 2
RepL.4 Ae 7
Denary: 3t01rees In 1.55 ac - 200 Trees i Ac
5 nerr planlld stems added In veg piol 2
No new pAenled stems added to an plat I
Replant Area 8:
Density: 1501 tees In .57 saes- 260Vees I Ae.
RES70—ON SYSTEMS, LLG
n.1-MNEssr.swrcnl i Aycock Springs MiligaltonSite
GA'C 5.2116
xa_pG+. eC lrwN! 2016 Remedial Planting Plan
Fax aye*?; a�vz
Mqi +vaw1 .eV fsSrt
re Syimm

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
Photo 1: Looking SW. along Replant Area -1 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
Photo 2: Looking S. in Replant Area 2, just N. of veg. plot 14 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

6 i is 3i'
w f '.

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
Photo 5: Looking S. in Replant Area 5, N. of veg. plot 5 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

y,; '
stf��9jyu�a s �. 1
1
ll,
1.;.
'a _*av-`Seaa .�
ti s
s
E
FY L y

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
r
M
Photo 6 / 7: Live stake establishment on bank in Replant area 6
Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement - Update
N 3
3
' H,_znc Channel
. t:c�r �- 1 •: ti y t
Restored Channel
Substrate Replacement
ti, ` t
Area 2 --12 '
r
t y
_
Substrate Replacement
I
�r
p
r
_ t =
1 `
EN EWT2
STA , +75
'
6 6
-1
S
4.
1101 HAH, NC 27 a9]It •C SGALE:IIn -A2fl w
® RESTORATION SYSTEMS. LL _ Aycock Springs
YtALDATE: 4-3077
90 SITE',
Substrate replacement - 2-23-2017
PH 0NE: 919.7559A
FA%: 919]5592
­1.­ eESRI
u'y�p. .x<..w.,<wriuxri, >k.�o.er arwe Ceertlin eeya m
.w.K ,.�.:e.w... n•�,.n..�n.�:ew r. NAfl_1983_SP NG_FIPS_32W Ft.
Ay—L Springs, UT I, XS - 11, Rifnl .
.,r -------------------------------------------------------
eruer
---• Iive!l7mv Ton
—Ft1.00 wi6
—IM-0] lMP76
595
•] - 4 C 10 l2 kA
3,kv n
Aycock Springs, Ur 1, XS - 10, Pool
596
595
77—
---------------------------------------
594
W
---gam
—�--F1oo1R�e.4eea
� MY-00 Nfin fi
593
��m m mnsnfi
0 2
4 6 S 10 12 14
Station �,et)
Ayc"k Springs, UT 1,XS 9• RM%a
5gfi
593
--------------------
—MyA9us'IR
—NY-0! 1Mm76
593
V 3 4 6
1p i%
STAIicw (�[a'if
Map of Area — UT 1, XC 9, 10, 11

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
r
� q 'vS4 , k vs' •- ,
s�
w �
,y
a , Y i4s"
. a
- . , r • •V*�
Photo 1: Substrate loss, 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 2: Pool, upstream of 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9 (XC 10 in background)

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update
r
�s.
'! a
7 aDJ�p �
ax
3 0
Photo 3: Substrate replacement at UT 1, XC 9
Photo Date: 2-23-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update
{
I
y /Ilk
lot- Ailia
>hoto 3: Substrate loss, upstream riffle of XC 10 (pool)
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
03k '4 1
47

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update
,,�a. � � �,F i = ��I trwY�,: •'-i�Jlila' "I
h.�� yy In^+
tit,n 1 1
_� . _ s `� I �1 Fy -Al� ro'��• I �.. ��. .'il ff � �MM .. f,- Y1� 1'�'1: '
pp
� i I
rT
Photo 4: Substrate replaced, upstream riffle of XC 10 (pool)
—I�rZ.
Photo Date: 2-23-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
-----------------------
XC-11 ,r I y•: i1�7{. �' , } 5•
y
�XC-10
y r� : � `•
7 a�
"t .- '-`4" pfLa - •.t..k� "` is_' ti v.
i3
r I.,� } .. 9r?.�1�Y�1�� y�e• i dil i'- �: -i { i t
I' F
try S! F ,��`'a• � � 'e� � r'� �, � > �Ge/
�' r g � 4;." �. ea-i.;e�S�r �Sri�6�v�• � i rfr'1 r r .a r � �.„� rk Ski-�:�� � .r. .
'
- t ��r- I /r i + ! tl' < '-• �� r y.` ,:� '�a'Sr1,y - s�• •fit t�,
�• '. r
y r
�-. � • � �� �tv�4 � r� ! 't;� ��14; � ��r ' i4��y� ' , F "� �� Y`'r"g•!�;•-• ' •.:y .�� � �. ' ��` �'�
a�k
N !� ' Yv� �di� ✓ �,. tV^ }. F ��,y"��,��•c -,y�?- 'S� _' L; ��#*��`"` _� i"-:' .
�a��iv, r�rla 11�°"_y{'
=gyp
� `� •.k � C
r - _� � � �ar �_ -iL,� � �� � ,r� si� •�! + • �'' '•. off' � �. c i
-rift
Photo 5: post replacement overview

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
-46
J�►+. . .
�.4. XC-0g
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
.'Y
4,
-_ � .ray-
�'� I�
- � '
♦.
-
_
�
�. - �
_, .=ems.-. •
_ 1 '. t'. '� -
ti
g u� K
INM
�' 4`
.Oe w
t
Photo 6: UT-1 looking downstream from XC-11

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
PAI
1
d 7 ,
r
d
a. - .':. il_ 1.. �d.�il..J .�,i.. ..:t PAY _.. _.us: ..� ._I.._.fl%:.'! 1../.. .i ..'.Y .. ,•-� � ...6 :::�iid r- :8..1,u MV�.IL.drs ld%r,, c
��!-'�r
7�.i�►.. �� ,..ice ;i
Photo Date: 3-03-2017
Photo 7: XC-9 — Post 3-1-2017 0.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NC)'" 7 miles from Site

Aycock Springs -Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement- Update Photo Date: 3-03-2017
Photo 7: XC-10 - Post 3-1-2017 0.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NC)-7 miles from Site