20170921 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20210125

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20170921 Version* 1
.................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/25/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/25/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes fJ No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
l� Stream rJ Wetlands E Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Lindsay Crocker [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:* 20170921 Version:*1
Existing IDI# Existing Version
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Major Hill
County: Alamance
Document Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MajorHill_100015_MY2_2020.pdf 11.34MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*
may atereet

MONITORING REPORT
2020 (Year 2)
MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: July 2020— October 2020
Submission: January 2021
• , b
•. � Y ad6 4 g
�+ 1' R a kk ri`
t
c*
•
'* r�
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

NCDMS comment responses:
1. Describe what date the supplemental planting occurred in the monitoring report text and in
Table 2. There were no low vigor areas called out in the MY1, although VP 1 and 4 did not meet
in MY1. Explain why those vegetation plots were not replanted in the 2020 low-vigor replant
that occurred adjacent to them and if and how RS plans to do any additional replanting.
Vegetation plots 1 and 4 were not replanted based on Y1 veg success data (including random
transects adjacent to the plots). The transect data was collected in the fall of 2019. Based on
field assessment in winter of 2020, we felt that although the random transect showed high
density of trees, visually(not Y1 plot data) we felt a light planting of additional stems was
warranted to help with long term success of these areas. We planted 370 stems of 8 varieties
over 1.20 acres(^'300 stems/acre)in the Supplemental Planting Areas shown on the 2020 CCPV.
We plan on doing another random transect in these areas to include in the Y3 report. No
supplemental planting will occur in 2021.
Riparian Buffer Section
1. Section 4.3,Table 5,Table 6, and Figure A state that 2 vegetation plots did not meet success.
Riparian buffer success is based on 260 stems/acre planted AND volunteer at MY5. Please
revise these report items to reflect this.
The riparian buffer section was revised to indicate that all vegetation plots are meeting the
success criteria of 260 stems/acre.
2. Add discussion of replanted area to Riparian Buffer report and to Figure A.
A discussion of the replanted area was added to section 4.3 of the Riparian Buffer report, and the
polygons were added to Figure A.
Digital Review-
1. Please submit buffer asset features that are organized by distance (e.g. 0-100, 101-200) and
restoration approach.The current features in DMS's possession are not segmented by
restoration approach. Please also ensure that these features have areas that match areas
reported in Table 2.
The riparian buffer asset feature(RiparianBufferAssetsREV.shp)has been included with the final
digital submittal. The feature areas match the areas reported in Table 2.

Major Hill Year 2,2020 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 2
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity(i.e.,beaver,heavy deer browsing,etc.)was observed.
Streams
• Stream monitoring show that all stream channels and structures are stable.
Wetlands
• Five of six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 2 (2020) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data is in Appendix E. Gauge 2 did not meet success,however it was successful for 8%
of the growing season.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2019) Year 2(2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025)
1 No/14 days* Yes/136 Days
6.0 percent 57.9 percent
2 No/19 days* No/19 days
8.1 percent 8.0 percent
3 Yes/25 days Yes/235 days
10.6 percent 100 percent
4 Yes/34 days Yes/72 days
14.5 percent 30.5 percent
5 Yes/119 days Yes/135 days
50.6 percent 57.4 percent
6 Yes/77 days Yes/44 days
32.8 percent 18.7 percent

Vegetation Summary
Measurements of the 8 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 379 planted stems/acre
excluding livestakes. Three additional transects were measured after replanting an area of low density
identified in Year 1.Measurements of all 11 permanent and random vegetation plots resulted in an average
of 467 stems/acre, including natural recruits. Additionally, all plots met success criteria except permanent
Plot 1 and Plot 4.Year 2 (2020)vegetation data is included in Tables 8-10(Appendix C).
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Completion
Complete or Delivery
Technical Proposal Issue Date(RFP No. 16-006990) September 16,2016 September 16,2016
Institution Date(NCDMS Contract No. 7193) -- May 22,2017
Mitigation Plan -- February 2018
404 Permit Date -- June 28,2018
Construction Plans -- July 2018
Site Construction -- July 25-September 6,2018
Planting -- December 2018-January 2019
Asbuilt Stream Data Collection September 19,2018 --
Asbuilt Vegetation Data Collection January 8,2019 --
Asbuilt Baseline Monitoring Report -- March 2019
MY1 (2019)Vegetation Data Collection September 9,2019 --
MY1 (2019)Stream Data Collection September 10,2019 --
MY1 (2019)Monitoring Report October 2019 November 2019
Supplemental Planting -- January 31,2020
MY 2(2020)Vegetation Data Collection October 2020 --
MY 2(2020)Stream Data Collection July/October 2020 --
MY 2(2020)Monitoring Report October 2020 January 2021
Site Maintenance Report(2020)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
5-6-2020
Microstegium None
6-3-2020
Princess Tree,Tree-of-Heaven, Privet, Rose
10/13/2020
Tree of Heaven, Multiflora Rose, Privet,
Princess Tree, and Veg within UT-1

MONITORING REPORT
2020 (Year 2)
MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: July 2020— October 2020
Submission: January 2021
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Prepared by:
And
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Restoration Systems,LLC Axiom Environmental,Inc.
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh,North Carolina 27604 Raleigh,North Carolina 27603
Contact:Worth Creech Contact:Grant Lewis
919-755-9490(phone) 919-215-1693(phone)
919-755-9492(fax)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 Project Goals&Objectives 1
1.2 Project Background 3
1.3 Project Components and Structure 3
1.4 Success Criteria 3
1.4.1 Stream Success Criteria 4
1.4.2 Wetland Success Criteria 4
1.4.3 Vegetation Success Criteria 4
2.0 METHODS 5
2.1 Stream Monitoring 5
2.2 Wetland Monitoring 6
2.3 Vegetation 6
3.0 REFERENCES 8
APPENDICES
Appendix A.Background Tables
Table 1.Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2.Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3.Project Contacts Table
Table 4.Project Attributes
Appendix B.Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1.Project Location
Figure 2.Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C.Vegetation Data
Table 7.Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8.Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9.Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10.Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D.Monitoring Data(Dimensional Morphology Summary&Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13.Water Quality Data
Cross-Section Plots
Substrate Plots
Appendix E.Hydrology Data
Table 14A.UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B.UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15.Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16.Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix F.Riparian Buffer MY2(2020)Monitoring Report
Appendix G.Miscellaneous
Herbicide Application Forms
Remedial planting plan
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Table of Contents page i
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site(Site).
1.1 Project Goals& Objectives
Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP)report(NCEEP 2009)
and on-site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field investigations. The
Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP report documents
benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good-Fair"possibly due to cattle,dairy, and poultry operations.
The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, RBRP goals are
addressed by project activities as follows with Site specific information following the RBRP goals in
parenthesis.
1. Reduce and control sediment inputs(reduction of 10.0 tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removal from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application,and marsh treatment areas may result in a direct reduction of 852.4 pounds of nitrogen
and 70.6 pounds of phosphorus per year);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas.
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method(NC SAM)and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method(NC WAM)analyses of
existing and reference stream systems at the Site(NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010)(see Table 1).
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1)HYDROLOGY
(2)Flood Flow(Floodplain Access) • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation • Attenuate flood flow across the Site. flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands • Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
• Minimize downstream flooding to • Plant woody riparian buffer
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer • Livestock excluded from the easement
the maximum extent possible. • Remove livestock • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Connect streams to functioning • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(4)Microtopography wetland systems. roughness
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
(3) Stream Stability • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
(4)Channel Stability substrate
• Increase stream stability within the • Construct channels with proper pattern,dimension,and longitudinal profile • Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• Remove livestock • BHR not to exceed 1.2
Site so that channels are neither • Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate • ER of 1.4 or greater
(4) Sediment Transport aggrading nor degrading. o
p Plant woody riparian buffer • < 10/o change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation • Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant • Livestock excluded from the easement
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration p • Install marsh treatment areas
inputs from the Site and reduce Plant woodyriparian buffer • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(3)Thermoregulation •contributions to downstream waters. • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
(2)Indicators of Stressors
(1)HABITAT
(2)In-stream Habitat
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability • Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate • Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
(3)In-Stream Habitat • Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade substrate
(2) Stream-side Habitat
• Improve instream and stream-side • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank • Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream structures.
habitat. flows and plant woody riparian buffer • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(3) Stream-side Habitat • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3)Thermoregulation • Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Conservation Easement recorded
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation Composition
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No.100015) page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

1.2 Project Background
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line (Figure 1,Appendix B).
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams,which had been relocated to
the floodplain edge, ditched, impounded, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures. Approximately
60 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from the Site resulting
from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear.In addition,streamside wetlands were cleared and
drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in degraded water
quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel
characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to
channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle-pool morphology aiding in energy
dissipation,increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks,and will greatly reduce sediment loss from
channel banks.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Site restoration activities generated 3058 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.76 Wetland Mitigation
Units(WMUs)as the result of the following:
• 1738 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 3299 linear feet of stream enhancement(Level II)
• 0.54 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.44 acre of riparian wetland enhancement
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of a marsh treatment area to treat drainage prior to entering UT1.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing,removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 8.11 acres of the Site with 8600 stems(planted species and densities by zone are included
in Table 5 [Appendix C]).
• Removing a small,abandoned farm pond by 1)notching the dam to dewater;2)removal of the dam
to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3)excavating sediment that was unsuitable for channel
bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel
construction(as necessary);5)excavation of the design channel,6)stabilization of the channel with
coir matting, seed,and mulch; and 7)installation of structures.
Site design was completed in February 2018.Construction started on July 25,2018 and ended within a final
walkthrough on September 6, 2018. The Site was planted in December 2018-January 2019. Completed
project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4(Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

1.4.1 Stream Success Criteria
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated
by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered
successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria.The following summarizes stream success criteria.
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark(OHWM),per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR)cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio(ER)must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-section.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from
baseline condition during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through
four separate bankfull events,occurring in separate years,during the monitoring years 1-7.
1.4.2 Wetland Success Criteria
The following summarizes wetland success criteria.
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for,at a minimum, 10 percent
of the growing season,during average climatic conditions
According to the Soil Survey of Alamance County,the growing season for Alamance County is from April
17 — October 22 (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the
Piedmont region;therefore,for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using
data from March 1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity. Based on
growing season information outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE 2010), this will be confirmed
annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches depth and/or bud burst.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored period
(March 1-October 22), during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used for comparison to the Site; however, reference
gauge data will not be tied to success criteria. These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation.
If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring,a jurisdictional
determination will be performed. The jurisdictional determination will not supersede monitoring data, or
overturn a failure in meeting success criteria; however, this information may be used by the IRT, at the
discretion of the IRT,to make a final determination on Site wetland re-establishment success.
1.4.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
The following summarizes vegetation success criteria.
• Within planted portions of the site,a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3;and
a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5,and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted,provided they are included in the approved planting list
for the site;natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case
basis.
• Any single species can only account for 50%of the required stems within any vegetation plot.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Water Quality
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections and substrate on riffles and pools
(Figure 2, Appendix B). Data presented in graphic and tabular format include 1) cross-sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width-to-depth ratio. Longitudinal profiles
were monitored for as-built; however, profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring
demonstrates channel bank or bed instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the
USACE along reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.
Stream Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built(unless otherwise All restored stream
required) channels
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 10 cross-sections
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream
channels
Only if instability is
Channel Stability Bank Pins Yearly documented during
monitoring
Only if instability is
Additional Cross-sections Yearly documented during
monitoring
Two gauges on UT1
Continuous monitoring Continuous recording (upstream and
Stream Hydrology water level gauges and/or downstream)and one
trail camera through monitoring period trail camera on UT1
(downstream)
Water Quality Water samples Yearly Two locations
Macroinvertebrates Qual 4 sampling Years 3,5,and 7 Two locations
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

