20140335 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20220104

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20140335 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/04/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/4/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Jeremiah Dow [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140335 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Aycock Springs Stream&Wetland Mitigation
Site
County: Alamance
Document Information
..........................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: AycockSprings_96312_MY6_2021.pdf 20.74MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

YEAR 6 (2021) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRINGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No.96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT No. 5791
NCDWR PROJECT No. 20140335
USACE ACTION ID No.SAW-2014-01711
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030002
Data Collection—January-October 2021
°` ��� '�-ro,ji g 9 ' 'i'l'1.1 , ;.V. 01;••4 �sXN1! fi Ay'9q
All
>t��r �
1
r�S' I'6z,' yam $ is rf:
a ).„.;,...,:..., .,..:,„
I f`# �� " I },.1. ,,,. ::.. .,.. __�`4,krc....„.„. a #. „ �E�� � e' fE`s i "1
i
. .
{ 1 II fi
a
: h ! to
� , .i
` ce
1I
/. gi • c _ J
.
IAA
4-1 J '
6' P
. � 4d'{q•'1F!{fig .i..A�.u,1 �ek�.�-
•
`.
y 4
1 Gn
T➢t y- .'@V M ., e
ry: - '9 �M `
zry
\—fit!y F
i
i i Lae,
; ',
PREPARED FOR:
NC. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
December 2021

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone] RESTORATION
Response to Monitoring Year 6(2021) DMS Comments SYSTEMS I LLC
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site(DMS#96312)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002,Alamance County
Contract No.005791
Comments Received (Black Text)& Responses eh,-Text)
1. In the Summary,the 3' bullet point under the Streams heading references Year 4. Presumably this
should be say Year 6.
Yes,this error was corrected.
2. Credit Table on page 3—Please show SMUs to 3 decimal places(Restoration=3,237.000&81.333,
Enhancement II 262.800&total credits 3,581.133).
The SMUs were updated to show 3 decimal places.
3. Table 1—Similar to comments for the Credit Table above. Stream Restoration credits should be changed
from 3,237 SMUs to 3,318.333& Enhancement credits from 344.1 to 262.800. The 1.5:1 reduced ratio
restoration was added into the enhancement total when it should be in the restoration total. At the
bottom of the table, please change the total SMUs to 3,581.133.
Table 1 was updated accordingly.
4. Please use the growing season described in the Mitigation Plan.
Wetland hydrology data was updated to the approved growing season methodology in the mitigation
plan.
5. Please include a figure displaying the monthly rainfall data compared to 30-70th percentiles
Figure D1:30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall was included in appendix D.
1101 Haynes St.,Suite 211 • Raleigh,NC 27604•www.restorationsystems.com• Ph 919.755.9490• Fx 919.755.9492

Aycock Springs Year 6, 2021 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 6
• No beaver activity was observed along Travis Creek during Year 6 (2021). RS will continue to
monitor beaver activity and work with the landowner to trap beaver and remove dams as
necessary throughout the remainder of the monitoring period.
Streams
• Stream monitoring did not occur in monitoring year 6 (2021) per the Site's mitigation plan. Visual
observations throughout the year indicate stream channels and structures are stable.
• Three bankfull events were documented during Year 6 (2021) monitoring for a total of 16 bankfull
events throughout the monitoring period (Table 10, Appendix D).
• Channel formation was evident in all Site reaches in Year 6(2021).The stream flow gauge and trail
camera on UT 3 documented 134 consecutive days of stream flow during Year 6 (2021). The
stream-flow gauge location is depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix A); a table containing channel
formation indicators and a stream-flow gauge graph is included in Appendix C.
Wetlands
• All three groundwater gauges met success for the Year 6 (2021) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data is in Appendix D.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria for Year 6(2021)
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst Monitoring Period Used for 10 Percent of Monitoring
Year Documented Determining Success' Period
2021 (Year 6) March 1,2021** March 1-October 22 24 days
(236 days)
• ** Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site and observed bud burst.
Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge Year 1* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022)
1 Yes/55 days Yes/26 days Yes/58 days Yes/59 days Yes/95 days Yes/47 days
(29.1 percent) (11.0 percent) (25.1 percent) (27 percent) (41 percent) (19.9 percent)
2 Yes/46 days Yes/25 days Yes/65 days Yes/66 days Yes/71 days Yes/76 days
(24.3 percent) (10.5 percent) (28.1 percent) (30 percent) (30 percent) (32.2 percent)
3 Yes/44 days Yes/25 days Yes/46 days No/14 days Yes/34 days Yes/39 days
(23.3 percent) (10.5 percent) (19.9 percent) (6.5 percent) (14.5 percent) (16.5 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities,groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5,2016;therefore,the growing season for
Year 1(2016)is based on the soil survey start date of April 17.
Vegetation
• Stem count measurements were not taken during Year 6 (2021); however, visual observations
indicate that site vegetation is vigorous.

