20140335 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20201222

ID#* 20140335 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/22/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/22/2020
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_MY5_2020.pdf 14.44MB
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

YEAR 5 (2020) 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 03030002
Data Collection — May -October 2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
December 2020

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to Monitoring Year 5 (2020) DMS Comments
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS #96312)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 005791
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
1) Title Page
a) Please add the NCDWR Project Number: 20140335 and the USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2014-01711.
These items were added to the title page.
2) Appendix D
a) Please ensure that the Bank Height Ratio is being calculated using the bankfull elevation that generates
the MYO cross sectional area within the MY5 channel. It seems that the bankfull elevation is currently
being calculated using the MY2 bankfull area.
Corrected.
b) Please replace BHR value in the cross section summary data for pool features with NA.
The BHR values for pools were changed to "NA".
3) Appendix E
a) Groundwater Gauge Graphs — Please add the graphs, they were not included in the Appendix.
The gauge graphs were included with this submittal.
4) As required by contract, specifically RFP#16-005568 Addendum No. 1, IRS must submit an updated Monitoring
Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) good through Monitoring Year 6 (Task 12) to Jeff Jurek for his approval
before DMS approves this deliverable and the associated payment.
A Draft Year 6 MPPB was submitted via email to Jeff Jurek on 12/7, and approved 12/8. A final will be sent via
email once it is received from the bonding company.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Aycock Springs Year 5, 2020 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 5
• Beaver activity continues along Travis Creek. RS continues to work with the landowner on trapping
of beaver and removal of dams. Beaver activity has not affected site tributaries and the restoration
work along Travis Creek.
Streams
• Stream monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross -sections as compared to as -
built through year 3 monitoring data. NOTE — stream monitoring was not required in year 4 (2019).
Channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions outlined in the Mitigation Plan.
• Across the Site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. The remedial repair
to replace bed material along UT-1, completed in 2016/2017, remains stable and has naturalized.
• No other stream areas of concern were identified during Year 5 (2020) monitoring. Tables for annual
quantitative assessments are included in Appendix D.
Wetlands
• Three of three groundwater gauges met success for the Year 5 (2020) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data is in Appendix D.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1*
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5 (2020)
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2021)
(2022)
1
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/58 days
Yes/59 days
Yes/95 days
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
(25.1 percent)
(27 percent)
(41 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/65 days
Yes/66 days
Yes/71 days
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(28.1 percent)
(30 percent)
(30 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/46 days
No/14 days
Yes/34 days
(23.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(6.5 percent)
(14.5 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5th, 2016; therefore, the growing season for
Year 1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17th. It is expected that all gauges would meet success criteria at the
beginning of the growing season.
Vegetation
• Year 5 (2020) stem count measurements were performed in July 2020 and indicated an average of
375 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site. Eleven of the fourteen individual
vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone. When including naturally
recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and
American sycamore (Plantanus occidentahs), Plots 2, 8, and 13 were above success criteria.
• Five temporary vegetation transects were measured, and all met success criteria (average between
485 and 1012 stems per acre).
Year 5 (2020) vegetation data can be found in Appendix C; both permanent and temporary plot
locations are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).

Site Permitting/Monitoring 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
April 6th, 2016
April 13th, 2016
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 18th, 2016
October 13th, 2016
October 2016
December 2016
Supplemental Planting
--
--
--
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
April 19-20, 2017
July 25th, 2017
October 2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
April 16-17, 2018
July 19th, 2018
October 2018
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
October 2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
March 24th, 2020
July 7th, 2020
November 2020
December 2020
Site Maintenance Report (2020)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
06-01-2020
Cattail, Privet, Russian Olive, Rose
5-27-2020
08-18-2020
Beaver dams were found within the main
Cattail, Privet, Rose, Callery Pear, Russian
channel, trapping and removal plan initiated
Olive

YEAR 5 (2020) 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 03030002
Data Collection — May -October 2020
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
December 2020

Table of Contents
1.0
PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
2.0
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................
6
2.1
Streams..........................................................................................................................................7
2.2
Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................
7
2.3
Wetland Hydrology.......................................................................................................................
8
2.4
Biotic Community Change............................................................................................................
8
3.0
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN..........................................................................................................
9
3.1
Stream...........................................................................................................................................
9
3.2
Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................
9
4.0
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................10
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, and 5 Cross-section Plots
Table I Ia-I Ic. 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. MISCELLANEOUS
2016-2017 Remediation
2020 Year 5 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). Before 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, and forest
vegetation loss due to 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 primary 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
2020 Year 5 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
IL Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain 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,
providing gravel/cobble substrate, planting a woody riparian buffer, and
removing cattle
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
Dominated Streams
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation restoring
overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying compacted soils, and
planting woody vegetation
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Raising the stream bed elevation and rip compacted soils
Improve Water Qualliffimm
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,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, planting with
woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
retention, and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
Increase Energy Dissipation of
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, and planting
with woody vegetation
Restore Habitat
Restore In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
Restore Streamside Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Project construction was completed on April 6th, 2016, and planting was completed on April 8th, 2016. Site
activities included the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels, enhancement (Level II) of a
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 and 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.
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Stream Mitigation Type
Perennial Stream
(linear feet)
Intermittent Stream
(linear feet)
Ratio
Stream
Mitigation
Restoration
3147
90
1:1
3237
Restoration (see Notes below)"
122
1:5:1
81.3
Enhancement (Level I1)
657
--
2.5:1
262.8
TOTAL
3804
212
3581.1
Wetland Mitigation Type
Acreage
Ratio
Riparian Wetland
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.
* * Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for the 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. Before restoration activities, the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve
Section 301 violations of the Clean Water Act (Action ID: SAW-2014-00665). Stream reaches and wetland areas
associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
Further, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to the 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 (1.5:1). Onsite 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 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 table summarizes stream success criteria related to goals
and objectives.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
2020 Year 5 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 geornorphology
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
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
elevated 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 Streamside 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. 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.
2020 Year 5 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
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
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,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
Criteria
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Documentation of two overbank events in separate
monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore Habitat
Restore Streamside 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
17th — October 22nd (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the
Piedmont region; therefore, for this project, hydrologic wetland success will be determined using data from
February 1st - October 22nd 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.
2020 Year 5 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 17th*-October 22nd
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 28th, 2017
Bud burst and soil temperature of
March 6-October 22
2018 (Year 3)
44-F documented on March 6th,
(231 days)
23 days
2018
2019 (Year 4)
March 20th, 2019,**
March 20-October 22
21 days
(217 days)
2020 (Year 5)
March 2nd, 2020,**
March 2-October 22
23 days
(234 days)
2021 (Year 6)
-
-
-
2022 (Year 7)
-
-
-
*Gauges were installed on May 5th during year 1 (2016); therefore, April 17th was used as the start of the growing
season (MRCS).
**Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site and observed bud burst.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics
related to various project and monitoring elements' performance 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 the 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 31st of each
monitoring year data is collected.
2020 Year 5 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 of streams will include the 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 5 (2020) stream measurements were performed on February 7th and March 24th, 2020. As a whole,
monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross -sections compared to as -built and Year 3
(2018) data.
Before construction, 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
appears to have reduced and stabilized during Years 2-5 (2017-2020).
The year 1 (2016) measurements for cross -sections 9 and 10 on UT-1 showed stream bed erosion 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 the winter of 2016/2017 (see Section 3.0 and Appendix G). These repairs appear stable during Year 5
(2020) 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 5 (2020) 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. Tables for annual quantitative
assessments are included in Appendix D.
2.2 Vegetation
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CPS-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.
After planting was completed on April 8th, 2016, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting
methods and determine initial species composition and density. At this time, RS decided it was necessary to
implement a supplemental planting. 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 20th, 2016, which
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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 the location of planting and density is provided in Appendix G.
Year 5 (2020) stem count measurements were performed in July 2020 and indicated an average of 375 planted
stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site; therefore, the Site meets vegetation success criteria.
Eleven of the fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone. When
including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus
americana), and American sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), Plots 2, 8, and 13 were above success criteria.
Additionally, 5 temporary vegetation transects were measured, and all met success criteria. Year 5 (2020)
vegetation data can be found in Appendix C; both permanent and temporary plot locations are depicted in
Figure 2 (Appendix B).
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 the flow regime of the tributary. Approximate locations of
gauges are depicted in 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 onsite rain gauge will document
rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions, and floodplain
crest gauges will confirm overbank flooding events. All three groundwater gauges were successful in year 5
(2020) (Appendix E).
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 pre -construction baseline data with post -construction restored
conditions.
Two benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations were established within restoration reaches. Post -
restoration collections will occur in the approximate location of the pre -restoration 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. Pre -project biological sampling occurred on June 26th, 2014; post -project monitoring will occur in
June of monitoring years 2-5.
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 5 (2020) occurred on June 18th,
2020. 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.
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan was developed 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, the bed material placed during construction was too fine. All of UT-1 used bed
material harvested onsite. The material used along this stream reach 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, began to
develop at the top of the riffle. Suitable sized channel bed material was installed on February 23rd, 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 occurred. 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.
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 the identified areas during the week of December
20th, 2016. Species planted included Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occiendentalis,
Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra.
Treatment of invasive plant species has occurred each year of monitoring throughout the Site. RS will
continue to treat and monitor the Site for invasive species as needed throughout the monitoring period.
Previous treatments on the small patch of cattails at the confluence of UT-1 and UT-2 were successful.
However, in the Spring of 2019, cattail regeneration was noted within the area of concern. Treatment was
conducted in July 2019, and the area continues to be monitored. Additional dense herbaceous vegetation
within UT-2, was noted during the spring of 2019. The vegetation appeared to be impeding the natural
hydrology of the stream. Treatment was conducted in July 2019.
Beaver activity has been observed along Travis Creek during Year 5 (2020). Restorations Systems continues
to work with the landowner to trap beaver, however, several dams remain onsite within Travis Creek. The
current beaver dam locations are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
During Year 5 (2020), it was observed that several upland areas around UT-1 and UT-2 had sparse herbacious
vegetation. Four target areas were identified, totaling approximately 0.8 acres. Restoration Systems applied
500 pounds lime, 200 pounds fertilizer, and 14 pounds seed mix across these areas. The seed mix species are
listed in the following table, and the target areas are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2020 Seed Mix Species List
Blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata)
Blue Vervain (Verbena hastata)
Plains Coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria)
Cosmos (Cosmos spp.)
Purple Coneflower (Echinacea purpurea)
Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera)
Purple Top (Tridens flavus)
Crimsoneyed Rosemallow (Hibiscus moscheutos)
Red Top (Agrostis gigantea)
Deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum)
Roundhead lespedeza (Lespedeza capitata)
Korean Lespedeza (Kummerowia striata)
Sensitive Pea (Chamaecrista nictitans)
Lanceleaf Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
Showy Ticktrefoil (Desmodium canadense)
Marsh Blazing Star (Liatris spicata)
Slender lespedeza (Lespedeza virginica)
Narrowleaf Sunflower (Helianthus angustifolius)
Virginia Wildrye (Elymus virginicus)
Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)
Winter Bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis)
Oxeye Sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides)
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, SD. 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. 401/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=
864e 82e 8-725c-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.
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 10
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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.
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 11
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
2020 Year 5 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 r
z +.'y - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
__i_I , \, ,r �. rr' \ 0 D - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
i -„! , 0- Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) Axiom Fnw(inn:�n!rz,.Inc,
m - Travel north for 0.7 mile and Site is on the right
+ .n Prepared for
ILL
C
CL
^�lr'/ 0, r .�. - _.-.•.:_..
c ,pyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, iel
ubedI.. c - {
[ . " 87
=I - r r Project:
{:, !
------=-- n --
Maur"fainent`., .�-
" Y Aycock Springs
Stream and
aitamehaw ! i�.r .." Wetland
87 w... 1,...
.Lakeview I �.- -- _ Mitigation
4 - Site
- - "
�Idorgantown;� ._
"•;Z icy -�.
Aycock Springs
t .V -
-' - -" ; Y-
!,.. .. - Graham Stream and Wetland d ! Y�I. 1 ?.
. r Alamance County, NC
i — Mitigation Site �.�;
:. Title:
36.127271 N
�5� I �' '�-79.525214 W J.
-.L;i" _ Project
Cane Creel: � rf"� 'I i - � _ ��i•_ - , .L'' � � ' �� --1 � - - - --- �.. �.ti,�' ��e
5y Mountains Sa a' a' a.. -- - .-----
a - _ Location
L?' ! ..: � �•:Is_ir: f�r: `' °Z -' ..I i. � � • � •^ i - • G i = l� •rti � •�i ... •] - _,f,. �1~ L_r r�t;C �!+r•- •� • ' -
7-1
i 't— � Notes:
_ .� _ - '�J �' •-; _ - � I;�" d. _.` • n _r Jx-ii, Background Imagery sources
Copyright.02014 DeLorme, �Y -_ 'GIBSONVILLE �= `� .� r
,'�+'- 4 ' (provided by ESRI Data and
100 Maps):
�`j -ry - - �,1 - "gym — '�'L i• r•a' r 1. Physical Map of the United
r I
States (2009) created by the
_� , A3 !. '_ ?�' •+ 114.. U.S. Park Service (upper inset).
- L� �...; �j( . ,; �.�: � , •- �~ .: -` ��` r_ - _ � -= 2. Delorme World Basemap
digital mapping (2010, lower
{N f.t BURL'INGTON I: inset).
3. Burlington, NC 1980
Lake Burlington, NC (1969),
Gibsonville, NC (1970), and
� K e Ossipee,NC(1970)7.5-
�1i { ;l L ry " ° • .tC.. _ ,t_" ice- r +� ► �" i-.. I - - _ 7 { minute topographic
quadrangles provided by the
�..
U.S. Geological Survey.
_ � '.— •' � ^�,• I _" �• _ ter:• I ` 'r - -;•• •—.,., _ �
WHITSETT`
Aly
_ , :�`� ` +- ,.... .� • _:.. - ram'- - - -
_
70 yf" ['aE:�•FifLJ,�1f.�I'C�1\
-- - -, ". � •- _ .. . �� � _ � - '� � �.� Drawn b SGD
- = I ,; . _ - s / f Date: May 2016
Legend - ,I _ _
. I ; . :.. • '. Scale: As Shown
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 1; �_ ,_ "", c3 1, + , a " �' Project No.: 14-006
--I County lines I +
FIGURE
Miles
Cnpyrig •f-© 0.13 Nation I-�eLogr p'f iCc o iet i=pub d'