All streams are functioning as designed,and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 2(2020)
monitoring. Stream morphology and water quality data is available in Appendix D.
2.2 Wetland Monitoring
Six groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the drained pond area and the remaining wetland
restoration areas to take measurements after hydrological modifications were performed at the Site(Figure
2, Appendix B). Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the entire year at intervals necessary to
satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria. In addition, an on-site rain gauge will document rainfall
data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and a trail camera was
installed to confirm overbank flooding events. Growing season soil temperatures will also be documented
using a continuously logging soil temperature probe, this data will be provided with wetland hydrology
data.
Wetland Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected
6 gauges spread Soil temperature at the
Wetland Groundwater As-built,Years 1,2, throughout beginning of each monitoring
Restoration gauges 3,4,5,6,and 7 restored period,groundwater and rain
wetlands data for each monitoring period
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Monitoring Period Used for 10 Percent of
Burst Documented Determining Success Monitoring Period
2019(Year 1) March 1,2019* March 1-October 22 24 Days
(235 days)
2020(Year 2) March 1,2020** March 1-October 22 24 Days
(235 Days)
*An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 47.90°F on March 1, and the soil
temperature remained well above 41°F thereafter.
**An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 48.13°F on March 1, and the soil
temperature was well-above 41°F the weeks prior and thereafter. Additionally,bud bursts were documented on March 2.
Five of the six groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 2 (2020) monitoring period. Year 2
(2020) groundwater gauge data and graphs are located in Appendix E. Gauge 2 was inundated/saturated
for 19 days,or 8.0 percent of the growing season.
2.3 Vegetation
Planting occurred in December 2018-January 2019 within 8.11 acres of the Site and included 8600 stems
(planted species and densities by zone are included in Table 7 [Appendix C]).After planting was completed,
an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition
and density.
In early January 2020, a winter-time visual assessment of the site was performed, and it was determined
that although Year 1 (2019)vegetation data, including random transects, showed a high density of trees, a
light supplemental planting would help ensure the long-term success in several areas. On January 31,2020,
three areas that visually exhibited low stem density and/or poor vigor were supplementally planted(Figure
2, Appendix B). During the supplemental planting effort approximately 370 stems were planted across
1.20 acres(approximately 300 stems per acre). As the planting was designated for visual purposes and was
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

not an effort to increase stem density data,no stems were planted within permanent vegetation plots. The
following table lists species included in the supplemental planting list. Preparation included the application
of 100 lbs of lime, 50 lbs of fertilizer, and 3 lbs of seed to stabilize bare areas. In addition,three random
vegetation transects were measured including Transect 1(near Plot 6),Transect 2(near Plot 4),and Transect
3 (near Plot 1). After the veg data was complete it was concluded that those areas met required stem
densities(Table 9,Appendix C).
2020 Supplemental Planting Species List
Species Number of Stems
Tag Alder(Alnus serrulata) 20
Chinkapin(Castanea pumila) 20
Hackberry(Celtis occidentalis) 50
Hawthorn(Crataegus marshallii) 20
Crab Apple (Malus angustifolia) 50
Red Mulberry(Morus rubra) 100
Sycamore(Platanus occidentalis) 50
Shumard Oak(Quercus shumardii) 50
Total 370
An assessment was made during the early Fall 2018 to treat fescue within the Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory
Forest planting zones to reduce competition with planted stems. Treatment was conducted December 2018
and will continue as needed. Treatments of invasive plant species continued during 2019 throughout the
Site.Japanese Stiltgrass and Tree-of-Heaven were high priority during the 2019 invasive treatment season.
Restoration Systems will continue to treat and monitor the site for invasive species throughout the
monitoring period. See Appendix G (Herbicide Application Forms) for a detailed account of site-wide
treatments.
Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected
Permanent vegetation
plots 0.0247 acre As-built,Years 1,2, 8 plots spread Species,height,
(100 square meters) 3,5,and 7 across the Site
location,planted vs.
Vegetation in size volunteer,and age
establishment and
vigor Random vegetation
plots,0.0247 acre As-built,Years 1,2, 2 plots randomly Species and height
(100 square meters) 3,5,and 7 selected each year
in size
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 8 sample plots(10-meter by 10-meter)were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008).Measurement also included three random sample plots(50-meter by 2-meter).Measurements of the
8 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 379 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes.
Measurements of all 11 permanent and random vegetation plots resulted in an average of 467 stems/acre,
including natural recruits. Additionally, all plots met success criteria except permanent Plot 1 and Plot 4.
Year 2(2020)vegetation data is included in Tables 8-10(Appendix C).
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith,G.E.,J.M. Omernik,J.A. Comstock,M.P. Schafale,W.H.McNab,D.R. Lenat,T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey,Reston,Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8,2016].North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources,Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://file s.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Science s/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005 f48e aa7&groupld=3 8364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online).Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=
864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015).N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM)User Manual.Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method(NC WAM)User Manual.Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation.North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Pub1.167.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture(USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County,North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 1.Project Components and Mitigation Credits-Major Hill Restoration Site
Mitigation
Stream Existing Constructed Restoration or
Reach Plan Restoration Mitigation Mitigation
ID Stationing/ Footage/ Footage/ Footage/ Level Restoration Ratio Credits Comment
Wetland Type Acreage Acreage Acreage Equivalent
UT 1 00+00 to 16+99 1829 1699 1699 Restoration 1699 1:1 1699
UT 1 16+99 to 27+96 1097 1060 1097 EII 1097 2.5:1 439
UT 2 00+00 to 01+68 168 168 168 EII 168 2.5:1 67
UT 2 01+68 to 02+07 39 43 39 Restoration 39 1:1 39
801f and 401E of UT3 are not
credit generating due to
2298-80-144- crossings and drainage
UT 3 00+00 to 22+98 2298 2197 2298* EII 40=2034 2.5:1 814 easement. 1441E are not
credit generating due to lack
of control of south bank and
drainage easement.
Riparian
Wetlands Riverine -- 0.54 0.54 Restoration 0.54 1:1 0.54 Wetland Restoration
Riparian
Wetlands Riverine 0.52 0.44 0.44 Enhancement 0.44 2:1 0.22 Wetland Enhancement
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 1 continued.Project Components and Mitigation Credits-Major Hill Restoration Site
Length&Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream(linear footage) Riparian Wetland(acreage)
Restoration 1738 0.54
Enhancement(Level II) 3299* --
Enhancement -- 0.44**
*An additional 264 linear feet of stream enhancement(level II)is proposed outside of the easement(at road crossings),or the sponsor controls only one bank of
the stream,and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**Approximately 0.08 acre of existing,degraded wetland will not be enhanced as the result of the design channel crossing the wetland area.
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 3058
Riparian Riverine Wetland 0.76
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 2.Project Activity and Reporting History-Major Hill Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Completion
Complete or Delivery
Technical Proposal Issue Date(RFP No. 16-006990) September 16,2016 September 16,2016
Institution Date(NCDMS Contract No. 7193) -- May 22,2017
Mitigation Plan -- February 2018
404 Permit Date -- June 28,2018
Construction Plans -- July 2018
Site Construction -- July 25-September 6,2018
Planting -- December 2018-January 2019
Asbuilt Stream Data Collection September 19,2018 --
Asbuilt Vegetation Data Collection January 8,2019 --
Asbuilt Baseline Monitoring Report -- March 2019
MY1 (2019)Vegetation Data Collection September 9,2019 --
MY1 (2019)Stream Data Collection September 10,2019 --
MY1 (2019)Monitoring Report October 2019 November 2019
Supplemental Planting -- January 31,2020
MY 2(2020)Vegetation Data Collection October 2020 --
MY 2(2020)Stream Data Collection July/October 2020 --
MY 2(2020)Monitoring Report October 2020 November 2020
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 3. Project Contacts Table-Major Hill Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 780 Landmark Road
Raleigh,North Carolina 27604 Willow Spring,NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490 Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer 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
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 4. Project Attribute Table-Major Hill Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name Major Hill Restoration Site
Project County Alamance County,North Carolina
Project Area(acres) 16.7
Project Coordinates(latitude&latitude) 35.873206,-79.360906
Planted Area(acres) 8.11
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project(14-digit) 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area(acres) 17 to 445
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover&Mixed Upland Hardwoods
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT 1 UT 2 UT 3
Length of reach(linear feet) 2796 207 2298
Valley Classification&Confinement Alluvial,moderately confined to confined
Drainage Area(acres) 71.7 17.2 444.7
NCDWR Stream ID Score 20.25—33.5 -- --
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Intermittent/Perennial Intermittent Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V,NSW
Existing Morphological Description(Rosgen 1996) Cg5 C4/5 C3
Proposed Stream Classification(Rosgen 1996) C/E 4 C4/5 C3
Existing Evolutionary Stage(Simon and Hupp 1986) III/IV III I
Underlying Mapped Soils Efland silt loam,Georgeville silt loam,Herndon silt loam,Orange silt
loam,Worsham sandy loam,Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Well-drained,well-drained,well-drained,poorly drained,well-drained,
poorly drained,respectively
Hydnc Soil Status Nonhydric,nonhydric,nonhydric,nonhydric,hydric,hydric,
respectively
Slope 0.0241 0.0256 0.0130
FEMA Classification NA
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Site) 45%forest,35%agricultural land,20%low density
residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Cedarock Reference 65%forest,30%agricultural land,<5%low density
Channel) residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 4. Project Attribute Table -Major Hill Restoration Site (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Wetland acreage 0.54 acre drained or impounded&0.44 acre degraded
Wetland Type Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Worsham and Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater,stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams,compacted soils,livestock
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
%Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
Restoration Method Hydrologic,vegetative
Enhancement Method Vegetative
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Tables 5A-5C.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