Site Maintenance Report(2021)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
7/27/2021
Callery Pear, Privet, Multiflora rose,Johnson None
grass,Cattail,and veg within tribs
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Vegetation
Stream Monitoring All Data Collection Completion
Activity or Deliverable Monitoring
Complete Complete or Delivery
Complete
Technical Proposal (RFP No.
-- -- -- October 2013
16-005568)
DMS Contract No. 5791 -- -- -- February 2014
Mitigation Plan -- -- October 2014 May 2015
Construction Plans -- -- -- June 2015
Construction Earthwork -- -- -- April 6,2016
Planting -- -- -- April 8,2016
As-Built Documentation April 6th,2016 April 13th,2016 April 2016 May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring October 18th, October 13th,2016 October 2016 December 2016
2016
Supplemental Planting -- -- -- December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring April 19-20,2017 July 25th,2017 October 2017 November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring April 16-17,2018 July 19th,2018 October 2018 October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring N/A N/A October 2019 November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring March 24th,2020 July 7th,2020 November 2020 December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring NA NA October 2021 December 2021

YEAR 6 (2021) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRINGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No.96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT No. 5791
NCDWR PROJECT NO. 20140335
USACE ACTION ID NO.SAW-2014-01711
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030002
Data Collection—January-October 2021
16 ,g f lgI ,, i F` i 4 •
.I...•.,4'r'7y,4„pA%k*"*-..-414I:1trf0...74V,N-%.k..:•:i.i,2.I1..4,?41„..,t.
°F t
M1y f,�,! y'
yy
_ 'r t,
Y om,'
:
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
December 2021

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY 6
2.1 Streams 7
2.2 Vegetation 7
2.3 Wetland Hydrology 8
2.4 Biotic Community Change 8
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN 8
3.1 Stream 9
3.2 Vegetation 9
4.0 REFERENCES 10
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Site Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment
APPENDIX C. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Table 7a-7e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 8a-8f. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX D. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 9. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graph
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 11. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
APPENDIX E. MISCELLANEOUS
2016-2017 Remediation
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Table of Contents page i
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site(Site) encompasses approximately 13 acres located
roughly 1.5 miles north of Elon and Gibsonville in western Alamance County within 14-digit Cataloging Unit
and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030010 of the Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 1, Appendix B and
Table 4,Appendix A). Before construction, the Site consisted of agricultural land used for livestock grazing,
hay production, and timber harvest. Streams were cleared, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and
laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock and timber harvest activities.
Stream impacts in Travis Creek also occurred due to a breached dam that impounded water during storm
events. In addition, streamside wetlands were drained by channel incision, soil compaction, and forest
vegetation loss due to land uses. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project
contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
Positive aspects supporting mitigation activities at the Site include the following.
• Streams have a Best Usage Classification of WS-V, NSW
• Located in a Targeted Local Watershed and within the NCDMS Travis,Tickle, Little Alamance Local
Watershed Planning (LWP)Area
• Travis Creek is listed on the NCDENR 2012 303(d) list for ecological/biological integrity
• Immediately south and abutting the Site is a property identified in the Little Alamance, Travis, &
Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008) as a target property for wetland
restoration and streambank enhancement/conservation
• Immediately west of the Site is a large tract associated with Guilford County open space
Based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Report 2009(NCEEP 2009)and the Little Alamance,
Travis, & Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008), Targeted Local Watershed
03030002030010 is not meeting its designated use of supporting aquatic life. Agricultural land use appears
to be the primary source of stress in the Hydrologic Unit, as well as land clearing and poor riparian
management. This project will meet the eight priority goals of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Local
Watershed Plan (LWP), including the following:
1) Reduce sediment loading
2) Reduce nutrient loading
3) Manage stormwater runoff
4) Reduce toxic inputs
5) Provide and improve instream habitat
6) Provide and improve terrestrial habitat
7) Improve stream stability
8) Improve hydrologic function
The following six goals were identified by the Stakeholder group of the Travis,Tickle, Little Alamance LWP
Phase I assessment, which addresses the water quality impacts and watershed needs in all of the Little
Alamance,Travis,Tickle watersheds in 2006.
1) Increase local government awareness of the impacts of urban growth on water resources
2) Strengthen watershed protection standards
3) Improve water quality through stormwater management
4) Identify and rank parcels for retrofits, stream repair, preservation, and/or conservation
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 1
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