Table 1. Proiect Components and Mitization Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Nonriparian Wetland
Restoration
Enhancement
Re-establishment
Re-establishment
3237
344.1
0.5
--
Projects Components
Existing Linear
Priority
Restoration/
Restoration
Mitigation
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Ratio
Credits
Comment
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
UT 1 Station 10+04 to 23+21
1173
PI
Restoration
1
1:1
1293
241f of UT 1 is located outside of
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
UT 3 Station 10+00 to 11+22
147
PI
Restoration
122
1.5:1
81.3
channel is in a violation area and is
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
41306 7__
1:1
306
channel is in a violation area and is not
credit generating
Travis Creek
578-20=
The upper 20 linear feet of Travis
Station 10+00 to 15+78
578
EII
558
2.5:1
223.2
Creek is within a powerline easement
and is not credit generating
Travis Creek
274
PHRestoration
209
1:1
209
Station 15+78 to 17+87
Travis Creek
Station 17+87 to 18+86
99
Ell
99
2.5:1
39.6
Travis Creek
936
PI
Restoration
664
1:1
664
Station 23+71 to 30+35
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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 II)
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.
* * * Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to the 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. Onsite 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.
* * * * Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for the 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. Before 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).
2020 Year 5 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 Revortin2 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
--
--
--
Apri16, 2016
Planting
--
--
--
April 8, 2016
As -Built Documentation
April 6th, 2016
April 13th, 2016
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 18th,
2016
October 13th,
2016
October 2016
December 2016
Supplemental Planting
--
--
--
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
April 19-20, 2017
July 25th, 2017
October 2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
April 16-17, 2018
July 19th, 2018
October 2018
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
October 2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
March 24th, 2020
July 7th, 2020
November 2020
December 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
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Project Information
Project Name
Aycock Springs Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
15
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
36.127271°N, 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 Fc 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
1 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%
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
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
Resolved
CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
--
NA
2020 Year 5 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
2020 Year 5 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. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
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%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
9
9
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
3
120
96%
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
120
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
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Ve etation
I Ve etation
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
100%
100%
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%
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/o

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
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Ve etation
I Ve etation
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
100%
100%
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%
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/o

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
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Ve etation
I Ve etation
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
100%
100%
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%
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/o

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
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Ve etation
I Ve etation
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
100%
100%
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%
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/o

Table 6
Planted Acreage'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Aycock Springs
11.9
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polvaons
Combined
Acrea a
% Of
Planted
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
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.

2020107; 07
��„� ��
- --��� - .- - �.-•r
'.,r-_r .ems• .r �
- • ��-�:
lip

Aycock Springs
MY-05 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (continued)
Taken July 2020
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
MY-05 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (continued)
Taken July 2020
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

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
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
MY 5 (2020)
Planted Stems
MY 4 (2020)
All Stems
Tract Mean
1
Yes
769
809
2
No*
243
728
3
Yes
283
607
4
Yes
364
2833
5
Yes
405
890
6
Yes
607
728
7
Yes
526
809
8
No*
243
526
78.6%
9
Yes
283
647
10
Yes
324
728
11
Yes
364
607
12
Yes
364
445
13
No*
121
405
14
Yes
364
728
Total =
375
820
*These plots did not meet success criteria based on planted stems only; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) these plots were above success criteria.
2020 Year 5 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
7/13/2020 12:50
database name
RS-A cock 2020.mdb
database location
S:\Business\Pro'ects\14\14-006 Aycock Springs Detailed\2020 YEAR-05\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.
Dama e 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 th(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
areas m
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
14
2020 Year 5 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 (MY5 2020)
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
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
4
4
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
5
1
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
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
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
11
5
1
1
56
1
1
7
2
3
1
1
4
1
1
6
1
1
5
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
31
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
I
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
1
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
191
191
20
61
61
18
71
7
15
9
9
70
101
101
22
15
15
18
13
13
20
6
6
13
7
71
16
8
8
18
1
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
0.02
41
41
4
31
31
51
41
41
81
41
41
6
5
51
7
31
31
5
7
71
9
51
51
7
71
71
8
4
41
7
768.9
768.9
809.4
242.8
242.8
728.4
283.3
283.3
607
364.2
364.2
2833
404.7
404.71
890.3
6071
6071728.41526.11526.11809.41
242.8
242 81
526 1128331
283 31
647.5
323.7
323.71
728.4
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

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems (continued)
Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0011
14.006-01-0012
14.006-01-0013
14.006-01-0014
MY5 (2020)
MY4 (2019)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (20 6)
MYO (2016)
PnoLS
FP-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1
9
2
9
5
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
8
4
2
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
111
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
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
45
45
45
48
48
49
46
46
46
49
49
49
52
52
52
57
57
57
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
6
2
3
3
6
12
12
117
13
13
80
13
13
36
10
10
31
5
5
13
3
3
5
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
5
6
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
9
7
7
16
7
7
10
7
7
9
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
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
10
10
10
7
7
7
5
5
5
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
2
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
16
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
18
18
18
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
14
14
14
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
1
1
2
2
2
6
3
3
3
7
7
7
11
11
11
62
62
62
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
2
2
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
Ulmus alata
Iwinged elm
Tree
2
2
Ulmus americans
JAmerican elm
Tree
1
2
1
4
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
9
9
15
9
9
11
3
3
10
9
9
18
130
130
284
134
134
229
128
128
158
131
131
171
115
115
141
205
205
216
1
1
1
1
14
14
14
14
14
14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
61
61
9
6
61
6
31
31
8
41
4
6
181
181
23
161
16
20
151
151
16
171
171
23
151
15
20
141
141
16
364.21
364.21
607
364.2
364.21
445.2
121.4
121.4
404.7
364.2
364.2
728.4
375.81
375.81
820.9
387.31
387.31
662
3701
3701456.71
378.71
378.71
494.31
332.41
332.4
407.61
592.61592.61
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