ti"---=---•//). 7
r .... -1 j f'>E/=ry ''� 1 ..� :� i.1- r- r .-- �)if
-
. --• L' (. • `'-r5 - - .. X\\C..c1D._ ' . \J ( •
I , o1,.
, „......, -- . , ......mr.. , ,
) P
r \) . .
_ Q) . ' ';''. '. )•i /
:),,t3.\.....,- - ...)•,.
ciiri,
Ili
, :-•' ' ---- - .. .-'<-i-''''. ....ww—m•ENffow-7frAtio ,..., ,... __ ,ar. . (0, _
. .,.;-.,.,„. __ _. ..... .t.1 ,,,,„-,...--\ .''-;"4.
.14),..: dk 1.%
• ...,._„.;-;-i,„.
•
c ' ,.r �
Axiom Env ronmenial inc.r �• � kg . ,. .. ,.i..,. F `��� ■ 1 � i•,
% - .111riltigh OAP alL10104 AO
Y 1 �� ~1�, 7 3 :1.--
` -7 `i Prepared for:
- r ,.) . ., - ...,
„,,,.. .„-_-..,, , i .:.•• 7 ---.\\7--rN.\&:.:::‘k ; .. Y,1.,-_.1
CIS
r .J
/ r_J :1\1,
i \• • ram`:
1
/F. - = t� kll'Th. ec-i_17
' S' ,r, 'N 1• RESTORATION
- .� E SYSTEMS LLC
Con/ io ® 1 3H,tio OCR r phig _ t-
,) _ , stSociet i-c bl • .' r� ?
_ ._
•
- 0
J Project:
•
•
. .,_ , _' r =:�= _ M. •-- ..e.c.._.
N = �r ' .. r; V.
r •1 .•,_.,
,,•� 3 �f ��f - MAJOR HILL
- . iOtii ,. y 1 •ii �.£'' N 7 1',. - - _ - TMajor.Hill-Road- -.� f
rr �' N �. -- 3 C STREAM AND
; a k.. qp -'' ;� .. - _ r -m _ - 1 1 WETLAND
•
! �JJ
:. : •• , ;_' ,_ �— - -- 'u • --1 _...)
'r•I , `-� # MITIGATION SITE
I..' I ► ,. 1 , .mot 0 • tr.
_„ _
._ ,-_ - off',, ...r. , �`'. �� �# + I{ �!
r.
f - - .(_ -) t- -y - .. 1 -. ' 1. � ��/ / • Alamance County, NC
' 4 Greens L" _ . l _ - /� Title:
Eboro.C.hape' R d� _ ��; .x=,r ,---,J r i�`V -- _�_ I
} gym.-; - N.
-h=�11-
ff �j^' 1 if---•,'=tr-.+►�1 r .3� O
. --/. t Ccvr ' �l r J .,1,„ -x__f' - i b� -----tii1 - .,' ' "
—Sn w�Camp r �. �7 '� "' _ `�� L___.) i� j1��.,/(Z: _ —__-- :_=x=0, --. —=n :i 7. - '47 • . ' °' PROJECT
�. ei
;� r - i / �- _ `% LOCATION
Est `r 'i :�: 4 �_-- � �_ -v \� _ - I' ` b
n f+ i- i 1.
'.-..r...r--- / _ ',-=i;"0cao
or ` _ 1 _ Drawn y
-, • 3 T.:man. -' - \-.,-- ,,,,..-.'• I __i.- -.,, .
-II
KRJ
- to I _ c j �� r/
-o ',u - - -- ' , - • V
. i-:.5.' 13 -A.A%.."-
' w- c--V f �• Date:
a``• --- �� \ti• r F' 1 • , NOV 2017
1,95
i �� r �- 6 Scale:
�`�' { xS71 ` �:
frj
/
�% �.-:. + . ? Project No.:
r .c - • -., t . / �� -MI Directions to the Site from Raleigh: 17-009
r 7; . . —1yLs
+� 1/ 0 - Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,
0
r�rcnrad - ' - �•_ L -__c..- - - Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,
I'. XI
o - After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,
' ° ° !� o'`0. - After 5.8 miles, Castle Rock Farm Road becomes Old Switchboard Road, FIGURE
3 1 # ':- _ - Continue for 2.1 miles, turn right onto Lindley Mill Road,
I
.r r Tom — r i : ..• _ , --- _--�_ - After 0.5 mile, turn left onto Major Hill Road,
' ''--- ' -- '"-l' . �• - Site can be accessed from Burnett Church Road which is on the left after 1 mile.
} '� � fJ I - '-. - Site Latitude, Longitude 35.873206, -79.360906 (NAD83/WGS84) 1
eF'I, Copyright:©.2013 National Geographic !
. "a',' '`. s t'cr iety,i-cubed, U.S.Geological Survey- ' 1Jl
N.ational.Geospatial Program. Data USGS 7.5 Minute To o ra hic Map (Saxapahaw, Silk Hope, Snow Camp, and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quads)
- 1 -- F `'Refreshed October,2'01-7 —•L - / ( p g p ( p p
•

111
Legend
= Easement N
Stream Restoration 1
Stream Enhancement(Level II) \
Wetland Restoration 8
Wetland Enhancement
• Trail Camera Vle
n Benthic/Water Quality Stations \ �5j•ciq-
O Groundwater Gauge Meeting Success Criteria During Year 2(2020) \ ® -
O Groundwater Gauge Not Meeting Success Criteria During Year 2(2020) )(frig?X
® Stream Gauges
0 1 ® '
Rain Gauge/Soil Probe 7
O Marsh Treatment Areas
* Plot Origins �1, .V -
CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria During Year 2(2020) �'I A tLJ' 6
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria During Year 2(2020) °" ' \
\ Seed, fertilizer, and
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria During Year(2020) \ lime application area.
7/// 2020 Supplemental Planting Area I;, \
Structures " 'N -�
XS8R
Cross-sections A .� I. \
Newly-Installed Fencing \`\ l' - "
- Previously Existing Fencing that Remains Post-Construction _ •___ _ \ 5 , '�'
�v 4 0
Fencing Removed During Construction ,,,, A,.. � *
XS-5R t
iIk.
, t 0
Seed, fertilizer,and
I, • 0/
lime application area.
1 ' ;r
..5 s\ ,l .'.F,.
:
4.
� i VI
I I '•�''' 6' '. I
•
„�/ i
Lir---- . . . - ,Iii ilok 4 .. \ ,
,,, . - . - - .• -_ ,• ,._ , „, ... ... 1 illi ;
.k,,r} \II )10 •
-71110:-
i' , I
.,. ` II
j,
0
\
�
i' • 1,;
---- -- °� •', 0 70 140 280 420 560
a:;? Feet
/
Dwn. By: FIGURE
,"n Axiom Environmental CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW KRJ
-,�--\ 218SnowAve Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Date
L Jan2021 ^
Raleigh, NC 27607 L'r '''� [phone] Alamance County, North Carolina Project:
.W[lom Emlmnmmtal,Inc. 17-009

Major Hill
MY-02 (2020)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
Plot 1 , , Plot 2
11111
;--',..44,"1/4,:m:44 ,:,,,4; .,,,,,,, ' i''' "*At'"f;,.-J:601
z'tc„c,,,,,.#c,1, _, s ri, , ,,,,- -,-,
� �i 4 ��f0�
„�„�9/202ci ',7 S ' M o Y ,kN Pd -'}nr gj2p
Plot 3 Plot 4 } *;
i,y. >.3 fi
,
wM .4 • k S
Ww ". ids $ �, � 3 �-iqi
it-4 t!,.; il
Plot 5 Plot 6
.* i *. ...
MY2 2r Monitoring Report(Proj 100015) ices
Major Hill(2020)Stream and Wetland RestorationectNo.Site Restoration SystemsAppend,LLC

Major Hill
MY-02 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
Plot 7 Plot 8 M ,,�iiillIllIllp i , ,- - �, p�40, K
,, 1 n ' . fin
k-,,,, ,,
,, _ ,-,--.',:-.TA:sok, 4
fn i ,f { "i
/20,20
MY2 2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No.100015) Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

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

Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Major Hill UT-2
Assessed Length 39
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 As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1. Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation -Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation -Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6) 2 2 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of 2 2 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 2 2 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 2 2 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2. Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding 0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 0 0 NA
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 0 0 NA
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 0 0 NA
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection 0 0 NA
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
4. Habitat 0 0 NA
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Major Hill
Planted Acreage 8.1
% of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage 16.7
% of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern None 1000 SF none 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas None none none 0 0.00 0.0%
= 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.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries.
= 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.
= 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 likley 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

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation—Major Hill Restoration Site
Piedmont/Low Dry-Mesic Marsh
Species Mountain Oak/Hickory Treatment Streamside Total
Alluvial Forest Forest Wetland Assemblage
Acres 1.1 5.5 0.01 1.5 8.11
Alnus serrulata 5 20 25
Asimina triloba 200 200
Betula nigra 100 200 300
Carpinus caroliniana 600 600
Cephalanthus 5 20 25
occidentalis
Cercis canadensis 500 500
Cornus amomum 95 5 800 900
Diospyros virginiana 450 450
Fraxinus americana 100 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 150 750 900
Liriodendron tulipifera 75 75
Nyssa sylvatia 600 600
Platanus occidentalis 120 780 900
Quercus nigra 110 790 500 1,400
Quercus phellos 100 700 400 1,200
Salix nigra* 400* 400
Sambucus canadensis 11 14 25
TOTALS 750 3,740 26 4,084 8,600
Stems/Acre 682 680 2600 2722 1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.009. Project Name:Major Hill
Current Plot Data(MY2 2020) Annual Means
17.009-01-0001 17.009-01-0002 17.009-01-0003 17.009-01-0004 17.009-01-0005 17.009-01-0006 17.009-01-0007 17.009-01-0008 MY2(2020) MY1(2019)* MYO(2019)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 3
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 6 6 9 9 9
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 10 10 10 14 14 14 5 5 5
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 8 14 14 14
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 2 2 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 9 9 10 9 9 9 5 5 5
Fraxinus ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 8 4 4 4 3 3 3
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 10 10 10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 7 7 8 7 7 7
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 23 23 23
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 12 12 12 20 20 20 10 10 10
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 12 12 12 16 16 16 18 18 18
Unknown Shrub or Tree 6 6 6
Stem count 5 5 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 6 6 7 8 8 8 12 12 12 11 11 11 16 16 16 75 75 79 103 103 109 129 129 129
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.20
Species count 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 14 14 14 15 15 17 16 16 16
Stems per ACRE 202.3 202.3 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 364.2 364.2 364.2 242.8 242.8 283.3 323.7 323.7 323.7 485.6 485.6 485.6 445.2 445.2 445.2 647.5 647.5 647.5 379.4 379.4 399.6 521 521 551.4 652.6 652.6 652.6
*The increases in stem counts of species such as Carpinus caroliniana,Diospyros virginiana,and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during MYO(dormant season)monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring.
Color for Density PnoLS=Planted excluding livestakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all=Planting including livestakes
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10% T=All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T includes natural recruits
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data—Major Hill Restoration Site
50m x 2m Temporary Plot(Bearing)
Species
T-1 (356°) T-2(321°) T-3(341°)
Carpinus caroliniana 3 1
Cercis canadensis 1
Cornus amomum 1
Diospyros virginiana 2 1
Fraxninus pennsylvanica 5 3 11
Lirodendron tulipifera 3
Platanus occidentalis 1
Quercus phellos 4 2
Quercus rubra 2 2 6
Total Stems 14 9 25
Total Stems/Acre 567 364 1012
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals—Major Hill Restoration Site
Plot# Success Criteria MY 2(2020) MY 2(2020)
Met? Planted Stems/Ac All Stems/Ac
1 No 202 323
2 Yes 323 323
3 Yes 364 364
4 No 242 283
5 Yes 323 323
6 Yes 485 485
7 Yes 445 445
8 Yes 647 647
T-1 Yes -- 567
T-2 Yes -- 364
T-3 Yes -- 1012
Average Planted Yes 379 467
Stems/Acre
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D.Monitoring Data(Dimensional Morphology Summary& Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross-Section Plots
Substrate Plots
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