5) Assess aquatic health to identify stressors that are the most likely causes of poor biological
conditions
6) Meet requirements of outside funding sources for implementation of projects
The following table summarizes the project goals/objectives and proposed functional uplift based on
restoration activities and observations of two reference areas located in the vicinity of the Site. Goals and
objectives target functional uplift identified in the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP, and based on
stream/wetland functional assessments developed by the regulatory agencies.
Project Goals and Objectives
Project Goal/Objective How Goal/Objective will be Accomplished
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer Planting a woody riparian buffer
Restore Stream Stability
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs Providing proper channel width and depth,stabilizing channel banks,
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble providing gravel/cobble substrate, planting a woody riparian buffer,and
Dominated Streams removing cattle
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Increase Surface Storage and Retention Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation restoring
overbank flows, removing cattle,scarifying compacted soils,and
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration planting woody vegetation
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention Raising the stream bed elevation and rip compacted soils
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration Planting a native,woody riparian buffer
Increase Thermoregulation Planting a native,woody riparian buffer
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens, Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows,planting
Particulates(Sediments), Dissolved Materials with woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
(Nutrients),and Toxins from the Water Column retention,and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
Increase Energy Dissipation of Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows,and planting
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater Runoff with woody vegetation
Restore Habitat
Restore In stream Habitat Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
Restore Streamside Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Project construction was completed on April 6, 2016, and planting was completed on April 8, 2016. Site
activities included the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels, enhancement(Level II)of
a perennial stream channel,and re-establishment of riparian wetlands. Priority I restoration of intermittent
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