Table 10. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data — November 5th, 2020
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Temporary
Plot 1
4m x 25m
1800
Temporary
Plot 2
4m x 25m
1600
Temporary
Plot 3
4m x 25m
1500
Temporary
Plot 4
4m x 25m
1900
Temporary
Plot 5
4m x 25m
1800
Acer ne undo
Boxelder
Tree
3
1
Betula ni ra
River birch
Tree
1
2
Car inus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
5
Celtis laevi ata
Sugarberry
Tree
3
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
5
3
7
34
9
Li uidambar stryraciflua
Sweet um
Tree
1
Pinus taeda
Loblolly pine
Tree
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
4
1
2
uercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
uercus ni ra
Water oak
Tree
3
1
uercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
3
2
1
1
2
uercus rubra
Northern red oak
Tree
2
1
3
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub
3
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
Tree
1
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
2
Stem Count
Size (Arcs)
Size (Acres)
Species count
Stems per acre
21
12
15
46
25
1
1
1
1
1
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
5
5
6
9
8
1 850.2
1 485.8
1 607.3
1 1862.3
1 1012.1
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX D.
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Table I Ia-I Ie. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a-12f. Monitoring Data
2020 Year 5 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:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.67
6.0
595.23
8.1
595.13
10.5
594.35
12.2
593.42
15.8
591.99
17.8
592.00
19.9
592.36
22.0
592.61
22.6
592.93
24.1
593.01
26.4
593.03
27.9
593.32
31.8
593.44
35.1
593.91
39.2
594.80
42.8
594.92
46.0
595.49
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
41.3
Bankfull Width:
28.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Low Bank Height:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
19.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.07
Stream Type m=Amj C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
598
597
-----------------------------------------------------------------
596
Bankfull MY-00
595
----B-kfuu
594
/
----Flood Prone Area
W
MY-oo 4/6n6
593
MY-ollonsns
592
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MY-053/24/2020
0
Station (feet)
e TOB MY-05
Note: Sediment deposition appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.20
2.8
595.06
5.0
594.38
6.5
593.39
7.5
593.40
8.3
593.32
9.1
592.67
10.4
592.23
12.6
592.15
14.3
592.28
15.4
592.25
16.1
592.61
17.3
592.63
18.8
592.84
21.6
592.58
23.0
592.39
26.2
594.38
27.2
594.64
30.7
594.93
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
47.5
Bankfull Width:
27.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.8
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Low Bank Height:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
16.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS
- 2, Riffle
599
598
--------------------------------------------------------------
597
Bankfuu MY-00
596
0
595
- - - - Bankfuu
594
Flood Prone Area
MY-oo aims
W
593
MY-ollonsns
592
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4.16.18
591
0 5 10 15
20 25
MY-053/24/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
E
fig:
^k
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
--- - - -� - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bankroll MY-00
595
- - - - Bankroll
R
w594
----Flood Prone Area
O
MY-00 4/6/16
593
W
MY-0110/18/16
592
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
591
MY-05 3/24/2020
0 5 10
15 20
25 30 35
0
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
3.8
595.3
11.8
594.8
15.3
594.5
16.8
594.0
18.5
594.0
20.1
593.7
21.8
593.1
24.0
592.E
26.3
592.2
27.8
592.1
29.5
591.7
30.7
591.5
31.8
591.4
32.8
592.9
34.5
593.7
36.4
594.5
39.0
594.9
41.9
595.3
45.1
595.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
58.7
Bankfull Width:
43.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.0
Low Bank Height:
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
,..:. .
-
ti
_�
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
599
________________
-----------------------------------
598
597
596
BankfuuMY-oo
o___________________________________________________,
Bankfull
595
W
--- Flood Prone Area
594
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
593
MY-02 4/20/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5
10 15 20 25
Mr-05 3/24/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Note: Sediment deposition appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.02
2.0
595.25
4.7
594.73
5.5
594.13
6.2
593.39
7.4
593.04
9.2
593.04
12.5
592.93
13.7
592.64
14.7
592.62
15.4
592.87
16.2
593.67
17.8
594.09
19.8
594.19
22.0
594.21
24.1
594.11
25.2
594.42
26.6
594.87
28.3
595.10
30.2
595.21
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
47.2
Bankfull Width:
29.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.E
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Low Bank Height:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
-
1l
-
_
;.
7�
3
ss .
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS
- 5, Pool
596
----- - ---------------------------------------------------
595
Bankfull MY-00
w 594
Bankfull
O
Flood Prone Area
593
MY-oo4/sns
W
MY-ollonsns
592
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
591
0 5
10
15 20
MY-05 3/24/2020
25 5
Station (feet)
n
TOB MY-05
Note: Sediment Deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
3.4
595.5
6.0
595.0
7.5
594.5
8.7
594.1
9.7
593.7
10.4
592.9
11.8
592.3
13.2
592.1
15.5
592.2
17.5
592.3
20.3
592.5
22.6
592.E
24.1
592.9
25.0
593.2
25.4
593.5
26.3
593.8
29.4
594.8
30.9
595.2
32.5
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.E
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
61.4
Bankfull Width:
32.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Low Bank Height:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.03
2.8
595.88
4.9
595.33
7.0
594.80
9.1
594.77
11.2
594.81
11.8
593.99
13.1
593.78
14.1
593.29
17.4
593.30
18.8
593.46
20.7
593.16
21.5
593.17
22.8
593.15
24.1
593.48
25.1
593.97
26.1
594.94
27.9
595.63
30.8
596.65
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
54.9
Bankfull Width:
29.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.4
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.1
Low Bank Height:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
16.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.0
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Stream Type § C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -
6, Riffle
600
599
--------------------------------------------------------------
598
597
Bankfull MY-00
- - - - Bankfuu
0
596
-------------------------------------------------------
Flood Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
W595
594
MY-01 10/18/16
593
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
592
0 5 10 15 20
25
MY-05 3/24/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
3.0
596.1
4.9
595.7
6.9
595.7
8.2
595.5
9.8
594.7
10.7
594.1
11.3
593.2
12.8
592.8
14.9
592.7
16.7
592.8
19.1
592.7
21.2
592.8
22.5
592.6
23.7
592.7
24.8
592.9
25.3
593.2
26.7
594.1
27.4
595.1
29.4
595.7
32.0
595.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
60.0
Bankfull Width:
28.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Low Bank Height:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596
- ------------ -------------------- ------------------- ---
TOB MY-05
595
----Bankfnu
w
594
Flood Prone Area
0
MY-00 4/6/16
593
MY-ollonsns
W
592
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
591
0 5 10 15 20 25
MY-05 3/24/2020
35
Station (feet)
n Bankfull MY-00
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:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.61
2.4
596.29
3.5
595.57
5.1
595.20
6.1
594.36
7.4
593.61
8.5
593.09
10.4
593.02
11.7
592.63
13.4
592.68
15.0
593.00
16.8
593.09
19.5
593.33
20.8
593.56
21.7
594.32
22.5
594.55
24.5
594.72
26.3
595.05
27.4
595.15
28.8
595.72
31.3
596.6
32.8
596.9
34.3
597.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
64.6
Bankfull Width:
28.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.1
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Low Bank Height:
3.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
601
600
---------------• -----------------------------------------
599
598
597
BankruuMY-00
Flood Prone Area
0JL-
596
MY-oo 4/6n6
W
595
MY-01 10/18/16
594
MY-02 4/20n7
593
MY-03 9/16/18
592
MY-05 3/24/2020
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.5
4.6
596.0
7.0
595.6
8.3
594.5
9.8
593.2
13.5
592.5
16.9
592.4
19.9
592.1
22.0
592.1
23.8
592.3
25.2
592.9
25.8
594.4
26.8
595.1
29.3
595.9
32.8
596.2
35.7
596.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
65.9
Bankfull Width:
27.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.0
Low Bank Height:
4.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
598
597
Bankfull MY-00
596
595
Bankfuu
_ _ _ _ Flood Prone Area
0
594
MY-004/6/16
w 593
MY-0110/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
592
My-03 4/16/18
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 3
MY-05 3/24/2020
Station (feet)
o ro6 MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.4
4.8
596.9
8.0
596.4
9.6
596.1
11.1
596.0
13.1
595.9
14.7
595.8
17.1
595.5
18.2
595.0
19.6
594.9
20.9
594.8
21.5
594.4
22.4
593.6
24.2
593.4
26.3
593.2
28.8
592.7
30.6
592.5
32.0
592.3
32.7
592.3
33.8
592.3
34.7
592.6
35.7
593.2
36.6
594.0
37.7
595.0
38.9
595.7
40.6
596.5
43.3
597.1
47.9
597.7
51.8
598.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
100.1
Bankfull Width:
43.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
5.0
Low Bank Height:
5.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
599
598
____________________________________________ Bankfull MY-00
597
0000
Ib
Bankfuu
596
0
_ _ _ _ Flood Prone Area
595
k MY-004/6/16
w 594
MY-0110/18/16
593
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
592
MY-05 3/24/2020
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet) n TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
r..
i
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
602
601
600
599
Bankfuu MY-00
m
598
Bankfuu
0 597 -� - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N
Flood Prone Area
596
W
MY-oo 4/sns
595
MY-ollonsns
594
MY-o2 4/2on�
593
MY-03 4/16/18
592
0 5 10
15 20 25 30
MY-02 3/24/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.60
2.9
597.21
4.7
596.61
6.9
596.42
8.3
596.05
9.3
595.52
10.9
594.96
11.4
594.22
12.5
593.35
13.9
593.27
15.5
593.22
17.1
593.05
18.8
593.24
20.6
593.21
22.3
593.22
23.4
593.50
24.2
593.92
25.2
594.18
26.8
594.37
28.3
594.94
29.3
595.1
30.9
595.0
32.0
595.0
33.0
595.5
35.1
595.9
36.6
596.8
39.3
596.9
42.4
597.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
73.9
Bankfull Width:
34.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.8
Low Bank Height:
3.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
W / D Ratio:
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.01

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.51
3.1
598.37
4.7
598.36
8.4
597.56
10.4
596.96
12.2
596.16
13.4
595.73
14.7
594.91
16.6
594.25
18.4
594.19
19.9
594.10
21.6
594.00
24.6
594.21
26.2
594.74
27.4
595.37
28.6
595.84
30.1
596.35
32.3
596.77
34.5
597.22
36.3
597.95
38.4
598.5
39.6
598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
68.7
Bankfull Width:
30.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.0
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.0
Low Bank Height:
4.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.02
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.7
2.3
597.5
3.5
597.2
5.2
596.4
6.8
596.2
8.4
595.6
8.6
595.2
9.6
594.3
11.1
594.1
13.1
594.0
15.3
594.2
17.0
594.2
18.4
594.3
19.2
594.4
20.0
595.5
21.0
595.6
21.7
596.2
22.6
596.5
23.2
596.8
24.1
597.3
25.5
597.4
28.0
597.2
30.3
598.0
30.4
597.9
32.8
598.4
35.0
598.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
64.0
Bankfull Width:
30.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.0
Low Bank Height:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
600
599
-
B-kfull MY-00
598
B-kfnu
Flood Prone Area
597
0
596
MY-004/6/16
w 595
MY-0110/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
594
MY-03 4/16/18
593
MY-05 3/24/20
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
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:
3/24/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.4
599.27
1.1
599.06
2.1
598.71
3.7
598.12
5.0
597.78
7.0
597.18
7.8
596.98
8.5
596.79
9.3
596.18
10.2
595.50
10.7
595.07
12.8
594.77
14.2
594.62
15.2
594.68
17.0
594.82
18.9
594.87
21.0
595.09
22.0
595.42
23.0
595.81
24.6
595.67
25.8
595.7
26.7
596.2
28.0
596.4
28.9
596.5
30.3
597.4
31.9
598.1
32.8
598.3
33.6
599.1
35.1
599.4
37.0
599.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
104.5
Bankfull Width:
36.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
604.3
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.8
Low Bank Height:
4.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
W / D Ratio:
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream T e C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
605
604
-----------------------------------------------------------------
603
602
601
Bankroll MY-00
- Bankroll
----Flood Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
MY-ollonsns
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 9/16/18
MY-02 3/24/2020
o TOB
600
0 599
598
-------------------------------------------------------
W597
596
595
594
593
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
593
----------------------------------------------------------------
592
o--- -------------------------------------------
-------------
Bankfull MY-00
W591
----Bankfnu
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 � MY-05 2/7/2020 r16
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.40
1.0
591.53
2.2
591.37
3.3
591.21
4.4
590.95
5.5
590.74
6.5
590.84
7.4
590.64
8.8
590.80
9.6
590.95
10.3
591.27
11.1
591.55
12.2
591.71
13.2
591.70
14.4
591.68
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
22.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
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:
4.6
Bankfull Width:
12.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
36.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.0
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
1
i
K
Stream Type C/E
h
w
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
593
592
------------------------------------------------------------
o---
--------------------------------------------
Bankfull MY-00
W591
----Bankfuu
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 9/19/17
590
MY-03 9/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10
12
16
MY-05 2/7/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
n.s
6:
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
593
�592---------- ---------------------
0
Bankfull MY-00
>
591
Bankfull
w
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
16
n4Y_o5 2/7/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
592.2
1.1
592.2
2.2
592.2
3.3
591.8
4.4
591.4
4.8
590.7
6.1
590.5
7.1
590.6
8.1
590.9
9.1
591.1
10.1
591.5
10.9
591.7
11.7
591.9
13.0
592.0
14.3
592.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.7
Bankfull Width:
8.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
594
593 ----------------------------------------------------------------
0 592
Bankfull MY-00
Bankfull
591
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
MY-03 9/16/18
0 2
4 6 8 10
14
MY-06 2/7/2020
Station (feet)
, TOB
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.00
0.8
591.97
2.0
591.68
2.9
591.53
3.9
591.37
5.2
591.33
6.0
591.16
6.9
591.00
7.7
590.96
8.6
591.02
9.4
591.45
10.3
591.93
11.4
592.18
12.7
592.28
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.2
Bankfull Width:
10.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
18.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
594
-------------------------------------------------------------
593
0 592
�
,
Bankfull MY-00
w
Bankfull
= Flood Prone Area
591
MY-oo aims
MY-01 10/1s/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
MY-os 4nsns
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
MY-05 2�7�2020 16
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.38
1.0
592.44
1.8
592.25
3.0
592.05
4.0
591.74
4.8
591.60
5.8
591.71
6.7
591.37
7.4
591.23
8.6
591.16
9.4
591.51
10.2
591.75
11.4
592.10
12.4
592.35
13.8
592.31
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.6
Bankfull Width:
11.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
20.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.01