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

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

Table 12a. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Major Hill Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project Number 100015
Cross Section 1(UT 1 Downstream) Cross Section 2(UT 1 Downstream) Cross Section 3(UT 1 Downstream) Cross Section 4(UT 1 Downstream)
Parameter Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle
IIIIL-
Dimension MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+
BF Width(ft) 11.8 11.2 12.6 8.6 7.4 7.8 13.0 12.5 13.1 10.3 10.4 12.8
Floodprone Width(ft)(approx) 40.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 NA NA NA 40.0 40.0 40.0
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.1
Low Bank Heigh 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.1 1.1
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft) 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 8.4 8.4 8.4 5.8 5.8 5.8
Width/Depth Ratio 18.6 16.7 21.2 21.1 15.6 17.4 NA NA NA 18.3 18.6 28.2
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.6 3.0 2.8 NA NA NA 3.9 3.8 3.1
Bank Height Ratio* 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
d50(mm) 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).
Table 12b. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Major Hill Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter Baseline(UT 1 Downstream) I MY-1(UT 1 Downstream) I MY-2(UT 1 Downstream) I MY-3(UT 1 Downstream) I MY-5(UT 1 Downstream) I MY-7(UT 1 Downstream)
Mid
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Mas SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width(ft) 8.6 10.3 11.8 3 7.4 10.4 11.2 3 7.8 12.6 12.8 3
Floodprone Width(ft) 22 40 40 3 22 40 40 3 22 40 40 3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.6 0.6 3 0.5 0.6 0.7 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 3
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.9 1.2 3 0.7 1.1 1.2 3 0.7 1.1 1.2 3
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft) 3.5 5.8 7.5 3 3.5 5.8 7.5 3 3.5 5.8 7.5 3
Width/Depth Ratio 18.0 18.0 21.0 3 15.6 16.7 18.6 3 17.4 21.2 28.2 3
Entrenchment Ratio 2.6 3.4 3.9 3 3.0 3.6 3.8 3 2.8 3.1 3.2 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.1 1.1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 3
Profile
Riffle length(ft) 5 16 47 1
Riffle slope(ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0252 0.0539 1
Pool length(ft) 4.0 13.0 28.0 1
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1
Pool spacing(ft) 18.0 24.0 48.0 1 Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period are not required,unless evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed and the data is requested by the IRT.
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 22 29 44
Radius of Curvature(ft) 14 22 73
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength(ft) 44 62 88
Meander Width ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E/C type
Channel Thalweg Length(ft)
Sinuosity 1.12
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0195
BF slope(ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Table 12c.Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Major Hill Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project Number 100015
Cross Section 5(UT 1 Upstream) Cross Section 6(UT 1 Upstream) Cross Section 7(UT 1 Upstream) Cross Section 8(UT 1 Upstream)
Parameter Riffle Pool Pool Riffle
-
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+
BF Width(ft) 11.8 11.8 12.3 8.9 9.9 10.0 7.4 9.5 6.9 6.0 5.7 6.5
Floodprone Width(ft)(approx) 40.0 40.0 40.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA 23.0 23.0 23.0
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.2 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.0 0.8 0.9 0.9
Low Bank Height 1.1 1.2 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.2 0.8 0.9 1.0
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft) 7.1 7.1 7.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.7 11.7 11.7 3.0 3.0 3.0
Width/Depth Ratio 19.6 19.6 21.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 12.0 10.8 14.1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.4 3.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.8 4.0 3.5
Bank Height Ratio* 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1
d50(mm) 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9
Cross Section 9(UT 1 Upstream) Cross Section 10(UT 1 Upstream)
Parameter Pool Riffle
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+
BF Width(ft) 7.0 9.4 8.0 10.9 11.2 13.3
Floodprone Width(ft)(approx) NA NA NA 40.0 40.0 40.0
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.3 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.6
Low Bank Height 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.6
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft) 4.9 4.9 4.9 3.5 3.5 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 33.9 35.8 50.5
Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 3.7 3.6 3.0
Bank Height Ratio* 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
d50(mm) 25.4 33.0 4.9 25.4 33.0 4.9
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MY0)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).
Table 12d.Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Major Hill Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter I Baseline(UT 1 Upstream) I MY-1(UT 1 Upstream) I MY-2(UT 1 Upstream) I MY-3(UT 1 Upstream) I MY-5(UT 1 Upstream) I MY-7(UT 1 Upstream)
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Min Mean Med Max SD a Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD a Min Mean Med Max SD a Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Only
BF Width(ft) 6.0 10.9 11.8 3 5.7 11.2 11.8 3 6.5 12.3 13.3 3
Floodprone Width(ft) 23 40 40 3 23 40 40 3 23 40 40 3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 0.5 0.6 3 0.3 0.5 0.6 3 0.3 0.5 0.6 3
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.8 1.1 3 0.6 0.9 1.2 3 0.6 0.9 1.1 3
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft) 3.0 3.5 7.1 3 3.0 3.5 7.1 3 3.0 3.5 7.1 3
Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 19.6 33.9 3 10.8 19.6 35.8 3 14.1 21.3 50.5 3
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.7 3.8 3 3.4 3.6 4.0 3 3.0 3.3 3.5 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.1 3
Profile
Riffle length(ft) 5 16 47 3
Riffle slope(ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0252 0.0539 3
Pool length(ft) 4.0 13.0 28.0 3
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.3 2.0 2.5 3
Pool spacing(ft) 18.0 24.0 48.0 3 .
Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period are not required,unless evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed and the data is requested by the IRT.
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 18 24 36
Radius of Curvature(ft) 12 18 60
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength(ft) 36 51 72
Meander Width ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification F/C type
Channel Thalweg Length(ft)
Sinuosity 1.08
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0195
BF slope(ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Table 13.Major Hill Water Quality Data-Major Hill Restoration Site
Preconstruction Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream
Parameter 7/28/17 8/14/17 7/28/17 8/14/17 11/20/19 11/20/19 10/28/20 10/28/20
TDS(ppm) 110.1 147 62.6 86.8 394 179 164.0 122.3
TDS(mg/1) 109.1 149 64.6 83.5 397 179 168.3 131.3
Conductivity 159.2 215 92.1 128.3 557 252 242.1 186.9
(m/s)
Temperature 25.4 22.6 24.6 22.1 8 6.9 19.6 19.7
(°C)
DO(mg/1) - 1.93 - 3.06 - - 5.36 7.64
DO(ppm) - 1.06 - 2.53 - - 5.42 7.72
pH 6.61 6.37 6.65 6.22 7 6.58 6.96 6.94
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-1,Riffle
Feature Riffle may„ {
Date: 9/11/2020 a " - P -
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
`
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA G r E i
0.0 517.02 Bankfull Elevation: 516.8 �_ a � _
3.0 516.82 LTOB Elevation: 516.8 ,, - :.
5.5 516.80 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 7.5
3"a�
8.4 516.71 Bankfull Width: 12.6 •; ,. --.�
9.9 516.35 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 518.0
10.9 515.84 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 _-
11.5 515.55 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.2 r
12.4 515.59 Low Bank Height: 1.2
13.6 515.70 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
15.1 515.80 W/D Ratio: 21.2
15.9 515.91 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.2
16.4 516.34 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
17.7 516.39 Stream Type C/E
19.3 516.78
21.1 516.85
22.6 517.20 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-1,Riffle
24.5 517.10
26.1 517.30 519
518 -
m
I :: ..........".""""" ---- 11114\111.414E02;°11111111" ..-----
::::Bankfull
Flood Rone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
-MY-01 9/10/19
515 I I
-MY-02 9/11/20
0 10 20 30
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-2,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 9/11/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
1
Station EleN ation SUMMARY DATA
0.1 518.23 Bankfull Elevation: 517.3 r .
2.3 517.88 LTOB Elevation: 517.3 ' ' T. �" o§ y 5 t
4.4 517.65 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.5
ti: •a& irk D ' ;_
6.0 517.42 Bankfull Width: 7.8 ` ` 't y9U`s ' > .=
7.4 517.31 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 518.0 J L `* L ' 7 / •• , '�,
9.0 517.27 Flood Prone Width: 22.0 Y "� �r ��d
9.7 517.06 Max Depth at Bankfull 0.7 16 �a�f
10.6 516.74 Low Bank Height: 0.7
11.5 516.69 Mean Depth at BankfulL 0.4
12.4 516.57 W/D Ratio: 17.4
13.3 516.52 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.8
14.5 516.61 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
15.3 516.93 Stream Type C/E
16.4 517.14
17.3 517.38
18.8 517.45 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-2,Riffle
20.2 517.56
24.4 517.84 519
518 ___
t
z
2
6
W 517
- Bankfill
- Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
516 1 -
0 1 f) 20 MY-02 /20
■ MY0z L9/11TOB
Station(feet) MY oo TOB

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-3,Pool x,
Feature Pool
"7J'."
Date: 9/11/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA e-� + ." '` : "
i
0.3 521.0 Bankfull Elevation: 520.2 - `'' �-� -°,r
3.2 520.7 LTOB Elevation: 520.3
5.7 520.2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 8.4
7.1 519.8 Bankfull Width: 13.1 s �q� 1 ,�
�i/,m P' �
7.9 518.9 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA '���,fi � ��,_ � C ���
8.3 518.6 Flood Prone Width: NA ''', 4�� n5L ' `,' j /`
9.2 518.5 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.6 j
10.1 518.7 Low Bank Height: 1.7 j a N '\
10.6 518.8 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
11.2 518.9 W/D Ratio: NA
11.6 519.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.4 519.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.1
13.1 519.8 tzar C/E
15.2 519.9
18.3 520.0
20.1 520.3
22.3 520.4 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-3,Pool
522 -
521 -
m
i
:::
----Banlduu
-MY-00 9/19/18
Mirliiiiiiii......-\ , - r ---..".......--
-MY-01 9/10/19
518 -MY-02 9/11/20
0 10 20 • MY02LTOB
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet)