channels at the Site is imperative to provide significant functional uplift to Site hydrology, water quality,
and habitat and to restore adjacent streamside riparian wetlands.A total of 3581.1 Stream Mitigation Units
(SMUs)and 0.5 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units(WMUs)are being provided,as depicted in the following
table.
Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Stream
Stream Mitigation Type Ratio Mitigation
(linear feet) (linear feet)
Units
Restoration 3147 90 1:1 3237.000
Restoration(See Notes below)** 122 1:5:1 81.333
Enhancement(Level II)° 657 -- 2.5:1 262.800
TOTAL 3804 212 3581.133
Wetland Mitigation Type Acreage Ratio Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Units
Riparian Re-establishment 0.5 1:1 0.5
Riparian Enhancement 1.5* --
TOTAL 2.0 0.5
* Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568
requirements.
** Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for the unauthorized discharge of fill material into
Waters of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening
the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to the stream channel on
jurisdictional wetlands. Before restoration activities, the landowner was required to obtain an after-the-fact
permit to resolve Section 301 violations of the Clean Water Act (Action ID: SAW-2014-00665). Stream reaches
and wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
Further, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to the clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of
UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio (1.5:1). Onsite visits conducted with USACE representatives determined that the
functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
A The upper 20 linear feet of Travis Creek are within a powerline easement and is not credit generating(a reduction
of 8.0 SM Us).
Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration relate to project goals and objectives. From a
mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following table summarizes stream success criteria related
to goals and objectives.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Stream Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective Stream Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access Two overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Cross-sections, monitored annually,will be compared to
Restore Stream Stability as-built measurements to determine channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology
Improve Stream Geomorphology Convert stream channels from unstable G-and F-type
channels to stable E-and C-type stream channels
Increase Surface Storage and Retention Two overbank events in separate monitoring years,and
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Two overbank events will be documented, in separate
years,during the monitoring period and documentation of
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention an elevated groundwater table(within 12 inches of the soil
surface)for greater than 10 percent of the growing season
during average climatic conditions
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble from pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post-
Dominated Streams restoration conditions of gravel and cobble
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
(Sections 2.3 and 2.2)
Increase Thermoregulation Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period,and
encroachment within the easement eliminated
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens, Removal of cattle,documentation of two overbank events
Particulates(Sediments), Dissolved Materials in separate monitoring years,and attaining Vegetation
(Nutrients),and Toxins from the Water Column Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Documentation of two overbank events in separate
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland monitoring years and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
(Section 2.2)
Restore Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material
from pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post-
Restore In-stream Habitat
restoration conditions of gravel and cobble and attaining
Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Restore Streamside Habitat Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring years.
Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems per acre in year
5, and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot
at year 7 since this Site is located in the Piedmont. Volunteer stems may be considered on a case-by-case
basis in determining overall vegetation success; however, volunteer stems should be counted separately
from planted stems.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 4
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Wetland Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for wetland re-establishment should relate to project goals and objectives.
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated
by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered
successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes wetland success criteria
related to goals and objectives.
Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective Wetland Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years,and
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens, Removal of cattle,documentation of two overbank events
Particulates(Sediments), Dissolved Materials in separate monitoring years,and attaining Vegetation
(Nutrients),and Toxins from the Water Column Success Criteria
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland Documentation of two overbank events in separate
Flows/Stormwater Runoff monitoring years,and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore Habitat
Restore Streamside Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
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 this project, hydrologic wetland success will be determined using data from February
1-October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity.This will be confirmed annually
by soil temperatures and/or bud burst. The growing season will be initiated each year on the documented
date of biological activity. Photographic evidence of bud burst and field logs of date and temperature will
be included in the annual monitoring reports.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored period
(February 1-October 22) during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of
reference). These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are
marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be
performed.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 5
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst Monitoring Period Used for 10 Percent of Monitoring
Documented Determining Success' Period
2016(Year 1) April 17*-October 22 19 days
(198 days)
Bud burst on red maple(Acer February 28 October 22
2017 (Year 2) rubrum)and soil temperature of 58°F (237 days) 23 days
documented on February 28,2017
2018 (Year 3) Bud burst and soil temperature of March 6-October 22 23 days
44°F documented on March 6,2018 (231 days)
2019 (Year 4) March 20th,2019** March 20-October 22 21 days
(217 days)
2020(Year 5) March 2nd,2021** March 2-October 22 23 days
(234 days)
2021 (Year 6) March 1,2021** March 1-October 22 24 days
(236 days)
2022 (Year 7) - - -
*Gauges were installed on May 5 during year 1(2016);therefore,April 17 was used as the start of the growing season
(N RCS).
** Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site and observed bud burst.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to various project and monitoring elements' performance can be found in tables and
figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found
in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on the NC Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available
from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the latest guidance by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) in April 2003 (Stream Mitigation Guidelines) will be followed and are briefly outlined
below. Monitoring data collected at the Site should include reference photos, plant survival analysis,
channel stability analysis, and biological data if specifically required by permit conditions.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years(years 1-7). Riparian vegetation
and stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with measurements
completed in years 1-3, year 5, and year 7. Monitoring reports for years 4 and 6 will include photo
documentation of stream stability and wetland hydrology monitoring data. If monitoring demonstrates the
Site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been identified, Restoration Systems (RS) may propose to
terminate monitoring at the Site and forego monitoring requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will
only be provided through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (NC IRT). Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc(AXE).Annual monitoring reports
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 6
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than December 31 of each monitoring
year data is collected.
2.1 Streams
Annual monitoring of streams will include the development of channel cross-sections and substrate on
riffles and pools. Data to be presented in graphic and tabular format will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width-to-depth ratio, 6) bank height ratio, and 7)
entrenchment ratio. Longitudinal profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring demonstrates
channel bank or bed instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along
reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure,and/or stream flow beneath the structure. In addition,visual assessments
of the entire channel will be conducted in years 1-3,5,and 7 of monitoring as outlined in NCDMS Monitoring
Requirements and Reporting Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Areas of concern will be
depicted on a plan view figure identifying the location of concern along with a written assessment and
photograph of the area.
Stream monitoring did not occur in monitoring year 6 (2021) per the Site's mitigation plan. Visual
observations throughout the year indicate stream channels and structures are stable.
Before construction,ground cover was fully established, multiple heavy rain events(2+inches)caused some
sedimentation in the streambed.This aggradation can be seen in several Year 1 (2016) cross-sections, and
it appears to have reduced and stabilized during Years 2-6 (2017-2021).
The year 1(2016) measurements for cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT-1 showed stream bed erosion compared
with as-built data.Stream bed erosion was noted shortly after as-built measurements were taken and were
the result of the above mentioned rain events. It was evident bed material used during construction in this
area was finer than it should have been.Two riffles showed bed erosion, totaling approximately 50 feet in
length (approximately 1 percent of the project length). RS created and implemented a remedial action plan
during the winter of 2016/2017 (see Section 3.0 and Appendix E). These repairs appear stable during Year
6 (2021) monitoring, and they will continue to be monitored during subsequent monitoring years.
Across the Site, all in-stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No stream areas of concern
were identified during Year 6 (2021) monitoring; however, during previous monitoring years, three small
areas of bank erosion were observed in the Enhancement (Level II) reach of Travis Creek. These areas
remained during Year 6 (2021), however herbaceous vegetation has established along all three spans,
rendering them smaller and more stable than past years. The pre-construction condition of Travis Creek
included some stream bank erosion, and with the large amount of rainfall the Site received during Year 3
(2018), some of this erosion became more apparent. These areas will continue to be monitored for any
significant change, but the erosion is not expected to cause any major stream stability problems.Tables for
annual quantitative assessments are included in Appendix C.
2.2 Vegetation
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots(10-meter by 10-meter)were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2(Lee et al. 2008).
In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