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
594
---------------------------------------------------------
593
.+ ---------------------------------------------
0
Bankfull MY-00
W 592
- Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10//18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
591
MY-03 9/16/18
0 2
4 6 8 10
14
MY-05 2/7/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.81
1.0
592.82
1.7
592.83
2.5
592.61
2.9
592.43
3.7
592.20
4.6
592.22
5.3
592.31
5.8
592.49
6.7
592.44
7.6
592.30
8.2
592.48
9.3
592.72
10.3
592.71
11.4
592.61
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
11.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
36.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.9
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
595
----------------------------------------------------------
594
0
�
_
Bankfull MY-00
- - - - - - -
W
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -jam
Bankfull
593
���----
Flood Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
593.16
1.0
593.12
2.0
592.97
2.8
592.91
3.4
592.85
3.5
592.85
4.0
592.65
5.0
592.42
5.9
592.29
6.9
592.47
7.7
592.81
8.6
593.09
9.5
593.25
10.5
593.28
11.6
593.16
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.9
Bankfull Width:
9.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
0.8
593.2
1.9
593.3
2.8
593.3
3.5
592.9
4.0
592.5
4.9
592.5
5.7
592.3
6.8
592.3
7.3
592.7
7.9
593.0
8.6
593.3
9.6
593.4
10.3
593.5
11.2
593.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.7
Bankfull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type I C/E
4
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
Stream Type C/F
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
596
------------------------------------
-----------
595
w-------------------------------------
0
Bankfull MY-00
4?
W
BankM
594
Flood Rene Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
593
Mr-0s
0 2
4 6 8
10 MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT
1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added b hand in this reach.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.81
1.0
594.82
2.2
594.65
2.8
594.68
3.3
594.42
4.3
594.30
5.4
594.05
6.3
594.13
7.0
594.47
7.8
594.66
8.6
594.83
9.5
594.86
10.1
594.87
10.9
594.81
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
9.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.E
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
30.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
595.8
1.0
595.6
1.9
595.4
3.0
595.3
3.8
594.5
5.0
593.6
5.9
593.0
7.2
593.2
8.5
593.6
8.9
595.5
10.0
595.7
11.1
595.8
12.2
595.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.7
Bankfull Width:
4.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
597
596
w 595
o________________
594
W
593
592 I F
0 2
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
4 6 8
Station (feet)
Bankfull MY-00
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
10 MY-05 2n/2020 14
n TOB MY-05
Note: Sediment mobilization during storm events has occurred; however, latteral stability has not been compromised. No
problems are expected to result from pool deepening.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
..'•
` 1
'" .
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -11,
Riffle
598
597 -----------------------------------------------------------
0
Bankfull MY-00
----Bankfuu
W 596
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
595
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.05
1.3
596.13
2.5
595.85
3.2
595.50
3.8
595.16
4.9
595.10
5.4
595.30
6.2
595.54
6.9
595.54
7.8
595.63
8.7
595.97
9.7
596.19
10.9
596.20
11.7
596.24
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.9
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.03

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
ai..
_ `=r *R
?l3'
fir:
fw
y
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS
-12, Riffle
599
------------------------------------------------------------------
598
-----------------------------------------
Bankfiill MY-00
W 597
----Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
596
MY-03 9/16/18
0 2
4
6
8 12
MY-05 2n/2020
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
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:
597.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.03

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
r..
::
,.
-r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
599
--------------------------------------
598
----------
B., Mon MY 00
O-----
B.,WWI
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
W 597
MY-0o 4/6/I6
MY 01 12/18/16
596
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-08 4/16/,8
0 2
4 6 8 10
-012/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
° TOB MY-05
Note: Point bar development appears stable through year 5 monitoring.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
598.3
0.8
598.2
1.8
598.0
2.6
597.9
3.8
597.8
4.5
597.7
5.2
597.7
5.7
597.5
6.1
597.1
6.5
597.0
7.0
596.8
7.6
596.7
8.1
596.8
8.4
597.1
9.1
597.8
9.9
598.1
10.6
598.1
11.9
598.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.5
Bankfull Width:
11.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.30
1.2
598.34
2.1
598.19
3.1
597.93
3.5
597.71
4.2
597.55
5.2
597.61
5.9
597.62
6.8
597.62
7.3
597.86
8.0
598.29
9.1
598.49
10.3
598.48
11.3
598.42
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.1
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
r
st` '� rrw:•
��
1...
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS - 15, Riffle
603
---------------------------------------------------------
602
----------
------------------------------
B.M dI MY DO
W
Bel
601
----- Flood Prone Area
MY 00 4/6/16
600
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
III 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10
� MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
A
TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 15, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
601.99
1.3
602.01
2.5
601.75
3.2
601.46
3.9
601.31
4.7
601.26
5.5
601.23
6.2
601.01
6.9
600.84
7.7
600.86
8.1
600.82
8.6
601.47
9.4
601.52
9.5
601.51
10.5
601.61
11.5
601.73
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 16, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
602.20
1.1
602.22
2.2
602.03
2.7
602.08
2.9
602.08
3.4
601.86
4.2
601.58
5.5
601.73
6.7
601.54
6.8
601.51
7.9
601.69
8.9
601.70
10.0
601.98
10.9
602.22
11.9
602.33
12.9
602.32
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
602.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.6
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
603.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
27.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 16, Riffle
604
603------------------ -----------------------------------------
0
Bay„ MY-0o
_B.&HI
MY-00 4/0/I6
MY0
1
,0/, S/16
MY-02 41MU
601�-MIOY-,030 2 4 6 8 1Station (feet)
Note: Sediment transport appears to be natural and has stabilized during years 1-5 monitoring.
No problems appear to be occuring in this reach.
14

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 17, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
603.81
1.2
603.76
2.3
603.62
3.3
603.52
4.1
603.28
5.2
603.02
5.9
602.79
6.5
602.42
7.7
602.41
8.2
602.44
9.6
602.70
10.3
603.14
11.4
603.37
12.5
603.47
13.7
603.47
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
603.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.9
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
604.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.3
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
p,
f
Imo
Oil!
41
fir..
��.-�• ;'
N$
f
:f1i1V..•'r
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -
17, Riffle
605
604
..................---------------------------------------
0
Ba�l MY-0o
W
603
___ -- Flood Prone Area
MY.41W16
MY-01 10/mm
MY-02 4111111
602
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8
10 12
MY-05 2n/2020
16
Station (feet)
A T°B MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
i.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
608
607
0 606
-Bar kfi�1 MY-06
W-----
�l�a »ore yea
605
MY 00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
604
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-08 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8 10
�MY-052/70152020 4
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
606.14
1.1
606.14
1.9
606.12
2.7
605.88
3.3
605.64
3.8
605.49
4.3
604.44
5.2
604.80
5.8
604.76
6.0
605.00
6.4
605.59
7.4
605.53
8.6
605.60
9.3
605.91
10.4
606.44
11.6
606.64
12.6
606.63
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
6.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
607.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.01

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
f
.�. f.l
!
�A
` !h
- -1• �, e
�t
`
'W-.4
.,.t'Ia�.,.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
608
607
w
o
- Ba�11 MYoo
----- Barik0fl1
W606
-----FloW>,o-A-
MY-00 4/6/1s
-my-01 10/18/16
605
1-01 4/19/17
MYA3 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10
12
MY 05 zn/z0z0 16
Station (feet)
TOB MY 05
Note: Point bar development appears stable through year 5 monitoring.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
607.3
1.1
607.4
2.0
607.1
2.8
607.0
3.8
606.7
4.7
606.6
5.5
606.6
6.4
606.3
7.2
605.8
8.2
605.6
9.1
605.5
9.7
605.6
10.1
606.4
11.0
606.8
11.7
607.1
12.7
607.5
13.7
607.6
15.1
607.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.5
Bankfull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
s
k A-
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
609
-----------------------------------------------------------
608
o____ _____________________________________
--- -
--_
-----
-B-IdWI MY 00
----- Baru<r�n
.�?
W 607
--Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
606
MY 0, 10/18/16
MY-01 4111111
MY-MY4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
MY 05 zn/z0z0 16
Station (feet)
T°B MY 05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
607.48
1.0
607.45
1.9
607.43
2.7
607.52
3.7
607.17
4.3
607.12
4.8
606.89
5.9
606.68
6.7
606.66
7.5
606.70
8.2
606.93
9.1
607.01
9.9
606.90
10.7
607.03
11.9
607.54
13.7
607.86
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.3
Bankfull Width:
11.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
26.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
i�
w
tl�J
x
..
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
611
610
m
w
- Baru<r�dl MY-oo
0 609
Prone Area
ti-----Flood
w
MY 06 4�6�,6
608
MY-0, ,0nw'/
607
MY 02 4111W
MY-03 4116M
0 2 4
6 8 10 12
14 � MY-05 2nreo20
18
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Note: Point bar development appears stable through year 5 monitoring.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
609.9
1.0
609.8
2.2
609.6
3.1
609.6
3.9
609.6
5.0
609.3
5.8
609.1
6.7
607.8
7.7
607.7
8.4
607.9
8.9
609.0
9.9
609.1
10.7
609.2
11.7
609.5
13.0
609.6
14.1
609.7
15.6
609.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
609.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.3
Bankfull Width:
15.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
e
m
hJiT'i
•FT•
�4.
r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
613 -------------------------------------------------------------
0 611
--------------------------
Baru<r�d1 MYoo
a�
w
----- Baru<r�d1
--- -- Flood Prone Area
610
MY.4/6/I6
MY-01 1 .",
609
MY 02 4/1s/17
MY-0304/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
A TOBMY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
611.44
1.2
611.49
2.0
611.36
2.7
611.26
3.4
611.19
4.4
610.99
5.2
610.91
6.0
610.63
6.6
610.33
7.8
610.07
8.3
610.58
9.0
611.15
9.7
611.38
10.6
611.45
11.4
611.45
12.2
611.54
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
611.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
612.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
I /l�
i.
/z
l
a •3ri•
r.v
',1 .,
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS
- 23, Riffle
614
------------------------------------------------------------
613
o-----------
.�
- - --------------------------
- -
B-IdWI MY-00
W 612
-----Flood Po -
MY Area
-00 4/6/16
611
-my-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
612.90
1.2
612.82
2.4
612.60
3.4
612.26
4.2
612.06
4.8
612.17
5.6
612.01
6.5
611.83
7.5
611.67
8.3
611.81
8.7
612.23
9.6
612.51
10.2
612.71
12.0
612.59
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
612.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
613.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
15.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
613.33
1.3
613.31
2.3
613.17
3.3
613.05
4.1
612.77
4.5
612.71
5.2
612.58
6.2
612.54
7.0
612.60
7.6
612.87
8.4
613.00
9.4
613.10
10.4
613.24
11.5
613.36
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
613.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
614.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
31.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
F
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS
- 24, Riffle
615
614
---------------------------------------------------------
0
Ba�� MYoo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
-----B.WW1
a�
W613
-----FloWPo­ A-
/
MY-00 4/6tl6
MY-01 10/m8
MY-02 41MU
612
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8
10
MS-052n/2020
14
Station (feet)
° TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
-
._
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
594
---------------------------------------------------------
�
BankCull MY-00
----- BankCull
0 593
----- Flood Prone Area
ti
w
MY-W 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
MY-05 2/7/202° 12
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.4
1.2
593.5
2.2
593.3
2.8
593.0
3.6
592.8
4.4
592.8
5.5
592.8
6.1
593.1
7.1
593.2
8.3
593.5
9.4
593.5
10.4
593.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.E
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
10.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
y
r .--
. .
s
Station
Elevation
1.0
594.06
2.0
594.15
a�.
`
2.8
593.97
f -
3.5
593.78
4.5
593.84
5.6
6.6
593.69'`
593.82Height:
7.7
594.06
9.0
594.27
10.1
594.21
11.0
594.19
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
595
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
---------
- Bankf a MY-00
--- -- Bank6,u
�
W
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
594
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
MY-05 2/7/2ozo 12
Station (feet)
o 1 MY-os
Note: Elevated BHR is the
result of minimal downcutting in a very small channel.
No instability issues were
observed in this reach.
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
5.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at BankfulL•
0.3
Low Bank
0.4
Mean Depth at BankfulL•
0.2
W / D Ratio:
25.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
17.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.09

Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
ti
.. .. - .�' .'. 'y 2
i .. .
r.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
596
0 595
BankCull MY-00
v
w ----- Fl- Prone Area
MY-.4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-. 4/11/11
594 MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 MY-05 2n/z020 12
Station (feet) A TOB MY-05
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.82
1.5
594.80
2.3
594.66
3.3
594.58
4.0
594.37
4.8
594.38
5.5
594.53
6.3
594.53
7.1
594.67
8.5
594.84
9.7
595.00
10.8
594.89
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
40.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
r.
'1
r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
596.0
595.5 ------ --------------------------------------------------------
i
0
arumv-oo
-------
>
���������
------
----- Bank6,u
W
595.0
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
594.5
MY-03 4/11118
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-05 2/7/2026 14
Station (feet)
TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
595.35
1.4
595.44
2.5
595.35
3.3
595.34
4.0
595.14
4.5
594.98
5.3
594.86
6.1
594.97
6.9
595.00
7.8
594.97
8.7
595.28
9.9
595.40
11.1
595.41
12.5
595.34
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
4.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Low Bank Height:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
22.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
19.3
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
A
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -
5, Riffle
598
0 597
----
- Bankfull MY-00
�
w
----- Bankfull
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-. 4/11/11
596
MY-os 4/16/18
0 2
4
6
8
MY-05 2n2o 12
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.23
1.1
597.25
2.1
596.98
3.0
596.91
3.8
596.76
4.6
596.58
5.2
596.52
5.8
596.35
6.7
596.43
7.5
596.60
8.5
596.88
9.5
597.12
11.4
597.08
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.1
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.9
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
27.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.02

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.97
1.2
597.97
2.0
597.94
2.7
597.70
3.3
597.66
4.1
597.49
4.7
597.41
5.3
597.56
6.1
597.67
7.0
597.64
8.1
597.78
9.3
597.89
10.5
597.87
11.4
597.85
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
9.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
41.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.1
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Stream Type C/E
I "I,
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -
6, Riffle
599
-------------------------------------------------------------------
m
0
598
----------------------------
- BznkfuuMY -oo
- - - - - Bankfull
w
----- I,- Prone Area
MY-IX14/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
597
MY-03 4/16/18
0
2 4 6
8
MY-os 2/7/2020 12
Station (feet)
rOB Mr-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
,.f
�Y
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
-------------------------------------
Bankfoll MY-00
0 598
-----Bank II
----- Flood Prone Area
ti
f�
MY-IX14/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
597
MY-03 4/16/48
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-05 2/7/2020 14
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
1.0
598.4
2.0
598.2
3.2
597.9
4.1
597.6
4.7
597.5
5.6
597.3
6.1
597.4
6.8
597.7
7.6
597.9
8.4
597.8
9.7
598.0
11.0
598.2
11.8
598.3
12.6
598.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.1
Bankfull Width:
10.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Y
r-'
f
t:
�.;
y:..
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
603
602 -----------------------------------------------------------
o
Bankfull MY-oo
--- -- Banke,u
W
601
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-06 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-. 4/0/11
600
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-os 2/"020 14
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.36
1.2
601.34
2.4
601.16
3.3
601.08
4.0
600.99
4.6
600.97
5.2
600.84
5.8
600.73
6.4
600.83
7.2
600.90
8.1
600.89
8.8
600.91
9.7
601.13
10.7
601.47
11.7
601.55
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
10.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
30.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Ik
i
Station
Elevation
0.0
604.57
0.8
604.84
2.4
604.37
3.5
604.13
[ =:.r'y
4.2
604.05Depth-
�ww
v
.
5.1
604.02Height:
5.9
604.02
1r �
6.9
604.07
8.6
604.59
10.3
604.77
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -
9, Riffle
606
-------------------------------------------------------------
605
0
Bankroll MY-66
>
W
- - - -- Bankfull
604
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
603
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6
8
� MY-05 2/7/2oz6 12
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.2
Bankfull Width:
9.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.09

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
�.
y.
F
��-
` .:"
-�:..
P
F
Stream Type
C/E
11.6
606.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.5
1.2
605.5
2.1
605.4
2.9
605.2
3.7
605.1
4.5
604.7
5.4
604.6
6.3
604.6
7.1
604.7
7.8
604.9
8.7
605.1
10.0
605.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.E
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.2
Bankfull Width:
9.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
607
606
k6,u My-oo
aan------------
o
----- Bankfull
-- Flood Prone Area
605
MY-00 4/6/16
W
MY-Ol 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
604
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8
10
� My-os 2/727o
14
Station (feet)
o roe My-os

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
ya .
..
f
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 11, Pool
607
m
-----�_
------�----------------------
BankCull MY-00
0 606
-----BanHull
----- Flood Prone Area
ti
f�
MY-IX14/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
605
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
- MY-05 2/7/2020 12
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 11, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
606.2
1.1
606.2
1.9
606.1
2.7
605.9
3.2
605.7
3.7
605.4
4.3
605.2
5.1
605.4
5.9
605.5
6.7
605.6
7.6
605.8
8.6
606.1
9.6
606.3
10.6
606.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
7.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
1
{'
�L
Pf
r
,.
`I
- .'+ •,
Stream Type
C/F
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS
- 12, Riffle
609
608--------------
--------------------------------------
Bankfull MY-00
>
--�
-- Bankfull
�
w
--� -- Flaod Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-. 4/11/11
607
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10
. MY-05 znrmz6 14
Station (feet)
A
TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.4
608.28
1.6
608.28
2.6
608.27
3.3
608.04
4.1
607.78
4.9
607.66
5.9
607.48
6.8
607.45
7.6
607.55
8.4
607.62
9.3
607.64
10.3
607.75
11.3
607.87
12.3
608.01
13.1
608.12
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.E
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
26.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
7
:1
ti
1�
:z
•'�n�
a
it .,';a'_
:�.-:
y�A'
_ N-
.. 1s..
T
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
610
----------------------------------------------------
0
Bankf 11 MY-00
609
----- Bankfull
---------
- -------------------------
-- ------
-
w
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
608
MY-. 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-os zn2ozn 14
Station (feet)
o roB My-0s
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
608.87
1.1
608.91
1.9
608.92
2.6
608.79
3.5
608.52
4.5
608.50
5.3
608.48
6.4
608.42
7.3
608.47
8.4
608.52
9.2
608.66
9.9
609.05
10.6
609.12
11.6
609.15
12.6
609.09
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.1
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
609.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Low Bank Height:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
24.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.6
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
y.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
599
598
O
----- Bank II
W 597
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
596
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
MY-05 2/7/2020 16
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.01
1.7
597.68
2.8
597.27
4.1
596.93
5.1
596.63
5.8
596.57
6.6
596.61
7.4
596.61
8.1
596.34
9.3
596.30
9.7
596.54
10.5
596.81
11.8
597.30
12.5
597.49
13.8
597.81
14.4
598.13
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.7
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.7
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
599
598
������������������������������� ������
Bankroll MY-00
--- -- Banke,u
�
W
597
-----Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
596
MY-. 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8 10 12
� MY-05 2/7/2020 16
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.58
2.2
597.47
3.7
597.32
4.8
596.89
5.7
596.57
6.1
596.58
6.6
596.31
7.4
596.39
9.1
596.40
9.3
596.75
10.2
597.16
11.5
597.72
13.4
598.26
15.0
598.57
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
4.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
8.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
12.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
�v
+�
"..•
is L.x; ...k.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
599
598
Baafull MY-00
0 597
""' Ba'u<6'11
------------------------
---------------
----- Flood Prone Area
wMY-00
4/6/16
596
MY-01 .18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
595
0 2
4
6 8 10
4
�T.B
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
596.9
1.3
596.8
2.1
596.7
2.6
596.6
3.6
596.0
3.9
596.0
4.8
596.1
5.4
595.9
6.2
595.9
6.9
596.0
7.3
596.3
7.6
596.8
8.2
597.1
9.2
597.6
9.9
597.9
11.1
598.2
12.5
598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

i
y,
Station
Elevation
0.3
597.10
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.26
1.0
597.11
2.0
596.91
2.7
596.77
3.5
597.00
4.2
597.00
4.4
596.93
5.1
596.80
5.5
596.88
6.4
596.89
7.1
597.05
7.9
597.43
8.7
597.62
9.7
597.64
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
6.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.4
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Low Bank Height:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
33.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Fw�Ri �:�rii�i4 fir• '. �� .�'• -• ���15.:,� s� r.�9�4'i!'.•,',,•.:�:wrA'�'
Stream Type I C/E
598
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS -
5, Riffle
---------------------------------------------
--------
m
°0
33ankenu My-oo
597
RI
- - - - - Bankfull
w-
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
596
MY-03 4/16/18
0
2 4 6
8
� MY-os 2/72020 12
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-05

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
fr .
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
601
_____________________________________________________________________
600
m
------------
______________________________
-------------
2
B-kfullMY-00
-----B-kfull
^�+
W 599
----- Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
598
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
f MY-05 2/7/2020
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 a zoB MY-05H8
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.18
1.3
600.03
2.2
599.86
4.1
599.62
5.2
599.61
5.5
599.30
6.3
599.13
6.8
599.02
7.9
599.23
8.1
599.23
9.1
599.25
10.0
599.20
11.0
599.24
12.2
599.35
13.3
599.49
14.0
599.82
15.2
600.07
17.1
600.11
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.4
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
27.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.19

Site
ock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
4, XS - 2, Pool
T2/7/2020
Feature
l
Date:
Field Crew:
kinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.2
1.6
600.2
2.4
600.0
3.6
599.8
4.9
599.7
6.2
599.4
7.2
599.2
8.0
599.1
9.0
598.9
10.0
598.9
11.0
599.0
12.0
599.1
12.6
599.7
13.0
599.8
14.3
600.0
16.0
600.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Bankfull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio•
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
599.95
2.4
599.88
4.3
599.71
5.3
599.66
5.9
599.38
6.7
599.31
6.9
599.31
7.8
599.25
8.9
599.23
9.8
599.38
10.5
599.44
11.7
599.54
12.4
599.71
12.9
599.90
14.2
600.12
15.6
600.14
16.6
600.20
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
12.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.6
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
33.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.2
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
___________________________________________________________________
m
2
600
_ ----------------------------------
B-kfullMY-00
tiw
-----Bavkf ll
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
599
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14
___m_ MY-os 2/--0
18
Station (feet)
a TOB MY-os

Site
ock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
T2/7/2020
s'
e�.�i�dll S•e�..�l�e�b
-�
.Ki'A�A
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
601
-------------------------------------------
600
m
m
BavkfullMY-00
p
----- Bavkfull
CS
\
----Flood Rove Area
MY-004/6/16
W599
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
598
MY-034/16/18
MY-05 2/7,2020
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 n Tos MY-05 18
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
4, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
l
Date:
Field Crew:
kinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
600.3
1.6
600.3
3.2
600.3
4.5
600.1
5.5
599.7
6.0
599.2
6.6
599.1
7.2
599.1
8.1
599.2
9.0
599.4
9.4
599.5
10.6
599.6
11.8
599.9
12.7
600.1
13.9
600.1
15.3
600.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.2
Bankfull Width:
11.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
��-
Y`.
Stream Type C/F
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
602
601 _________________________________________________________________
0
BavkfullMY-00
d--------------------------------95
����-Bavkfull
W 600
__ --Flood Prove Area
MY-M 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
599
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/19
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 } MY-0s 2/7/2020 16
Station (feet)
a TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
600.33
1.9
600.30
3.0
600.14
3.6
599.94
4.9
599.68
5.3
599.44
6.4
599.47
7.2
599.46
7.8
599.40
8.9
599.33
9.5
599.50
10.1
599.80
11.6
600.16
12.5
600.23
13.5
600.23
14.4
600.27
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.0
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
z r`�
A'.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock
Springs, UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
602
601
°
-----------------------------
---------
a
d
Bavkfull MY-00
W 600
---- Baukfull
---- Flood Rove Area
MY-00 4/6/16
599
MY-01 10/1V16
MY-02 4/20/17
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 MY-034/16/H 18
Station (feet)
f Series7
p TOB MY-05
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.69
2.2
600.50
3.2
600.48
4.5
600.12
5.4
599.83
6.2
599.91
7.8
599.83
8.5
599.88
9.6
599.99
10.3
600.08
11.6
600.13
12.6
600.47
15.5
600.62
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.0
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.10