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT1,XS-4,Riffle
"fi .. ,.�f „
Feature Riffle z M
Date: 9/11/2020 t,��
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ,r� �4r
0.0 521.06 Bankfull Elevation: 520.6 i>a
2.5 521.07 LTOB Elevation: 520.5 -,,„ ..;,--',,or,',..!,.,:
5.4 520.57 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 5.8 ,,,, W ' , r \��
'CV- a
7.3 520.20 Bankfull Width: 12.8 v x ,_a r � i�
8.3 519.99 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 521.7 It_ !� ' ,. ? ' '1� +
9.2 519.81 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 * A,:,t. I r - ,_, ` /'
10.4 519.69 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.1 ''
11.1 519.52 Low Bank Height: 1.1
11.8 519.44 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
12.3 519.58 W/D Ratio: 28.2
13.1 519.80 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.1
13.8 520.22 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
14.5 520.36 Stream Type C/E
15.5 520.52
17.1 520.52
19.0 520.58 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-4,Riffle
22.1 520.74
522
m
521
t
z
lleir
W 520 / --
dull
\ Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 9/19/18
-MY-01 9/10/19
519 , I I -
0 10 20 -MY-02 9/11/20
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-5,Riffle
Feature Riffle
��
Date: 9/11/2020 1 A `�
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki : 1,:%: ��'�
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA { / �k x°^tom /-
0.0 525.32 Bankfull Elevation: 524.5t /
3.8 524.62 LTOB Elevation: 524.5 '' a C� "Yi
6.2 524.08 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 7.1 � �y'yn n = � 1�
6.8 524.08 Bankfull Width: 12.3 0gt �t ` 1 �"
7.3 523.91 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 525.6 - i. i
7.8 523.53 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
8.9 523.38 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.1
9.9 523.35 Low Bank Height: 1.1
10.4 523.57 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
10.9 523.68 W/D Ratio: 21.3
12.1 523.68 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.3
13.4 523.90 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
14.8 523.99 Stream Type C/E
15.6 524.34
17.1 524.48
19.7 524.69 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-5,Riffle
526
525
t
z
W 524
BankfuII
___ Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
523 1 -
0 10 20 MY-02oo 9/11/20
■ MY0z LTTOOB
Station(feet) MY B

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-6,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 9/11/2020 ,;
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki ` i� t xu
.' w rrI lE I;'
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.6 525.9 Bankfull Elevation: 524.8
3.4 525.4 LTOB Elevation: 524.9
5.0 525.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 9.1
6.7 524.9 Bankfull Width: 10.0 .
7.3 524.5 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA h'
7.7 524.0 Flood Prone Width: NA _ Div
4� a:.it.
8.5 522.8 Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.0 w! .
9.1 522.7 Low Bank Height: 2.2 4le:.&rs.-atses_.
9.8 522.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.9
10.1 522.9 W/D Ratio: NA
10.4 523.2 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
11.2 523.1 Bank Height Ratio: 1.1
11.8 523.2 crar C/E
12.2 524.3
13.7 524.3
16.4 524.7
18.8 525.0 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-6,Pool
22.6 525.0
527
526 -
A 525
-
0
524 /1
W . _j ----Bankfull
523 MY-00 9/19/18
-MY-01 9/10/19
-MY-02 9/11/20
522 , I I -
0 10 20 • MY02LTOB
-MY OO TOB
Station(feet)

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-7,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 9/11/2020 t . ..
y..
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki e ,`
r
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ,
-0.8 529.9 Bankfull Elevation: 529.1 €'vr T "-i-., AK, �k: ,4 '
1.8 529.9 LTOB Elevation: 529.2 ; ' .; ". a s < i
5.2 529.7 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 11.7 kmei,sirisik a, a q�s ,6.4 529.7 Bankfull Width: 6.9 €, " ''' t` �, 11
8.0 528.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA !u3 ,,,.�,/ Af �- 9_ -a a
r.
8.7 527.1 Flood Prone Width: NA a03ff 9 � s r:4. „''1 '
9.6 527.1 Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.0 .21
' y'"M - ,
10.7 527.0 Low Bank Height: 2.2 ._ y`2svt .>. Y ', ''f
11.7 527.0 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.7
12.4 527.0 W/D Ratio: NA
13.5 527.1 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
13.8 527.1 Bank Height Ratio: 1.1
14.3 529.2 CV IM C/E
15.3 529.3
18.4 529.6
20.6 530.1
22.4 530.3 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-7,Pool
531
530
-
//
t 529
z
0
• 528
W - ____Bankfuu
527 MY-00 9/19/18
-MY-01 9/10/19
-MY-02 9/11/20
526 , I I -
0 10 20 • MY02LTOB
-MY OO TOB
Station(feet)

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-8,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 9/11/2020404000
�'. ;' -'.'� .,-Nov-. �-
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA a .'
0.0 530.37 Bankfull Elevation: 529.6 "
3.6 530.13 LTOB Elevation: 529.7 's -N, / - a '�;
6.0 529.96 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.0 ,a'\` ',v� 'n ���,', ,, -/
7.3 529.74 Bankfull Width: 6.5 °ti 1,
8.6 529.42 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 530.5
9.5 529.28 Flood Prone Width: 23.0
9.8 529.12 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9
10.7 528.71 Low Bank Height: 1.0
11.2 528.72 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
11.7 528.81 W/D Ratio: 14.1
12.4 529.24 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.5
13.2 529.24 Bank Height Ratio: 1.1
14.4 529.67 Stream Type -, C/E
16.2 530.33
17.9 530.30
22.5 530.35 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-8,Riffle
531 -
/530 /
'144\
W 529 /
i ----Banlduu
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
-MY-01 9/10/19
528 - I I
0 10 20 -MY-o2 9/11/20
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-9,Pool
Feature Pool . M
Date: 9/11/2020 / ''- ¢�.#t, "' �r
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki m1f1p e nF##ryry 44,/ /, a
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA . t'1at'�1pf -A/i �.r . r
-0.2 539.2 Banldull Elevation: 539.2 �l� '� "' ' �
2.9 539.2 LTOB Elevation: 539.2 � ��i� '
5.0 539.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.9 , , ',{"0 / ��
6.8 539.0 Bankfull Width: 8.0 • • ��
8.2 538.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA / f
8.7 538.4 Flood Prone Width: NA t:� �. �- �/
/.
9.3 538.0 Max Depth at BankfulL 1.3 a 1,�, 1i}' 1 : '', _1/
10.2 538.1 Low Bank Height: 1.3
10.7 537.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
11.4 538.1 W/D Ratio: NA
11.8 538.6 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.5 538.6 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
13.6 539.3 C/E
15.2 539.3
17.8 539.3
20.8 539.3
Major Hill,UT 1,XS-9,Pool
540
m
539
t
z
2
es
W538 ___Bankfuu
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
537 -
0 10 20 • MY02LTOB
MY OO TOB
Station(feet)

Site Major Hill
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-10,Riffle
Feature Riffle �; +'^
N.
Date: 9/11/2020 a , , - f:
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki r,� 't
r � tip lb ..
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA F y c fi `3 M � '
0.1 541.34 Bankfull Elevation: 540.9 � �% �
3.4 541.09 LTOB Elevation: 540.9 -i$ r
5.9 540.88 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.5 * �a a x'k `
7.7 540.85 Bankfull Width: 13.3 yaka�: '
7.9 540.50 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 541.5 r" - :'
8.5 540.52 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 ,'tr
9.3 540.50 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 . : : ' ( ae`-` , �,�� -4 r\t
10.3 540.52 Low Bank Height: 0.6
11.2 540.33 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
12.1 540.62 W/D Ratio: 50.5
12.7 540.45 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.0
13.4 540.67 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
14.2 540.65 Stream Type C/E
15.7 540.64
17.1 540.63
18.8 540.89 Major Hill,UT 1,XS-10,Riffle
20.4 541.06
542
m
t
0 541
W
- Bankfill
- Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 9/19/18
-MY-01 9/10/19
540 , I I
0 10 20 -MY-02 9/11/20
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Project Name: Major Hill
UT1 Reachwide
All Features
2020 Cumulative Percent
Description Material Size(mm) Total# Item% Cum%
Silt/Clay siltclay 0.062 17 18% 36% 100%
very fine sand 0.125 10 11% 44% 90%
fine sand 0.250 4 4% 48% 80%
Sand medium sand 0.50 3 3% 48% t 70%
coarse sand 1.00 3 3% 56% 6' 60%
very coarse sand 2.0 4 4% 60% 50% /
very fine gravel 4.0 4 4% 68% 'a 40%
fine gravel 5.7 3 3% 72% § 30%
fine gravel 8.0 4 4% 84% 20%
medium gravel 11.3 6 6% 92% 10%
Gravel medium gravel 16.0 5 5% 92% 0% i
course gravel 22.3 6 6% 96% o \ \`o `o e
course gravel 32.0 9 10% 96% Particle Size(mm)
very coarse gravel 45 6 6% 96% —MY0-2019 —MY1-2019 —MY2-2020 —MY3-2021 —MY4-2022 —MY5-2023
very coarse gravel 64 5 5% 100%
small cobble 90 0 0% 100%
medium cobble 128 1 1% 100%
Cobble Individual Class Percent
large cobble 180 0 0% 100%
very large cobble 256 3 3% 100% l00
small boulder 362 0 0% 100% 90%
Boulder small boulder 512 0 0% 100% 80%
medium boulder 1024 0 0% 100% t 70%
large boulder 2048 0 0% 100% 0 60%
Bedrock bedrock 4096 0 0% 100% i 50%
U 40%
TOTAL%of whole count 93 100% 100%
a 30%
.�a 20%
Summary Data
D50 4.9 10% ♦ r . V rr'' L r
0% r Y r
D8495 32 5 5 5 i d 1 b 'S N� 'S ,�'L p, vR oO 73 �O 6ti 1' ,vR f° 9�
D95 61 �o��ti o' o `' `. ,1'1` ti ti 3 5 �o �o ,��
Particle Size(mm)
■MY0-2019 ■MY1-2019 ■MY2-2020 ■MY3-2021 ■MY4-2022 ■MY5-2023