density.Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented
by photograph.
After planting was completed on April 8, 2016, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting
methods and determine initial species composition and density. At this time, RS decided it was necessary
to implement a supplemental planting. Working with Carolina Silvics, RS planted 1030 containerized trees
consisting of 755 1-gallon pots and 275 3-gallon pots during the week of December 20, 2016,which included
the following species: Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occidentalis, Quercus falcata, Quercus
nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra. A remedial planting plan report detailing the
location of planting and density is provided in Appendix E.
Stem count measurements were not taken during Year 6(2021); however,visual observations indicate that
site vegetation is vigorous.
2.3 Wetland Hydrology
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed to take measurements after hydrological
modifications were performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing
season at intervals necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, a
surface water gauge was installed in Tributary 3 to monitor the flow regime of the tributary. Approximate
locations of gauges are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix A).
Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy
jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, an onsite rain gauge will document
rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions, and floodplain
crest gauges will confirm overbank flooding events. All three groundwater gauges were successful in year
6 (2021) (Appendix D).
2.4 Biotic Community Change
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored. In-stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during the monitoring period.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ protocols found in the Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (NCDWQ 2001). Biological sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates will be used to compare pre-construction baseline data with post-construction restored
conditions.
Two benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations were established within restoration reaches. Post-
restoration collections will occur in the approximate location of the pre-restoration sampling. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using the Qual-4 collection method.
Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs,and visual
searches. Pre-project biological sampling occurred on June 26, 2014; post-project monitoring occurred in
June of monitoring years 2-5. Benthic macroinvertebrate data was included in those monitoring reports.
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan was developed to address stream and vegetation problem areas observed during
Year 1 (2016) monitoring.The completed remedial action report can be found in Appendix G.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

3.1 Stream
The degradation observed during Year 1 (2016) in and adjacent to cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT-1
encompasses approximately 12 linear feet and 15 linear feet of stream, respectively (<1 percent of the
project length). As noted above,the bed material placed during construction was too fine. All of UT-1 used
bed material harvested onsite. The material used along this stream reach was too fine and washed from
the riffles during heavy rainfall events, resulting in minor bed scour and a small, less than 6-inch head cut,
began to develop at the top of the riffle. Suitable sized channel bed material was installed on February 23,
2017, at the proper elevation in the two riffles within UT-1. Bed material was installed such that bank toe
protection is provided, and planting with willow stakes occurred. Bank toe protection designates that
channel bed material will extend up the lower one-third of the bank. This will be monitored by existing
established cross-sections 9 and 10.
No beaver activity was observed along Travis Creek during Year 6 (2021). RS will continue to monitor
beaver activity and work with the landowner on trapping of beaver and removal of dams as necessary
throughout the remainder of the monitoring period.
3.2 Vegetation
Multiple factors were contributing to poor vegetative success in Year 1(2016), including a later than desired
initial bare-root planting, heavy herbaceous competition primarily from fescue(Site was previously a cattle
pasture), and sporadic rain events, which left upland areas of the Site dry for extended periods of the
growing season. Greater survival of planted species was observed within riparian areas.
The remedial action plan supplemented the bare-root planting over 5.44 acres with 1030 additional trees
(755 1-gallon pots and 275 3-gallon pots). The remedial action plan figure (Appendix G) details the areas
that received remedial planting along with density and number of species being placed into vegetation
plots. Working with Carolina Silvics, RS acquired and re-planted the identified areas during the week of
December 20, 2016. Species planted included Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occidentalis,
Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra.
Treatment of invasive plant species has occurred each year of monitoring throughout the Site. RS will
continue to treat and monitor the Site for invasive species as needed throughout the monitoring period.
Previous treatments on the small patch of cattails at the confluence of UT-1 and UT-2 were successful.
However, in the Spring of 2019, cattail regeneration was noted within the area of concern. Treatment was
conducted in July 2019, and the area continues to be monitored. Additional dense herbaceous vegetation
within UT-2, was noted during the spring of 2019. The vegetation appeared to be impeding the natural
hydrology of the stream. Treatment was conducted in July 2019.
During Year 5 (2020), it was observed that several upland areas around UT-1 and UT-2 had sparse
herbaceous vegetation. Four target areas were identified, totaling approximately 0.8 acres. Restoration
Systems applied 500 pounds lime, 200 pounds fertilizer, and 14 pounds seed mix across these areas.Year 6
(2021)observations indicate that the establishment of herbaceous vegetation in these areas was successful.
A vigorous population of herbaceous vegetation has established in the previously sparse areas, and no
further seeding will be necessary.The seed mix species are listed in the following table, and the target areas
are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