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
� •' '4. •+,::.
- -u �"fit f
�
.. .
I'
fi
_ ,.:.,.:.• jai
L
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS -
7, Riffle
602
....................
___________-------------------------------
601
----- -----------------------------
0
B-kfuIt Y-00
600
- - - -- Bavkfull
- - - - Flood Rove Area
MY-00 4/6/16
599
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03L4/16/l:.0
2 4
6
8 10
12
1 MY-018
Station (feet)
A TOB M
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.99
3.1
601.06
4.2
600.90
4.9
600.51
5.1
600.51
6.1
600.34
7.1
600.22
7.9
600.12
8.7
600.29
9.9
600.04
11.1
600.02
12.2
600.34
13.2
600.53
13.7
600.73
15.7
600.76
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
11.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.7
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
23.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.4
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/7/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.19
1.3
600.99
2.2
600.84
3.4
600.77
4.9
600.75
5.1
600.28
6.3
600.26
7.2
600.35
8.0
600.37
9.0
600.43
9.9
600.55
10.7
600.84
11.8
601.10
13.1
601.32
14.1
601.31
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
11.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.0
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
24.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.07
S
r, ..
^�•�' -fir::. - -. . �..
Stream Type C/E

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 Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (h)
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
Floodprone Width ft
8
73
30
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
90
BF Cross Sectional Area 112
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 (11)
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
Pool spacing 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 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%
1.89%
BF slope ft/ft
Rosgen Classification
Cg
E
E
E/C
E/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
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
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
16.5E
8.9
19.4
13.2
14
31
23
14
31
23
Meander Wavelength (ft)
44
68.4
31
74
47.8
47
94
66
47
94
66
Meander Width ratio
2.4
E4.7
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
Pool spacing, 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 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 ft/ft
Rosgen Classification
Cg
E
E
E/C
E/C
Note: UT 2 is characterized by a spring/seep, with a very small watershed. The channel was constructed with a smaller Bankfull Cross Sectional area to account for the
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
Floodprone Width ft
7
18
12
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
10
20
20
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
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 1.4
1
1 2.3
1.7
0.7
0.9
1 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
Pool spacing 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 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%
BF slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Eg
E
E
E/C
I E/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 Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (h)
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
Floodprone Width ft
8
70
39
15
25
18
150
150
150
70
200
150
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
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
WettedPerimeter(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
68.4
31
74
47.8
56
113
80
56
113
80
Meander Width ratio
2.4E
E4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
1 3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
12
35
16
Riffle slope 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
Pool spacing 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
SinuosL
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 slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Eg
E
I
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 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 112
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
111
83
166
ill
Radius of Curvature ft
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
55
ill
83
55
111
83
Meander Wavelength ft
44
68.4
31
74
47.8
166
332
236
166
332
236
Meander Width ratio
2.4
E4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
1 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
Pool spacing (11)
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
83
222
111
83
222
111
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (11)
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 sloe (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
FC
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 12A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock 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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
26
26.7
26.4
27.3
28.5
25.2
26.2
26.3
28.3
27.7
33.7
33.2
35.4
39
43.5
25.5
27
26.5
28.4
29.2
26
26.7
26
25.7
32.5
27.3
27.7
26.8
28.9
29.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
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
41.3
47.5
47.4
47.9
47.9
47.5
58.7
55.8
57.2
57.2
58.7
47.2
44.6
43.8
43.8
47.2
61.4
58.1
52.3
52.3
61.4
54.9
50.6
50.3
50.3
54.9
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
2
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
BE Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.8
3.7
3.5
3.7
3.6
1 4
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.997
4
3.7
3.2
33
3.4
3
2.9
2.8
3
3.1
Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.8
17.4
18.6
19.7
13.4
14.5
14.4
16.7
16.1
----
----
----
----
----
13.8
16.3
16.0
18.4
18.0
----
----
----
----
----
13.6
15.2
14.3
16.6
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.3
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.4
----
----
----
----
----
5.9
5.6
5.7
5.3
5.1
----
----
----
----
----
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.2
5.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.9
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.07
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
<1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.1
27.4
27.2
28
29.4
26.4
27.5
27.3
29.5
29.1
34.8
34.4
36.4
40.2
45.1
26.6
28
27.5
29.6
30.4
27.6
28.2
27.3
26.9
33.8
28.7
29.1
27.9
30.4
31.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.11
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
�#
1 4
----
---
d84 (mm)
---
El
----
----
----
----
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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
25.9
27.7
25.7
25.1
28.9
28.1
28.5
28.6
28
28.9
29.3
29.1
29.7
27.8
27.4
38.6
38.6
39.1
37.5
43.8
30.3
29.8
30.5
30.7
34.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
60
45.8
44.9
44.9
60
64.6
57.4
58.3
58.3
64.6
65.9
63.1
60.8
60.8
65.9
100
91
87.5
87.5
100.1
73.9
66.6
69.6
69.6
73.9
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.1
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.9
2.8
2.5
3
1 3.5
1
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.7
1
3.7
1 3.4
1 3.4
3.8
4.0
4.3
1 4.2
4.1
43
15.0031
3.4
1 3.6
1 3.6
3.6
1 3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
12.2
14.2
14.0
13.4
12.9
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.4
13.3
13.4
13.6
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
- --
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.4
5.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
5.1
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.9
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
<1
<1
<1
1.01
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.5
29.1
26.8
26.2
30.8
29.5
29.7
29.8
29.8
30.5
30.6
30.3
30.8
29.4
30
40.2
40
40.4
39.1
46
31.8
31.4
32.1
32.1
36.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
2.2
1.9
2.0
2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
---
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.
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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
29
29.6
29.7
31.3
30
26.9
26.9
27.8
27.8
30.7
32.8
32.3
31.9
33.6
36.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.7
66.4
67.9
67.9
68.7
64.0
50.3
51.9
48.2
64.0
104.5
92.4
94.6
94.6
104.5
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
1 2.3
1
2.4
1 1.9
1 1.9
1.7
1 2.1
1
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.9
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.5
4.0
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.8
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
13.2
13.0
14.4
13.1
----
----
----
----
----
10.295
11.3
10.8
11.9
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
5.1
5.1
4.8
5.0
----
----
----
----
----
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
<1
<1
<1
1.02
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.4
30.8
30.9
32.5
1 31.4
1
28.8
1 28.1
1 28.8
32.5
32.9
1
35.0
34.2
33.8
35.8
38.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.9
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
Ilt
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.

Table 12C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock 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
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
9.3
9.2
9.7
9.1
11.3
8.8
9.3
9.2
10.2
12.9
8.4
8.4
9.3
9.5
8.6
9.3
9.7
9.3
10.2
10.7
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.2
11.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
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
5.6
4.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.6
6.7
5.6
6.4
6.4
6.7
6.2
5.5
5.7
5.7
6.2
6.6
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1 1
1 0.9
0.9
1 0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1
1
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
18.0
21.4
18.8
22.7
16.8
23.4
22.9
28.1
36.4
----
----
----
----
----
14.0
17.1
15.2
18.4
18.3
14.0
15.3
14.9
14.8
20.4
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.3
9.9
8.0
10.2
9.7
9.8
8.8
7.0
----
----
----
----
----
9.7
9.3
9.7
8.8
8.4
9.4
9.5
9.7
9.8
7.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
< 1
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
< 1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.01
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
9.4
1 10
9.3
1 11.5
1
9
1 9.4
9.4
10.3
13.1
8.9
8.9
9.8
10
9.3
9.7
10
9.6
10.5
11
10
10
9.8
9.7
12
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1 0.7
1 0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
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
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
6.9
7.5
6.7
6.9
11.4
7.5
7.2
7.3
6.7
9.6
7.8
8.7
7.2
6
11.2
7.9
7.2
7.6
6.7
9.6
7.6
7
6.9
5.5
4.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
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
3.6
3.9
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.9
5.7
4.1
3.6
3.6
5.7
3
4.1
1.6
1.6
3
4.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
4.7
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
1.0
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
1 1.2
1 1
0.9
1 1
1 1.2
0.7
1 1.1
0.4
1 0.6
10.798
1 1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.38
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
29.6
20.4
21.9
36.1
14.4
21.6
22.2
18.9
23.6
----
----
----
----
----
20.8
12.6
36.1
28.1
30.7
----
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
12.0
13.4
13.1
7.9
12.0
12.5
12.3
13.4
9.4
----
----
----
----
----
11.4
12.5
11.8
13.5
9.4
----
----
----
----
----
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
< 1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
0.6
1.8
1.2
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.2
7.6
1 6.8
7
1 11.61
7.8
1 7.3
7.5
1 6.9
9.9
8.3
9.1
7.5
6.6
11.8
8
7.8
7.7
7
9.9
8
7.7
7.7
6.6
6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
1 0.7
1 0.5
0.5
0.6
1 0.5
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
1 0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
tEt
----
I
----
----
IEI
d84 (mm)
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
I
----
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
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
7.4
7
7.8
8.4
8.4
8
7.4
6.4
7.3
9.4
8.6
8
8.3
8.3
11.8
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.5
7.1
7.2
6.3
5.6
9.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
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
3.5
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.7
6.5
4.3
4.7
4.7
6.5
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.1
4
3.3
2.4
2.4
4
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.4
19.8
19.8
17.3
19.6
14.6
18.8
23.9
----
----
----
----
----
13.2
14.2
14.2
14.0
13.6
12.6
15.7
16.5
13.0
20.7
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.5
10.8
10.8
11.3
12.2
14.1
12.3
9.6
----
----
----
----
----
14.1
14.3
14.3
14.4
13.8
12.7
12.5
14.3
16.1
9.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
< l
1.03
1.0
1.2
1 1.2
1.2
1.03
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1 1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.1
8.9
8.9
8.5
7.6
6.6
7.5
9.6
9.2
8.5
9.0
9.0
12.7
6.8
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.8
7.4
7.6
6.6
6.1
9.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
---
----
----
---
*MYO-2 BUR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BUR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the
cross -sectional area to MYO.

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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
WO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
9
8.3
8.5
8.8
11.3
8.5
8.1
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.9
6.4
7.6
7.7
8.1
8.1
9
9.1
8.5
8.7
9.4
9.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
4.6
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
6.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
6.5
5.3
4.4
4.9
4.9
5.3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.42
1.3
1
1.1
1.2
1.5
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
26.5
25.8
27.6
27.8
18.5
18.2
14.8
14.5
13.7
14.4
15.2
12.5
13.5
11.7
----
----
----
----
----
15.6
16.4
15.4
18.1
15.6
Entrenchment Ratio
10.0
10.8
10.6
10.2
8.0
10.6
11.1
12.2
12.2
12.3
12.7
12.5
13.4
13.0
14.1
----
----
----
----
----
9.9
10.6
10.3
9.6
9.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
<1
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
<1
1.0
<1
<1
<1
1.01
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.4
8.7
9.0
11.5
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
1 7.0
7.4
7.7
8.2
8.3
8.7
8.6
9.8
9.4
1 8.7
9.0
9.8
9.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
8.3
8.2
9.7
8.4
15
7.2
7.5
7.3
6.4
7
7.6
6.8
7
7
6.9
8
7.7
7.6
7.8
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
9.3
5.9
5.4
5.4
9.3
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.2
3
3
3.2
4
3.2
3.4
3.4
4
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
BE Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.4
1.3
1.7
2.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
14.4
16.5
16.1
12.4
13.6
18.1
14.5
16.3
16.1
14.9
16.0
18.5
17.0
17.7
31.9
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
12.5
12.0
12.3
14.1
12.9
11.8
13.2
12.9
12.9
13.0
11.3
11.7
11.8
11.6
8.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.5
9.2
10.4
10
16.6
7.5
7.8
7.5
6.8
7.6
9.3
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.3
9.3
7.8
7.8
8
11.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
---
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the
cross -sectional area to MYO.