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 14A.UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B.UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15.Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence—Major Hill Restoration Site
UT! Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 99 158
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or Yes Yes
otherwise)
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration,including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or Yes Yes
plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No Yes
Other: str
° ' t' - az-. rf�4 t _
.� s.
_ 4
i It a ►d t
\i
I \
. F i '���s! 9
e, Vt' \ I S�, Yam ; 74^�S ;; 9( 44.,' , 1 \,
► \® �‘lr .S� SIB Y' � YM1y_v �4 \ 6
dt------ - i ''` -,kawA'. 4\._ wIrrit* 4'. i.:,,,,-..1.,?tc.,-.7a,1,,,,, ...' -.It. , ,.,t 1,
ffv
P',ie.oft
w a \ k\�3� �A 4 +, r � Y� -a i ek* 4L `
lik
Apry ' v, A ,e,,P ;r
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Major Hill Stream Flow Gauge UT1 Upstream
Year 2 (2020 Data)
30 - 3.0
28
26
24 2.5
22
c 20 _
-y 18 =
. 16 2.0 cLo
3
m 14 E
3 12 a
3 10 1.5 c
o 2 g s
6
4 93 days Data loss 1.0
2
0
-2
-4 - 0.5
J
i. . .1 i I L IL..1
I ,_ i_ I . . . _ II . I , 1 Ji I I II
0.0
, , , , N N W W W W A A A LA In In al al al V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I--` I--` I--` I--`
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ l0 \ \ \ -. \ \ \F` F` N WF` NF` F` N WF` N WF` N W l0F` Nl0F` NW1-` NJF` N \ I-.
I-. I-. I-. O O I-. I-. I-. O O O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 CO CO J J J I-. N m
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ �I J \
ON N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 O O O NNO
00

Table 14B.UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence—Major Hill Restoration Site
UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 52 236
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or Yes Yes
otherwise)
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration,including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or Yes Yes
plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No Yes
Other: Bankfull event
documented.
',...-' ^ 3n.1,r ftrt, -77.1
.i T. i
`b
'\,//\ /
, d J
1 .� a �� fit, I �,�
e���� _` �.. .r d..
29.41inHg1 B 69F 0 04 / 03 / 2020 07 : 20PM MH DS
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Major Hill Stream Flow Gauge UT1 Downstream
Year 2 (2020 Data)
30.00 — - 4.5
28.00 26.00 — I
- 4.0
/—
24.00
22.00
20.00
- _
� 18.00 =
w - 3.5 16.00 - 3.0 c
I 0
14.00
E
3 12.00 r - 25 Q
10.0o I I
'- 8.00 - 2.0 ix
L-A,.....-, j IL \ ,,,.
4.00
168 Days Data loss
.4 II. Al 0. - 1.5
2.00
0.00 -,
- 1.0
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00 1 iii
0.5
-8.00IIi-10.00 1 I , it I IL I Jl l ■ III I I
L I 0.0
I-` I-` I-` I-. N N W W W W . . . In In In Ol Ol Ol J J J 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-. I-. I-. I-.
I-.-` I-.-` N W I--` N I--` I--` N W I--` N W I--` N W ll0 I--` N ll0 I--` N 0000 I--` N J I--` N 0 0 0 \
I-. I-. I- 0 0 - I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 - l0 l0 - l0 l0 - 00 00 J J J I- N 01
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N.) \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ J J \
ON NNNN 0 NNNNN NNNN 0 N N ONN ONN ON N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OONNO
0 0

Table 15.Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Date of Photo
Collection Occurrence Method (if
available)
March 19, January 13, A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 1.10 inches of 1
2019 2019 rain was documented on January 13,2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
March 19, February 23 A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 2.74 inches of
2019 2019 rain was documented between February 22-23,2019 at an onsite 2
rain gauge.
April 13 Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 4.11
June 27,2019 2019 inches of rain was documented between April 12-13,2019 at an --
onsite rain gauge.
September 9, A bankfull event likely occurred after 3.02 inches of rain was
2019 July 24,2019 __
documented between July 23-24,2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
September 9, August 1, A bankfull event likely occurred after 1.96 inches of rain was __
2019 2019 documented on August 1,2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
April 13, April 13, A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after 3
2020 2020 approximately 2.31 inches was recorded at an onsite rain gauge
•
Photo 1 Y `!+' ',
V''•Miir Y fr Y t -fi
11 F • :?' 41'ii/,_... F.,,. -a .I - a..a' rs '. : "'L': . ..', J J, .. r Aiji . t
•.,�• 7�fr' J•I I1
•
h P'j.lx , '
z 'r
:: '•r -saw , .. ...
•
; ,
•
29.82inHg t 1 39-F 0 ti02 i 2 3 ; 2019 02 : 35PM MN DS
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Photo 2 R 'I ,� ,` !4 iw a i
i idi ti,A ' +.
• wf <EI. rl !._ - UE--It,w ! i is_ Il - �• '�
Ir
a 7 _ . of-.'. ►
29.79inHg T 0 - 471 55'F II 01 / 1 3 / 201 9 07 : 1 5AM MH DS
Photo 3 {.
•
y r, .4
•
--.
29,23inHg T 0 64�F III 04 / 1 3 / 2020 07 : 31AM MH DS
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data—Major Hill Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2019) Year 2(2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025)
1 No/14 days* Yes/136 Days
6.0 percent 57.9 percent
2 No/19 days* No/19 days
8.1 percent 8.0 percent
3 Yes/25 days Yes/235 days
10.6 percent 100 percent
4 Yes/34 days Yes/72 days
14.5 percent 30.5 percent
5 Yes/119 days Yes/135 days
50.6 percent 57.4 percent
6 Yes/77 days Yes/44 days
32.8 percent 18.7 percent
*These gauges did not meet success criteria due to a data shuttle failure that resulted in the loss of data.Based on rainfall
and hydrology data that was not lost,all gauges would have likely met success criteria had the loss of data not occurred.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 I 4.5
10 — March 1
8 — October 22
6 — Growing Season — —1—,- 4.0
4 — Start Growing Season
2
p 3.5
'VI
• 2 ,� L
44 \6( 4 c
ci,w -6 - 3.0
C
7
y o
m -10 E
-44
II. - 2.5 a
3 _
3 -14 136 Days Data loss m
o c
O 16 - 2.0 s
-18
-20
-22 - 1.5
-24
-26
-28 - 1.0
-30
-32
-34 - 0.5
-36-38 II I I
-40 ii I , it I IL 1 4 0 I I L I i L i L - 0.0
I- I- I- I-` NJ NJ W W W W A A A In Ui Ui Ol Ol Ol J J J CO CO CO l0 l0 lO I-` I-` I-`
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0
F-` I-. N W 1-. NJ 1-. I-. N W 1-. NJ W I-. NJ W lO I-. NJ lO I-. NJ 00 I-. NJ J I-. NJ \ \ \
I- I-. I-. 0 0 I-. I-. I-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 CO CO J J J f+ N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ J J
0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N
0 0

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 , March 1 I 4.5
10 Growing Season J October 22
8
6 • Start J Growing Season - 4.0
4 _i End
2 ► I hilt_I, - 3.5
q I I 1
c
VI I
m -6 - 3.0 ul
C
3
y -8 . DaI' ,1
0
i� E
- 2.5 <
3 -14 c
o
16
18 - 2.0 z
20
22 - 1.5
24
26
-28 - 1.0
30
32
336
4 I I - 0.5
38 d IIt I1 I1 It � i h 1 ` I L
-40 0.0
I-' I-' I-' I-` NJ NJ W W W W A A A LA U U 01 0l 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-` I-` I-` I-`
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0 0 0 I-.
I-. I-. NJ W I-. NJ I-. I-. NJ W I-. NJ W I-. NJ W l0 I-. NJ l0 I-. NJ 00 I-. NJ J I-. NJ \ \ \ \
I- I-. I-. 0 0 - I-. I-. I-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 - l0 l0 - l0 l0 - CO CO J J J I-. NJ CO
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V J \
0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ NJ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ 0
0 0

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 1 1 October 22 4.5
10 Growing Season Growing Season
8 Start End
6 - 4.0
2
0 - 3.5
2
w -4
- 3.0 4.1
4, -6 c_
`w 8 o
199 )ays E
333 -12 II. - 2.5 a
c o
= -14 c
o •�
I
--36
II
I J J I In' I - 0.5
' h . ` I L 0.0
- , , , , N N W W W W A A A In VI In 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I--` I--` I--` I--`
1--` I--' N W I-. N I-. I-. N W I-. N W I-. N W l0 I-. N l0 I-. N 00 I-. N J I-. N \ \ \ \
I-. I-. I-. O O I-. I-. I-. O O O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 CO CO J J J I-. N m
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ �1 J \
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 O O O N N O
00

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 1 I - 4.5
10 Growing Season October 22
8 J Growing Season
Start
6 -I End - 4.0
4 I
2
i
/1/441V"Af'\1*%"\11.411in\i‘ i - 3.5
A
\ii
44,-,\, k--\\A.
.�
I "E.v Lo
I - 3.0 =
-8 I 0
72 Days E
-ato It \)\\1111\1
- 2.5 a
c o
= -14 c
o ki
16 - 2.0 s
-18
-20
22i - 1.5
24 -
-26
-28 - 1.0
-30 -
-32
-34 - 0.5
-36--40 1 I . III I I I
_I J 1 ■ IL. I ' � `. I L - 0.0
I-` I-` I-` 1-. N N W W W UJ A A A In In In al Ol Ol J J J 00 00 00 lO lO lO I-. I-. I-. I-.
\ - - - \ \ \ - \ \ - - - - - - - - - \ \ \ - - - \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-
I-` I-. N LU I-. N I-. I-. N LU I-. N LU I-. N LU lO I-. N l0 I-. N 00 I- N J I-. N \ \ \ \
I-. 1-. I- O O I- I- I- O O O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 00 00 ..4 J J I- N Ol
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ - ...4 \
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0
0 0

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 1 4.5
10 October22
8 Growing Season
6 Start Growing Season - 4.0
4 - 4 1 2 �YV
_ 0 ` 3.5
2
c
Ty i 4 - 3.0 4.1
6il
c
`w -8 - o
-3 t E
33 =i� 135 Days - 2.5 44
c o
3 -14 - c
o •-
-16 d\1 - 2.0 rx
-18
-20
-22 - 1.5
-24 -
-26
-28 - 1.0
-30 -
-32
-34 - 0.5
-36 - I
-38
-40 IieLLL L . il_ I i. _ .L 1> L . 1].. ii.i1 0.0
F-` F-` F-` F-` N N W W W W A A A In In In Ol Ol Ol V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-. I-. I-. I-.
I\-` I\-` N W I\-` N I\-` I\-` N W I\-` N W I\-` N W ll00 I\-` N ll00 I\-` N W I\-` N J I\-` N \ \ \ \
I-. I-. I-. O O I-. I-. I-. O O O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 00 00 V V V I-. N Ol
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V ......,
ONNNNN ONNNNN NNNN ONN ONN ONN O N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 O O O N N O
00

Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 1 I October 24 - 4.5
10 Growing Season I Growing Season
8 -
6 _ Start End - 4.0
4
2
0 3.5
_ 2
w -4
> - 3.0 1
6 c
w 8Aetkft104E0
3m -10
-a -12
V I. I. - 2.5 a
3 -14 42 Da s 28 D s To
44 Days c
o •3
• -16 - 2.0 of
-18
-20
-22 - 1.5
-24
-26
-28 - - 1.0
-30
-32
-34 - I II _ 1 - 0.5
-36
-40 iti L . ill I IL _L 1 ■ IL � 1 11 1 i_ l
-40 0.0
I- I- I- I-` N N W W W W A A A In VI VI O1 O1 O1 N V N 00 00 00 lO lO lO I-` I-` I-` I-`
\ \ 00 F` F` N W I-` N I-` I-` N W I-` N W I-` N W tO I-` N LO I-` N 00 I-` N J I- N
I-. I-` I-. 0 0 I-` I-. I-. 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO lO lO lO CO 00 ...1 •J V I-` N 01
N.) \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ ..4 ..4 \
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 00 O O O N N O
00