2020 Seed Mix Species List
Blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta) Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata)
Blue Vervain (Verbena hastata) Plains Coreopsis(Coreopsis tinctoria)
Cosmos(Cosmos spp.) Purple Coneflower(Echinacea purpurea)
Creeping Bentgrass(Agrostis stolonifera) Purple Top (Tridens flavus)
Crimsoneyed Rosemallow(Hibiscus moscheutos) Red Top(Agrostis gigantea)
Deertongue(Dichanthelium clandestinum) Roundhead lespedeza (Lespedeza capitata)
Korean Lespedeza (Kummerowia striata) Sensitive Pea (Chamaecrista nictitans)
Lanceleaf Coreopsis(Coreopsis lanceolata) Showy Ticktrefoil (Desmodium canadense)
Marsh Blazing Star(Liatris spicata) Slender lespedeza (Lespedeza virginica)
Narrowleaf Sunflower(Helianthus angustifolius) Virginia Wildrye(Elymus virginicus)
Oxeye Daisy(Leucanthemum vulgare) Winter Bentgrass(Agrostis hyemalis)
Oxeye Sunflower(Heliopsis helianthoides)
4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-
1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Engineer
Research and Development Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, SD. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation.401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS 2009). Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009 (online).Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-
725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&grou pld=60329
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 10
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center. AgACIS Climate Data. Burlington Regional Airport WETS Station
(online). Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/
United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MiST).
EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) page 11
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