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
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
6.5
6.3
6.9
7.3
10.4
4.8
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.1
5.7
5.3
5.8
5.8
8.4
6.4
5.7
5.4
5.4
4.7
8.4
7.7
8.5
9.9
9.2
6.9
7
6.8
6.4
9.9
8.3
9.4
8.2
8.4
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
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
3.2
3.8
1
1.1
1
1
1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.7
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.3
1.4
1
1
2.3
5.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
5.1
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
1 0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
BE Max Depth (ft)
1
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
23.0
28.5
30.3
32.3
25.4
19.1
20.1
28.0
26.9
41.5
41.0
36.1
32.4
33.0
22.1
22.8
21.2
24.9
33.2
27.3
20.7
35.0
46.2
40.5
42.6
----
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
18.8
16.1
16.4
16.2
17.7
15.8
17.0
15.5
15.6
10.7
14.1
15.8
16.7
16.7
19.1
10.7
11.7
10.6
9.1
9.8
13.0
12.9
13.2
14.1
9.1
----
----
----
----
----
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.09
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
<1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.02
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
<1
----
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.9
6.5
7.2
7.4
10.6
4.9
5.7
5.6
1 5.6
1 5.2
5.8
5.4
6.0
5.9
8.5
6.5
5.7
5.5
5.5
4.7
8.6
7.9
8.6
10.0
9.4
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.4
10.0
8.8
9.5
8.4
8.6
11.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1 0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
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
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
8.6
8.3
8.3
10.1
10.5
7.4
7.9
7.9
8.5
9.6
7.5
7.8
7.6
6.7
9.8
6.2
6.4
5.6
5.8
7.1
8.3
9.2
7.7
7.2
9.2
7.2
7.6
7.4
6.7
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
3.1
2.8
2.8
3.6
4.2
3.8
4.4
4.4
4.2
5.2
4
4
4
5.2
3.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.2
2.3
1.9
1.9
3.2
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.1
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
22.2
24.6
36.6
30.6
13.0
16.4
14.2
16.5
21.9
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
21.5
36.8
31.2
27.4
26.5
24.7
34.0
30.4
24.8
24.7
Entrenchment Ratio
10.5
10.8
10.8
8.9
8.6
12.2
11.4
11.4
10.5
9.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
10.8
9.8
11.7
12.5
9.8
12.5
11.8
12.2
13.4
12.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
<1
1.09
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
<1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.8
8.5
8.6
10.3
10.6
7.7
8.1
8.2
8.5
9.8
8.1
8.2
8.0
7.2
10.1
6.6
6.6
5.8
6.1
7.1
8.6
9.3
8.0
7.4
9.3
7.3
7.7
7.5
6.8
7.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
---
---
----
---
----
---
---
---
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.

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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
'11Y7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
'1IY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (fit)
6.5
6.9
6.7
7.2
7
4.7
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
5
5.4
5.2
5.7
5
7
6.8
6.9
7.5
8.8
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.5
6.3
Floodprone Width (fit)
10
11
11
11
10
20
8
8
8
8
----
----
----
----
----
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
BE Mean Depth (fit)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
BE Max Depth (fit)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Wid&Depth Ratio
15.6
20.7
18.7
21.8
18.1
11.6
16.9
14.2
13.9
12.5
----
----
----
----
----
22.3
24.3
28.0
33.7
35.2
23.4
28.5
28.0
35.4
33.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
4.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
----
----
----
----
----
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.3
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.2
Low Bank Height (fit)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.02
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (fit)
6.8
7.1
6.9
7.5
7.2
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.7
5.8
5.7
6.2
5.7
7.1
6.9
7.0
7.7
8.9
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.7
6.4
Hydraulic Radius (fit)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Substrate
d50 (nim)
----
----
----
----
---
IAE
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,
fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.
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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (fit)
8.3
9.4
8.8
9.1
10.2
8.5
9.1
9.5
9.2
11.1
8.6
8.7
8.4
9
12
8.5
10.6
10.7
10.5
11.6
8
8.3
7.8
7.9
8.5
Floodprone Width (fit)
50
50
50
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
3.7
6.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
6.4
4.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
4.3
6.2
5.2
5.6
5.6
6.2
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.8
4.3
BE Mean Depth (fit)
0.4
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
1 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 0.5
0.5
BE Max Depth (fit)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.5
1
1.1
1
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
26.8
23.5
25.2
28.1
----
----
----
----
----
17.2
22.3
20.2
23.2
33.5
----
----
----
----
----
14.9
16.8
16.0
16.5
16.8
Entrenchment Ratio
6.0
5.3
5.7
5.5
4.9
----
----
----
----
----
5.8
5.7
6.0
5.6
4.2
----
----
----
----
----
6.3
6.0
6.4
6.3
5.9
Low Bank Height (fit)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.19
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.6
1.3
1.3
<1
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (fit)10.40j.3
.5
9.0
9.3
10.4
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.8
11.4
9.0
8.8
8.6
9.1
12.2
9.1
10.9
11.1
11.0
12.0
8.3
8.5
8.1
8.2
8.8
Hydraulic Radius (fit)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
06
05
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5Substrate
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
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (fit)
8.1
8.9
8.9
8.4
9
9.9
11.7
9.1
9.8
11.4
10.9
11.1
11
10.6
11.7
Floodprone Width (fit)
50
50
50
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
3.5
5.6
4.9
5
5
5.6
5.6
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.6
BE Mean Depth (fit)
0.4
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
BE Max Depth (fit)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
1 0.7
0.7
0.7
1 0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
24.0
21.7
23.1
17.5
27.9
16.6
19
23.2
21.2
25.1
24.7
22.9
24.4
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.6
5.9
5.6
5.1
4.3
5.5
5.1
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.3
Low Bank Height (fit)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.0
<1
1.10
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.3
<1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.07
Wetted Perimeter (fit)
8.4
9.0
1 9.0
1 8.9
9.2
10.2
11.9
9.4
10
11.7
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.8
12.1
Hydraulic Radius (fit)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (nun)
----
----
----
---
d84 (nun)
----
----
----
---
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,
fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.

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
2020 Year 5 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)
Year 5
(2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow
37
110
276
145
152
Presence of litter and debris(wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
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 h dro h tes)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or
plant roots stems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
No
No
Other:
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT-3
Year 5 (2020 Data)
26.0
24.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
v
v 10.0
8.0
.a
3 6.0
v
u
4! 4.0
3
NIA
A/
2.0
-
0.0
-2.0
152
Days
-4.0
"jl
-6.0
-8.0
LA
L-JL-
-J-4
III
I
N
N
N
N
W
W
W W A A A A U1 U1 U1 01 01 01 01 V V V V
00
00
00
00
lO
lO
lO
lO
\ \
\
\
N
\
N
\
\
\
N
\
U1
\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N N Q1 N W 00 N F-+ l0 F-+ N W F-+ N
\
A
\
\
N
\
00
\
U1
\
\
N
\
N
O
O
O
O
N
\ \
V
lf1
\
0
O
00
00
T
\
W
W
4--
I--+ l0 \ A N O \ Q> A \ \ V lf1 \ F-+ l0 V
01 kO
\
N)
N
O
00
\
w
W
I--+
l0
\
V
\
\
N
\
W
\
00
rQ
N N
\
\
N
\
\
\
N
\
\ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ N N \ \ N \ \ \
N
\
\
\
N
\
\
\
\
Ul
Ln
W
O O
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
N N O N N N O N N O O N N O N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
\
\
\
N
O
0
0
0
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
a
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of
Photo
Collection
Occurrence
Method
(if available)
Wrack, laid-back vegetation, sediment, and standing water
May 5th, 2016
May 3rd, 2016
observed in the floodplain after 1.55 inches of rain
1
documented* on May 3rd, 2016, at a nearby rain gauge
September 28th,
2.05 inches of rain was recorded on September 28th, 2016,
October 13, 2016
--
2016
at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of the bank
October 13th,
October 8th,
after 3.05 inches of rain was recorded on October 8th, 2016,
2
2016
2016
at an onsite rain gauge
4.66 inches of rain was recorded between April 23 and 25,
June 15, 2017
April 25th, 2017
2017, at an onsite rain gauge. Visual observation of wrack
and reclining vegetation in the floodplain of UT2
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed in the floodplain
October 27th,
June 19th, 2017
of Travis Creek after 1.93 inches of rain was recorded on
3
2017
June 19th, 2017, at an onsite rain gauge
September 17,
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Florence on September
October 24, 2018
2018
15-17, 2018
October 24th,
October 1 lth,
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Michael on October
2018
2018
11th, 2018
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after
October 16th,
July 7th, 2019
1.82 inches of rain was recorded on July 7th, 2019, at an
--
2019
onsite rain gauge
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after
October 16th,
July 23rd, 2019
1.35 inches of rain was recorded on July 23rd, 2019, at an
--
2019
onsite rain gauge
Visual and onsite rain gauge data indicated that a bankfull
November 21 st,
October 22nd,
event occurred after 1.8 inches of rain was recorded on
4
2019
2019
October 22nd, 2019, at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of bank
February 6th,
February 7, 2020
and floodplain after 4.04 inches of rain was recorded on
5
2020
February 6th, 2020, at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack observed along fencing in the Travis Creek
June 18, 2020
May 20th, 2020
floodplain after 3.70 inches of rain was recorded between
6
May 19-20, 2020, at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack observed in the floodplain of Travis Creek after 3.88
November 5,
September 17th,
inches of rain was recorded between September 17th, 2020,
7
2020
2020
at an onsite rain gauge
*The onsite rain gauge was installed on May 18th, 2016 - rain data from a nearby Site (Abbey Lamm Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site) was used to confirm this bankfull event.
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 1: Wrack, laid-back vegetation,
and sediment in the floodplain of Travis Creek i
IL ON
41
ALe
•gay '•
Y Jr �JF,�_: , .� � I~� .�� lit✓ w ' �i.� ',.z'`.`y1 � .
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 5 (2020 Data)
10 50
8
6
4
2
> 0
v
J
°r -2
m
3
-4
3
O
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
j
�
W''�II�JI':III�IW
1���'�I
I
I�I
JUILLTE1l
IME
m
11=01
mm
HEIM
"IN
LIMPERM110111101
11MER11
MMMUNIIEN1011MIM110111
4.5
4.0
3.5
a
.r
c
3
O
3.0 a
m
C
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
00
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
m
\
m
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
00
\
00
\
lD
\
lD
\
F-
CD
F-�
\
F-`
Ul
N
lD
I--`
N
N
61
I--�
F-
NJ
Ln
00
\
NJ
N
0)
\
NJ
O
\
I--`
V
I--`
\
I--`
Ul
N
lD
I--`
N
N
m
lD
\
N
W
\
V
N
A
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
\
\
\
N
\
\
F-+
\
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
\
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
Date

Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 5 (2020 Data)
. ,
II1111�T111111�4!�I�W�I�ii�11
�■!I11
�I�■I��III,!■
�i1111�Wii��11��►111'lll■■■11
■IY11
II��L11111�
.
IIII�II1�■�I�■■■■1■11
l��■'111i
,
-
.
I�1��■II�■I■
■■I�11
minim
1�1111■�I■I
■III
�1■�
■I�11'■�I■'I,,.
I■111�1
�■�
'
��■�I��I�!�
Ili
.
Imo■
■�A�■1■■LJI■1■■r■�■■I■
.
.
Iw■1
■III■1!■1��1■�■■■■Il111■
■■l111
�■'■�
II■II■M'■11111�1■■■I■
1111'■
,
�lII
f 111
11111111��1
�llll�I
�II'!11
■1
I�!
I111■■#�I■
1■�f
I■
, ,

Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 5 (2020 Data)
r
I
millimm
"W",
�'�����I1II�■�II�IIIIII�
�II'I■IIH��
��^I��III�'lll�■�1�'I'III�I
III��I�1�
��►��II�III�■�11
IIIIII�I
Il���l�ll
.
111111110
Ell
IMI1I,I
I
II1Ima■
�C
ME
i��
�i�
��ii
���i;mi
.
w�i
.
g

Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1*
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5 (2020)
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2021)
(2022)
1
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/58 days
Yes/59 days
Yes/95 days
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
(25.1 percent)
(27 percent)
(41 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/65 days
Yes/66 days
Yes/71 days
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(28.1 percent)
(30 percent)
(30 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/46 days
No/14 days
Yes/34 days
(23.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(6.5 percent)
(14.5 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5th, 2016; therefore, the growing season for
Year 1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17th. It is expected that all gauges would meet success criteria at the
beginning of the growing season.
2020 Year S 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
2020 Year 5 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

AXIOM, AYCOCK SPRINGS, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/18/2020.
PAI ID NO
53939
53940
53941
STATION
UT-1
UT-2
UT-3
DATE
6/18/2020
6/18/2020
6/18/2020
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
FC
1
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta
CG
Tubificida
Naididae
CG
Tubificinae w.h.c.
CG
1
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Ostracoda
1
Isopoda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea sp.
8.4
CG
4
9
14
Amphipoda
CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
7.2
CG
1
6
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Procambarus sp.
9.3
SH
1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
CG
Callibaetis sp.
9.2
CG
4
Caenidae
CG
Caenis sp.
6.8
CG
6
1
Odonata
Aeshnidae
P
Aeshna sp.
P
1
2
Coenagrionidae
P
Argia sp.
8.3
P
3
Ischnura sp.
9.5
1
Cord ulegastridae
P
Cordulegaster sp.
5.7
P
2
Corduliidae
Neurocordulia sp.
5.3
4
Libellulidae
P
Pachydiplax longipennis
9.6
1
Megaloptera
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Axiom aycock springs 6 20cl.xlsx

AXIOM, AYCOCK SPRINGS, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/18/2020.
PAI ID NO
53939
53940
53941
STATION
UT-1
UT-2
UT-3
DATE
6/18/2020
6/18/2020
6/18/2020
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
Sialidae
P
Sialis sp.
7
P
1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.
6.6
FC
10
Coleoptera
Haliplidae
Peltodytes sp.
8.4
SH
2
Hydrophilidae
P
Tropisternus sp.
9.3
P
1
Diptera
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
7.4
P
2
Chironomus sp.
9.3
CG
1
1
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
5
6
32
Corynoneura sp.
5.7
CG
1
Cricotopus sp.
CG
1
Polypedilum flavum
5.7
SH
1
Polypedilum illinoense gp.
8.7
SH
2
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gp.
6.5
FC
4
Rheotanytarsus pellucidus
6.5
FC
1
Tanytarsus sp.
6.6
FC
3
Zavrelimyia sp.
8.6
P
1
Culicidae
FC
Anopheles sp.
8.6
FC
4
Simuliidae
FC
Simulium venustum complex
7.3
2
Tipulidae
SH
Tipula sp.
7.5
SH
2
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
38
38
70
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
13
14
13
EPT INDEX
2
0
2
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES
7.79
7.77
7.72
PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Axiom aycock springs 6 20cl.xlsx

41 (oc t qT(
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE 14
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 )� f i [ h 4 I - 1 Location/road: (Road Name f *(I o )County '# Pf JE(
Date _�0 0 CC#03Q3OOB _Basin �3C'. 1-ft! _ _.Subbasin (9�106"04_
Observer(s) r N. Type of Study: ❑ Fish ❑Benthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 3��a 0? Longitude-7t• f111P Ecoregion: ❑ MT Rf/P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature°C DO �� mg/1 Conductivity (corn.) ", S/cm; pH
i
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: _L�_%Forest %Residential -M—%Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ❑Forcesstt ❑Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream +-7 Channel (at top of bank) 1r� Stream Depth: (m) Avg 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: 'A<'- 'or ❑ NA (Vertical is 901, 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: ON VY: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditi9pps : ❑High ONormal ❑Low
Turbidity:21Clear ❑ Sligiltly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ICES ONO Details,��-��
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
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: C (L) 2c� aC C66, k t . Photos: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks: a_ L4
39

4 �COC4 MLt L %."
I. Channel Modification Score
A: channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >401/o 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 1
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,,,l•,g Vr,,ent, circle the s„cgrq % 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are pEftbd Vgt!)p1 and have
begun to decay (too pi3es'of leaves in pool archJ. Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant.
Rocks Macrop(►ytes ' Sticks and leafpacks Sna s and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION Oa COVER
>70%
40-70%
� - . * ""70N0%
"`
<20%-
Score
re"
Score
Scdrt
4 or 5 types present .................
20
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present... 6.......................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
❑ No in Remarks
0
Subtotal
woody vegetation riparian zone
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%............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
11
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
6
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<501/o ............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
1
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... PO
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................
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 ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
40
Page Total

41-COCA u t
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 ... 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 absent................................................................................................................... 0
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.. U
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 l
0
Tota
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... M
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... Y
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................ 0
Remarks Subtotalt
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
5
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
I
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
Remarks
0
0
_
Total
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream
TOTAL SCORE
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
4
900 450
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
Typical Stream Cross-section
42
1350
This side is 45° bank angle.

3/06 Revision 6
A (6c h— u7q
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams _
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ TOTAL 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 by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream Location/road: (Road Name )County t
Date oQ CC# 03d3o00 � Basin C q p_e 1` eA Subbasin 0 3 r 0 6 _ d
Observer(s) Type of Study: ❑ Fish P
Benthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 1.1 Longitude 7 . qEcoregion: ❑ MT 2 -P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature�a. °C DO mg/1 ?Conductivity (corr.) A gS/cm pH 7.
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : Porest C� griculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream j _ Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (in) Avg Max
❑ Widthvariable ❑ 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 00. Angles > 909 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: ❑NJOY: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditio : ❑High ormal ❑Low
Turbidity: Alear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (frorr],dyes) /
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ;"YES ONO Details Vyt_Ye 0 fd I'7'6 to",
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ 9�
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: r lria •' Cc Photos: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks: r, add Q B'c/nr..,�
WE

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 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 NBanks 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� �' present, circle the gcpr of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that 9,gG pked,t$ggth}'and have
begun to decay �t► 00ifes of leaves in pool ar& aMark as Rare Common,or Abundant. J `
Rocks ' 1V ac ophyte� Sticks and leafpadP % gs and logs Qlercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
40-700/c
4041'%
'`
<20°� 4p to
Score
Score
'Score
Scoik- �
4 or 5 types present .................
20
161'•
�1.2
8
3 types present .........................
19
s 1"1
7
2 types present .........................
18
<6
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
❑ 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 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%.........................................................................................................
9
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness>801/o ............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<5011e ............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%...................................................................................I........................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
1
Remarks _
Subtotal_W
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)............................................................
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 1
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total O
40

Af cock ury
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
re Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream ... 1 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 ab nt......................... .......................................................................................... 0 ��
Channel Slope: Typical for area OSteep=fast flow OLow=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.. 0
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 l
0 /L
Tota
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.
ore
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks Subtotal t V
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: Q Trees B-S`hr ibs Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
4
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
3
3
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
1
1
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
0
0 /
Remarks
Total I V
5-0
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
p
900 450
Tygical Stream Cross-section
_, Extreme High Water
Normal Hlgh Water
Normal Flow JJI
Upper Bank -rl
Lower
Bank
Stream Width
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
42
1350
This side is 45' bank angle.

l�Y[a/f-_ u7 k
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 by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream 4j �&Ly1 T Location/road: (Road Name )County A4Mt
Date �al��Q �� CC# Basin 64j 0 4W' Subbasin 03 ' 06- D
Observer(s)Type of Study: ❑ Fish 013enthos
Latitude itude 71. sa i 3 Ecoregion:
Water Quality: Temperature J C DO ��1_5_&�g/1
❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
❑ MT fA P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Conductivity (corr.) �µS/cm � pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest ti %� % Residential Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : tForest [Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream t Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg 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: I c o ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 901, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 900 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 qlY: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High IqNofmal ❑Low
Turbidity: *Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? P YES ❑NO Details Coe -
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ r�
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: b udg , r o o I Photos: ❑Y ❑ Digital 1335mm
Remarks:-�k�•%s�.c �hr�X uyr��5
39

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 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=mo large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal 5
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,.l t r9sent, circle the scQ4r� of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that ie �ackecl t�getbef and have
begun to decay (not piles arbof leaves in pool%6s)."Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant. `
A3.�,^►.,.. �*�, �t�'' rat n �' t�''
Rocks 'Macrophytes Sticks and leafpaeks RuMm and logs ilnidercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
.
•>70%
40-70% i ! .�
­20�4bs/o
<20b-
<Score
Score �'
-4 % Score
Score''
4 or 5 types present .................
20
�6
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
(15)
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
❑ 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 20-40%..........................................................................................................
.12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 2040%.........................................................................................................
1
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock..................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand....................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
1 f
Remarks
Subtotal l
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............................................................................................................... \ lye
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................
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 11 O
Subtotal l
❑ Pool bottom boulder -cobble --hard k Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
i �1

di Lor
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....
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 absent.................................................................................................................
0
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.cp C%
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
Remarks
Total
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 ............................................. 1
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................ 0
Remarks df- 7" 0,.1 —
Subtotal to
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: 0-Trees 0-Shrubs Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
5
5
O
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
4
4
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
3
3
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
1
1
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
0
0
10
Remarks
Total
5**10
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE_&-
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
90° 450
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
TvPical Snam Cross-section
,(., , Extreme High Water
1350
Normal High Water
Normal Flow
Upper BankLL +
Zak Stream Width This side is 45' bank angle.
42

APPENDIX G
MISCELLANEOUS
2016-2017 Remediation
2020 Year 5 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
as-7.
t )
- �'' � �• 1, s ' F .�, v ,�.,_ ,
Photo 1: Looking SW. along Replant Area -1 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
i
E
r.
,fir-14
6
5
N
f _� �' 1 fr� I. - ,. j - ,` �, i� rFS. �fir;•,!
.tslr•'' �,�`,�� $.a � yy t r � f � �, y E I� t' ` _ .. qua `.� �; �I� y.a,, - 1 61 � -.g'� � `
4t,
•i}. my�%„¢�r ��' Fk� ;� k� n*i�7< �� '� s3 ! h tt, �� j,, _ 1�'y�,}, �'-` '+ ��.
�i�f"-�'�' g s, f� �,+ ,1 �° .z2�sA�p,� �.1` �j \} iR�l��' 'y "t` § .:* ( c}�- �� bti� ,. f 'I .� �y . � ' �! i � �i���' �f •� . �}�L
` r:3k+I��rl
4
EpRtN � 7
nw
: ..
A _ `
i74.'.
p
�' ,S �'i �' � E f•1 + illa� I� � E, a sE iV�F� '�� e�A�+ �i rr � r� !� �N�y.
- Mft"diIN
If
'hoto 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
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 'v�S4 , 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