Appendix F.
Riparian Buffer Year 2 (2020)Monitoring Report
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

RIPARIAN BUFFER MY2 (2020) MONITORING REPORT
MAL IGATION SITE
AlamanceJORHIL County,MIT North lina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin-Haw River Arm
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Mak
Jj
t
P'-'1440",H. ,147‘.... I'l+, '.,.-'7 --'-'-,'- .:1".``' r v,,,, "",, ',1 tl:-,I,
'gY' y�y� k 'S r 3
¢fF_ ' 'l ' ," i b L y.N 'hdY'..rr 1' - �kF V f X �1 .� ..
i -ems A as B4,,,,,..s, - ` , v. �' nyl�A el,W 4 .
+• �+ r � ,4s"1 ' S vim *,2 `i kt- irc� a1 .4
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
January 2021
This project with conforms with the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B.0295, effective November 1, 2015 and the Jordan Lake Buffer Protection Rule (1 SA
NCAC 02B.0267& 1 SA NCAC 02B .0268)

Table of Contents
1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY 1
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 2
3.0 RIPARIAN RESTORATION,ENHANCEMENT, &PRESERVATION PLAN 2
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities 2
3.1.1 Site Preparation 2
3.1.2 Planting 4
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities 4
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities 5
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area 5
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING 5
4.1 Monitoring 5
4.2 Performance Standards 6
4.3 Results and Discussion 6
4.4 Maintenance and Management 7
5.0 REFERENCES 9
Tables
Table 1.Buffer Project Attributes 1
Table 2.Buffer Project Areas and Assets 3
Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation 4
Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring 5
Table 5. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals 7
Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species 8
Attachments
Attachment 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:Table of Contents
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line. Project attributes are included in the following table.
Table 1.Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name Major Hill
Hydrologic Unit Code 3030002050050
River Basin Cape Fear
Geographic Location(Lat,Long) 35.873206,-79.360906
Site Protection Instrument(DB,PG) (2789, 896),(2514, 756),(3143,270),(3150,920)
Total Credits(BMU) 402,837
Types of Credits Riparian Buffer Restoration,Enhancement,&Preservation
Mitigation Plan Date Apr-18
Initial Planting Date Dec 2018-Jan 2019
Baseline Report Date Mar-19
MY1 Report Date Nov-19
MY2 Report Date Jan-21
MY3 Report Date
MY4 Report Date
MY5 Report Date
The Site drainage area is primarily composed of pasture, forest, agriculture land, and sparse residential
property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream land surface.
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of pasture, hayfields, disturbed forest, and agricultural land
used for livestock grazing and hay production.Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams,and stream
banks were eroded vertically and laterally and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs. Riparian
zones in the upper reaches of UT 1 were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that was sparse and
disturbed due to livestock grazing,bush hogging,and regular land-management activities.The downstream
reaches of UT 1 and all of UT 3 were primarily wooded with livestock disturbance to stream channels.UT
2 was the lone tributary not subject to continuous,unrestricted livestock access.Riparian areas immediately
adjacent to UT 2 were forested with a fence to protect this area from livestock access.
The riparian areas were restored in concurrence with the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
(NC DMS Project ID 10015,SAW-2017-01472)and involved restoring riparian buffers adjacent to restored
streams to help reduce non-point source contaminant discharges to downstream waters in the Haw River
sub-watershed of Jordan Lake. All riparian areas were assessed by DWR (Katie Merritt and Sue
Homewood)during an onsite visit February 20th,2018 to determine viability for buffer mitigation.
The Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Riparian restoration, enhancement, and
preservation area widths adjacent to restored streams extend out to a maximum of 200 feet from the top of
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:Page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

stream banks with a minimum width of 50 from the top of banks. Riparian buffer enhancement and
preservation credits generated on this Site are allowed pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o).No riparian
restoration areas that are less than 20 feet wide from Top of Banks are used to generate riparian buffer
credit.
Riparian buffer mitigation credit was not generated in areas that are generating wetland mitigation credit.
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Credit determination for this Site follows the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295,effective November 1,2015 (see Table 2 on the following page and Figure A,
Attachment 1).
3.0 RIPARIAN RESTORATION,ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN
This Site was also proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation project; therefore, restoration of riparian
areas was accomplished through the goals and methods outlined by the Major Hill Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan.All applicable federal,state,and local documentation,permits,and/or authorizations were
acquired as part of implementing the above-mentioned mitigation plan.
Primary goals focused on 1) improving water quality, 2) enhancing flood attenuation and hydrology, 3)
improving aquatic resources, and 4) restoring riparian habitat. Completed mitigation provides floodplain
connectivity,floodplain resistance, stream stability,sediment transport,surface and subsurface storage and
retention, in-stream habitat, riparian habitat and structure, thermal regulation, floodplain biogeochemical
processing,and pollutant filtration as well as remove sources of pollutants.The riparian area will be restored
through the revegetation of native plant communities.
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
3.1.1 Site Preparation
Soil grading occurred during stream restoration activities. Topsoils were stockpiled during construction
activities and spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade was established. The replaced topsoil will
serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival of
planted species.
Farm Pond Removal
To complete the stream and wetland restoration activities and subsequent riparian buffer restoration, the
removal of a small farm pond,—0.58 acres occurred. Stream, wetland and riparian area restoration within
the abandoned pond included 1)notching the dam to dewater;2)removal of the dam to the elevation of the
adjacent floodplain; 3)excavating sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction;4)backfilling
areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the
design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of
structures.
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:Page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 2.Buffer Project Areas and Assets
RIPARLAN BUFFER(15A NCAC If Converted to
02B.0295) Nutrient Offset
Initial Final Riparian Convertible to Nutrient Nutrient
Jurisdictional Restoration Reach ID/ Buffer Creditable Credit 0/0Credit Buffer Nutrient
Location Streams Type Component Width(ft) Area(sf)* Ratio Full Ratio Credits Offset(Yes or Offset:N Offset:P
(x:1) Credit (x:1) (BIM) No) Otis) Otis)
Rural Subject& Restoration 1 0-100 213,290 1 100% 1.00000 213,290.000 Yes 11129.775 716.842
Nonsubject
Rural Subject& Restoration 2 101-200 40,976 1 33% 3.03030 13,522.094 Yes 2138.186 137.715
Nonsubject
Rural Subject Enhancement 3 0-100 341,433 2 100% 2.00000 170,716.500 No 0.000 0.000
SUBTOTALS 595,699 397,528.594 13,267.960 854.558
ELIGIBLE 198,566
PRESERVATION AREA
Initial Final Riparian
Jurisdictional Restoration Reach ID/ Buffer Creditable Credit % Credit Buffer
Location Streams Type Component Width(ft) Area(sf)* Ratio Full Ratio Credits
(x:1) Credit (x:1) (BIM)
Rural Nonsubject Preservation 4 0-100 25,614 5 100% 5.00000 5,122.800
Rural Nonsubject Preservation 5 101-200 2,814 5 33% 15.15152 185.724
SUBTOTALS 28,428 5,308.524
TOTALS 624,127 402,837.117
*Area eligible for preservation may be no more than 25%of total area,where total area is back-calculated with the equation R+E/0.75.
*Buffers must be at minimum 20'wide for riparian buffer credit, buffers must be 50'wide for nutrient offset credit
*When preservation areas exceed the total eligible preservation area,select the areas with the best credit ratios as the creditable areas.
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

3.1.2 Planting
Bare-root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests will be planted at a
density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the stream-side assemblage and
Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas were planted at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot
centers. The following table summarizes planted bare root stems within the Site.
Table 3.Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Piedmont/Low Dry-Mesic Marsh Streamside
Species Mountain Oak/Hickory Treatment Total
Alluvial Forest Forest Wetland Assemblage
I
Acres 1.1 5.5 0.01 1.5 8.11
Alnus serrulata 5 20 25
Asimina triloba 200 200
Betula nigra 100 200 300
Carpinus caroliniana 600 600
Cephalanthus 5 20 25
occidentalis
Cercis canadensis 500 500
Cornus amomum 95 5 800 900
Diospyros virginiana 450 450
Fraxinus americana 100 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 150 750 900
Liriodendron tulipifera 75 75
Nyssa sylvatia 600 600
Platanus occidentalis 120 780 900
Quercus nigra 110 790 500 1,400
Quercus phellos 100 700 400 1,200
Salix nigra* 400* 400
Sambucus canadensis 11 14 25
TOTALS 750 3,740 26 4,084 8,600
Stems/Acre 682 680 2600 2722 1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted;all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities
Riparian buffer enhancement included permanently protecting existing riparian buffer from livestock via
exclusionary fencing, cutting, clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the
functionality of the riparian buffer.These areas are defined primarily as disturbed mixed hardwoods.Buffer
credits sought in the enhancement area are allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). The enhancement
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

area extends a maximum of 200 feet from the top of the bank with a minimum width of 20 from top of
banks.
A small portion of UT-3 is generating riparian buffer enhancement credit from only one side of the stream.
Prior to construction, cattle had access to the entire area; however, the only access point was from the
pasture on the northern side of the stream,the Parcel owned by Mr. Lamm. Once fencing was installed to
prevent cattle access from Mr. Lamm's parcel to the stream,cattle will no longer be able to access the south
side of the stream. This action will result in compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6), which states
that the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock must be done such that the livestock are fenced out of the
stream and its adjacent buffer. The southern parcel, which is not apart of the conservation easement, is
owned by the Caviness family and is a single-family home. Cattle will not be grazing within their parcel
post construction.
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities
Riparian buffer preservation includes permanently protecting existing riparian buffers from cutting,
clearing,filling,grading,and any similar activities that would affect the functionality of the riparian buffer.
Areas specified for Preservation at the Site,in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B.0295,are defined primarily
as mixed hardwoods, with the number of high-value species above 200 per acre. They are areas where
livestock were fenced out prior to construction with little or no historical livestock access.
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area
A marsh treatment area was constructed to intercept surface waters draining through agricultural
areas before discharging into UT1. The marsh treatment area is excluded from credit calculations.
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING
4.1 Monitoring
Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the Site as per guidelines
established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2(Lee et al.2008);this covers 3.4%
of the area generating riparian buffer restoration credit. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the
fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves for a period of five monitoring years
following planting. Parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph.
In addition,inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout the course of
the monitoring period.
The following table outlines riparian buffer monitoring for this project;monitoring parameter descriptions
follow.
Table 4.Riparian Buffer Monitoring
Required Parameter Quantity Frequency Notes
Eight(8)plots Vegetation will be monitored for five years or until
Yes Vegetation located across all Annual performance standards are met.Visual monitoring of the
restored buffer site will be done all five years.Analysis of vegetation
zones. will be recorded using level 2 CVS Monitoring protocol.
Yes Project NA Annual Locations of fence damage,vegetation damage,boundary
Boundary encroachments,etc.will be mapped.
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