APPENDIX A
PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

" `':�'- = I Directions to the Site from Interstates 40/85 in Burlington/Eton, NC:
-/'"_ —r---- ,- — —, ---K\ , >- ! . - Exit onto UniversityDrive (1-40/85 Exit 140) and travel north (toward Elon) = N' ti
rs, sr.�., 1 1 i i , i , �i_ f -- -\�•- l 1- I.rD-�, -r.�- r- 1 ,,— c \�,\(� r~r, z +• y - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
r` ,i n:, 1 i , _-I_1_, -.'„/ + 1"-,.-�'t rr' \ . 0 I D - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
i 1 -„!, \ I z - Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) ,1xr❑m F.nnranmeMa7.Inc.
ll��i` ^t s i.i _` _�_J i< t c r_}.� �i r:\ -` ���,� J+ Travel northmile Siteright Prepared for.
Ce i m for 0 7 and is on the ri h
�f� ., R-4% 15
�, �- I N' .- _ _. "._'`�_;°" U Lei ),.. �"
::.:::,.:.:-
�,i� --. E \.,t II -I" N, , - F e _ .��� - L' F.ESTORATIDN
j .:
'sue_—_) �.I r- _ :. 'I :r. _ . I - • sYSTF.ms I1 LC
it©2013 National Geo ra hic Societ t Z ice i� • 3° 9 p Y 14 avkV �r f !. �' . "� 8-7f; Project•
IiOuntan sdnvae>:.. , ��: r • �c� f- ` Yy r LL:'�q'f�'., Aycock Springs
iwJ J 1 s`. r , 6 ..: Jk ?-
'I•S+ 1 1 it, �i. ,1 �R e r' r i Stream and
.1'
1 �Altamahaw P ? rr ■ r, Wetland
Lakeview 1 ��.ry 1 ��''. �. _. Mitigation
if ` lt' c r�.M.-�i �� S;.:F. •1- ",' -- Site
4 '�i, Mnrgantflwn _ �_7`'i..--1:_;.. f N.--. , • + - ff`� 'y'- r. ./, ' .t.. - • - .l�F �: r ',L`.'I •.
I_ � I �
'1 Burih`gtan F,, ...:r ,I', . r .j ,�f lr;, ' s Aycock Springs { 1:. : :g { ' -:'�. 'S r
- 1ege Y.,f_, �* :,1 ) `',f I A V ` ,Gam' �, � x_: _••
I- Graham
1 ..Thl/ -;�'~I, Stream and Wetland -:_ �,�:r .� •
�, t �•X ,1 (I .
Gret�Bm I'U 1l's.= i
...... .- I�' ' . - % ' '� ' , _ '" �c- �4 r' -'•=-� i !�� Alamance County, NC
I-- 1 i. , %f: Mitigation Site r•-d ;r'..1 -� w -.'..; .r- �•:
lama 1 --
' �1 t J} -~�'� :// a ..i `'t � �'Y• Title:
- swepsam.IIIe tili'k36.127271 N li ` ' �` �' ` 4� �,'i�, "t, "�
(5� I �` -:- } .�=�" jj 79.525214 W _i'.-.'. r 64`I.� •f' .> { - 1, - t�}I •�` i ? ;\, �, .r" - ;' .A,
�. ��-- `_ fir' as: • �� € ii.,
.. ,S �`�-- !'ram ;•r ', Project
Cages is 1 � 4{ ''� ��'i'I II }��.� � ' ` ..tiv' �' _ ► �' au /` I. - �.,,' 10 y i• .'=s.r�-__
-`= ■�1�o�.11 fla' �u ��-a:<5�5Ilaw� ti- - _ 1. _\ .I - •,,,,,rP'. T, \, , •,.i. ___ '.J •\ � '�-- V .+f - -
1 �._- _ e y.l� ,� i _ - r,� i �• Location
-It
...,k
ice_1 .r. ..c� \ -- _ �'` is �� ? ,�' � ,- ' '`!.. ,..• C_..'mac- + t,-. .• _
fii
.' 1 it j ' ,,O,''' ''''.---'':k Vi 1?--1/ IT VI'''''', fl".
- Sna,v Camp �� ..r ':.,"ti. -• .�` ; 11 f ° + ( �. =�� y`u. .:; •�y 6..
_ �( _
�lr,!m:J f ' -- � ' :L.:
'! �aa, . � ''c.4"'._ •'�r:,:;;�. , s '� �1•' _ r •&- _ _~�.` Notes:
• 1 - - — — { — - - - - - -J c ik1C,',�� '`a r ![! -74! r tip. -
�. " ;k► # Back round Imagery sources
Co ri ht:02014 DeLorme `t. RL fir ._, t • �:. A. (provided byESRI Data and
pv g ®-�--_ GIBSONVILLE ! ,. malt* .
a. t, V ; __ND W+I I `"'11!1ya- r.' , .wr. •- y.• z?. ,k1x oito Maps):
.T'- ,�_ w �{ Al7. �. 1;�� ; „II'
.t { - - • + ' , -r$ ` N ;... 1. Physical Ma of the United
�n. Fir te,r' • .� ' rt4� :j�'.:� 7. •a, sf, _ . j 1• maw, °.\: States(2009)created by the
+-- '� ti . ..' �; Ii •i p .vo1r•.� !' _ v' a U.S. Park Service(upper inset).
....ipt
(�: �', (� ,� 1, :�: : >a�: _ _ � �F;.. ,5.� � "��°C:` � �'. e !'.,'� .I � _ �r- 2. Delorme World Basemap
- �'1 `•`� • - ! ^ � .- -� '1+��-_�� digital mapping 2010 lower
;" �' = - {r '.I - '1. ,.. ripy1.� t BURL'INGT.ON ,I'►_ inset).
_ _ , �. r* ...Apo •_ 1_ ., ,_ -- 'YI D.- ram` �s'- .- - .!tFi -.�1• -"S!. - -f' -
-�-CSi �, a: - _ i' 'a g. ,• _ f '� �,a•• ' a 3. Burlington, NC(1980),
..: = _ iv- _ 4. /' q ) l3 � ,:r: „ �� Lake Burlington, NC(1969),
' ^-J 2 -4! �\ L I 44 Gibsonville, NC(1970),and
n--.... y' • r• ., - __ a� - _ 7'1 fix' ` s I 3 .,, ,� �1 . • Ossipee, NC(1970)7.5-
.ELON; . �'~' ?, - :-�� � - ,� �\ }}� � minute topographic
[j?� • I. - ti • i s \, I ; quadrangles provided by the
S 1 _ jelmir U.S.Geological Survey.
,, . - .• WHITSETT,'n-2)' \ to • I ( ,,, „A- ... ... . , . !.'.i—ia ,....4 ,... , . -
ill
i 1. °• I� - . .,.' :: ;. • _ ., 5.,. 1i J -
'.• ':1 ... °.. _?� _j f • I-:rat t�ucuc=rtj,�'r �s ° : ,
'", • 4' Drawn by:•
SG D
-l; ) --j. ti -- :�;�: L ;r....4 ' ..,....N. 7 I +o? Date: May 2016
Legend { P�a� ?YEir 44
r esili'•�' Scale: As Shown
_ Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site � b ? :_ s :,+ r- r _. a .-- fri..--- -, 4 Project No.: 14-006
County lines s;F,,,,r . r �
I. . ,: _ • " • .: .f, - -- - I ero r . '•' FIGURE
1 0.5 0 1 2 3 40-85 • :.
Miles ;:.
Y _""_yam �� Copyright:©2013 N:a;io'na G.e.ogr-aphi=c=S'ieiety�i=cubedq