4.2 Performance Standards
Performance standards were established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development and the maintenance of diffuse flow through the riparian buffer
in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC
02B.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers).
Performance standards are dependent upon the density and growth of at least four native hardwood tree
species where no one species is greater than 50%of the stems. After five years of monitoring, an average
density of 260 woody stems per acre, including planted shrubs (silky dogwood and blueberry), must be
surviving, and diffuse flow maintained. 15A NCAC 02b .0295 (2)(E) dictates that monitoring for planted
stems would also include the health of planted stems. Level 2 CVS monitoring protocol requires the vigor,
a determinant of health, of a monitored stem be recorded. If requested, RS will make available during the
monitoring years,planted stem health,e.g.vigor.
4.3 Results and Discussion
In early January 2020, a winter-time visual assessment of the site was performed, and it was determined
that although Year 1 (2019)vegetation data, including random transects, showed a high density of trees, a
light supplemental planting would help ensure the long-term success in several areas. On January 31,2020,
three areas that visually exhibited low stem density and/or poor vigor were supplementally planted(Figure
2, Appendix B). During the supplemental planting effort approximately 370 stems were planted across
1.20 acres(approximately 300 stems per acre). As the planting was designated for visual purposes and was
not an effort to increase stem density data,no stems were planted within permanent vegetation plots. The
following table lists species included in the supplemental planting list. Preparation included the application
of 100 lbs of lime, 50 lbs of fertilizer, and 3 lbs of seed to stabilize bare areas (see Figure A for planting
areas).
Supplemental Planting Species List
Species Number of Sterns
Tag Alder(Alnus serrulata) 20
Chinkapin(Castanea pumila) 20
Hackberry(Celtis occidentalis) 50
Hawthorn(Crataegus marshallii) 20
Crab Apple (Malus angustifolia) 50
Red Mulberry(Morus rubra) 100
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 50
Shumard Oak(Quercus shumardii) 50
Total 370
Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 467 hardwood tree stems per
acre (excluding livestakes, shrubs, pines, and vines) at year 2 (2020). In addition, all plots, including 3
temporary transects within the supplemental planting areas, met success criteria. The following Table 5
summarizes riparian buffer success criteria and Table 6 summarizes all permanent vegetation plot data by
species,plot, and year. Vegetation plot photographs are included in Appendix B of the Major Hill Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Site Year 2 (2020)Annual Monitoring Report.
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 5.Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
MY 2(2020) MY 2(2020)
Plot# Success Criteria Met? Planted Stems/Ac All Stems/Ac
1 Yes 202 323
2 Yes 323 323
3 Yes 364 364
4 Yes 242 283
5 Yes 323 323
6 Yes 485 485
7 Yes 445 445
8 Yes 647 647
T-1 Yes -- 567
T-2 Yes -- 364
T-3 Yes -- 1012
Average Planted Yes 379 467
Stems/Acre
4.4 Maintenance and Management
No maintenance or management activities are currently planned for the coming year,and no remedial action
activities are necessary at this time.
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.009. Project Name:Major Hill
Current Plot Data(MY2 2020) Annual Means
17.009-01-0001 17.009-01-0002 17.009-01-0003 17.009-01-0004 17.009-01-0005 17.009-01-0006 17.009-01-0007 17.009-01-0008 MY2(2020) MY1(2019)* MYO(2019)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 3
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 7
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 6 6 9 9 9
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 10 10 10 14 14 14 5 5 5
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 8 8 8 14 14 14
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 2 2 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 9 9 10 9 9 9 5 5 5
Fraxinus ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 8 4 4 4 3 3 3
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 10 10 10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 7 7 8 7 7 7
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 23 23 23
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 12 12 12 20 20 20 10 10 10
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 12 12 12 16 16 16 18 18 18
Unknown Shrub or Tree 6 6 6
Stem count 5 5 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 6 6 7 8 8 8 12 12 12 11 11 11 16 16 16 75 75 79 103 103 109 129 129 129
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.20
Species count 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 14 14 14 15 15 17 16 16 16
Stems per ACRE 202.3 202.3 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 364.2 364.2 364.2 242.8 242.8 283.3 323.7 323.7 323.7 485.6 485.6 485.6 445.2 445.2 445.2 647.5 647.5 647.5 379.4 379.4 399.6 521 521 551.4 652.6 652.6 652.6
*The increases in stem counts of species such as Carpinus caroliniana,Diospyros virginiana,and Quercus nigra are due to mis-identification during MYO(dormant season)monitoring and/or refinement in identification during MY1 monitoring.
Color for Density PnoLS=Planted excluding livestakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all=Planting including livestakes
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10% T=All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T includes natural recruits
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

5.0 REFERENCES
Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0267, 15A NCAC 02B .0268, and
15A NCAC 02B .0295
Lee,M.T.,R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts,and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation,Level 1-2 Plot Version 4.2.Ecosystem Enhancement Program,North Carolina
Depailnient of Environment and Natural Resources.
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,N.C. Department of Environment,Health,and Natural Resources. Raleigh,North
Carolina.
MY2(2020)Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

ATTACHMENT 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
MY2(2020))Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix F:Page 10
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Legend — -a_ { ' 0
E f
_ Easement
•
--- New Fencing Installed for Cattle Exclusion 1V •
Existing Fencing Left in Place for Cattle Exclusion 1 • 1 • .:. :'. _
Fencing Removed/Reworked for Cattle Exclusion I 1 8 -
Stream Asbuilt TOB-TOB 1 I
ID Marsh Treatment Area '-' \ I - :j; • `'y• .:p}
•
Plot Origins 1 \. 1 ,`` ,
FM CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria MY2 \ • 1 •\ I
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria MY2 \ \ I
//// Supplemental Planting Area 1` 1 C ,46400 f
Wetland Restoration \ 7 j • �i
- Wetland Enhancement • 1 l \
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Type 1, ) V : • 11* s''\ • V - • • '�'
TOB-100 ft.Restoration(1:1)-213,290 sq ft - s \ \\
MI 101 ft.-200 ft.Restoration(1:1 but 33 k credit per Rule)-40,976 sq ft \ • •
st1 \ \
TOB-100 ft.Enhancement(2:1 Cattle Ex.per Rule)-341,433 sq ft \11 \ \ \�... Y
1� \ \ \ A I
TOB-100 ft.Preservation(Non-Subject Stream 5:1)-25,614 sq ft +1_• L, \ K •
,,,
11 101 ft.-200 ft.Preservation(Non-Subject Stream 5:1 and 33 k Credit per Rule) 2,814 sq ft A ,s . , ,,,
Non Credit Generating(Less than 20 ft.) r, •V - - :,�'
} \\ T2 / tom ' \
— — TOB to 50 feet �\ ��V ...�.
� 100 foot line �'� �`\ \ ,, s 4���. .' �+�.• :• V1
,- --� 150 foot line • � \ - — I' �1.
I 1200 foot line v N . • tkj \
t..
. • ...;:•-•f.l.'•1-7,•.?• -Os. ••,. "•A • •40'..• V \„ -` ' \ ? A H i ;
4. 'T't . .
No credit is being 1
ti 4.. � ' generated within the 1'� �'/ /7 2 �i j
/ /, 1
1" 1 s`': . Marsh Treatment Area. «�
.:,•;'',...-. Ii,. I : i\\, / i '
1 1
1 I i I I 1
j% \ I l '\ 1 • \
�.. I I1+ . I I \ I \
1
•
• /' �, '\N N. 1 \ ''Lk. 1-: ,
•
•
\ �., IF, •_ .�.�• s\
\ \\ � / \ '' 1 C `) ; I
. • \ , .\ ss \ ..:.7•:...lkit'....- •'\,‘
/ /
jA +�''I�� �' /• ag,., t o i ,• 1 A \
I I I' / \ \ ( 4.'.9, ='I
, /,‘'...—''' '• / :*:•47t...4,.:.....' •'.1....-:::i
\ .
\ `\—�—\ . ape "�. 1...yy:'Y•��' yy •
f'J .•_ / \'i. /
•
This area is located \. ;s.,— a.�'; ' •" 'ram =t!!s•,t ,; 5�- • . . ' _ • • ;1`
outside of the �vv% yv I I ��_� � �
easement and is \' \ \ •^\I lJT=3 '
not generating credit. �� �v ;v �\',.-,..: 1_ a
„ .,
... „ ,,
: ,• • i»).•1,.... • „, • ,4 •••
•
`' \ iy'f �\ -_1'ki' / ,—..-- `\.�\ .� --- -N?•.. ..a' �_—_—_/ /� k _.� `.S:i s.� N.S. .'�• ,�'.��'��'
V.
. '-z 0 70 140 280 420 560
_— �. — /_ * — Feet
= I ,.
Dwn. By: FIGURE
CLF
lan Axiom Environmental Riparian Buffer Asset Map Date:
Di•-,� ' 218 Snow Ave Major Hill Mitigation Site Jan2021 ARaleigh,NC 276071 g
'r [phone] Alamance County, North Carolina Project:
Axiom Environmental,I,c. 17-009

lk
A,,
Legend
jEasement . r i- N
Stream Asbuilt TOB-TOB �. ;• 1V
[J Stream Side Assemblage=1.5 ac
ti r . --....witi
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest=1.1 ac E •
- Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest 5.5 ac y -
• .• •
Marsh Treatment Wetland=0.01 ac
10 .
. ....,
7 .
• •
r e�
y.:....
..•...,; •
ri� tc 1 , •
F r
, ..iii.,.,
1 I
t ik
'ra+
•
�. .• ' !' ry is .
,,ii--,• . • ..".,i. V''''.. . t 1
ii
Ecfl,' .
o
ti k'
•
/114,... .‘.
F a
P.,.. . • --;iitIttik . blitiodabe.risist .A,,, o
R 1 B
S .,.1. is •µ
If7.,......i. ,;•.,.,..e., • •-•. ), .10•••,,.
,wry:: �. . 'C'i,. .4.'r• t• rk
i . ': •
•
r ` , a ;,:
1k.
i • P �. 1 ! L1 k 11L
» R jAt:
•
' f ., I.
it_ ', r 7 _ Y ' I e `
i. 0 70 140 280 420 560
link ': :
Feet
.r
Dwn. By: FIGURE
KRJ
,./ Axiom Environmental Riparian Buffer Planting Map Date:
L-�--\' 218SnowAve Major Hill Mitigation Site Feb2019 B
, Raleigh, NC 27607 g
1'r '4 [phone] Alamance County, North Carolina Project:
AXIOM Emlmnmm[al•I,c. 17-009