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream Stream Riparian Wetland Nonriparian Wetland
Restoration Enhancement Re-establishment Re-establishment
3318.333 262.800 0.5 --
Projects Components
Existing Linear Restoration/ Restoration
Priority Mitigation Mitigation
Station Range Footage/ Restoration Linear Footage/ Comment
Approach Ratio Credits
Acreage Equivalent Acreage
UT 1 Station 10+04 to 23+21 1173 PI Restoration 1317 24 1:1 1293 24 If of UT 1 is located outside of
1293 easement and is not credit generating
UT 2 Station 10+00 to 16+75 723 PI Restoration 675 1:1 675
***The upper 122 linear feet of
channel is in a violation area and is
UT 3 Station 10+00 to 11+22 147 PI Restoration 122 1.5:1 81.3 generating credit at a reduced ratio of
1.5:1
UT 3 Station 11+22 to 12+12 16 PI Restoration 90 1:1 90
****The upper 107 linear feet of
UT 4 Station 10+00 to 14+13 448 PI Restoration 41306 7 1:1 306 channel is in a violation area and is
not credit generating
Travis Creek 578 20 The upper 20 linear feet of Travis
Station 10+00 to 15+78 578 Ell 558 2.5:1 223.2 Creek are within a powerline
easement and is not credit generating
Travis Creek
Station 15+78 to 17+87 274 PI I Restoration 209 1:1 209
Travis Creek
Station 17+87 to 18+86 99 Ell 99 2.5:1 39.6
Travis Creek
Station 23+71 to 30+35 936 PI Restoration 664 1:1 664
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits(continued)
Component Summation
Restoration Level Stream(linear footage) Riparian Wetland(acreage) Nonriparian Wetland(acreage)
Restoration 3237 0.5 --
Restoration*** 122 -- --
Enhancement(Level II) 657 --
Enhancement -- 1.5**
Totals 4016 -- --
Mitigation Units 3581.133 SMUs 0.5 Riparian WMUs 0.00 Nonriparian WMUs
**Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
*** Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to the clearing of trees adjacent to streams draining to
Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1. Onsite visits
conducted with USACE representatives determined that the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at
this ratio.
**** Before Site selection,the landowner received a violation for the unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States.Fill resulted
from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam footprint, dredging stream channel,and casting spoil material adjacent
to the stream channel on jurisdictional wetlands. Before restoration activities,the landowner was required to obtain an after-the-fact permit to resolve
the violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act(Action ID: SAW-2014-00665). In addition,stream reaches and wetland areas associated with the
violation area have been removed from credit generation—UT 4 begins credit generation at Station 11+07).
•
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Vegetation
Stream Monitoring All Data Collection Completion
Activity or Deliverable Monitoring
Complete Complete or Delivery
Complete
Technical Proposal (RFP No.
-- -- -- October 2013
16-005568)
DMS Contract No.5791 -- -- -- February 2014
Mitigation Plan -- -- October 2014 May 2015
Construction Plans -- -- -- June 2015
Construction Earthwork -- -- -- April 6,2016
Planting -- -- -- April 8,2016
As-Built Documentation April 6th,2016 April 13th,2016 April 2016 May 2016
October 18th,
Year 1 Monitoring 2016 October 13th,2016 October 2016 December 2016
Supplemental Planting -- -- -- December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring April 19-20,2017 July 25th,2017 October 2017 November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring April 16-17,2018 July 19th,2018 October 2018 October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring N/A N/A October 2019 November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring March 24th,2020 July 7th,2020 November 2020 December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring N/A N/A October 2021 November 2021
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Full Delivery Provider Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490 Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Carolina Silvics, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue 908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh, NC 27603 Edenton, NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693 Mary-Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and As-built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA 5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606 John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline&Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Project Information
Project Name Aycock Springs Restoration Site
Project County Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres) 15
Project Coordinates(latitude&latitude) 36.1272712N,79.5252142W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project(14-digit) 03030002030010
NCDEQ Sub-basin for Project 03-06-02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 26-3008
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <2%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Travis Cr UT 1/UT2 UT 3 UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet) 1550 1966 212 413
Valley Classification alluvial
Drainage Area (acres) 3008 68 26 119
NCDWQ Stream ID Score -- 30.75/25.5 26.75 27.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) Cg 5/6-, Eg 5-,and Fc 5-type
Existing Evolutionary Stage(Simon and Hupp 1986) IV IV III III
Cecil, Helena, Mixed Alluvial Land,Severely Gullied
Underlying Mapped Soils
Land,Worsham
Well-drained, moderately well-drained, poorly
Drainage Class
drained,variable, poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric and Hydric
Slope 0.0023 0.0249 0.0153 0.0093
FEMA Classification AE Special Hazard Flood Area
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory
Native Vegetation Community
Forest
42%forest,53%agricultural land,<5%low density
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Site)
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%
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 4.Project Attribute Table(Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Wetland acreage 1.6
Wetland Type Riparian
Mapped Soil Series Worsham and Mixed Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater,stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams,compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Yes Resolved 404 Permit
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Yes Resolved 401 Certification
Endangered Species Act No -- CE Doc.
Historic Preservation Act No -- CE Doc.
Coastal Zone Management Act No -- NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Resolved CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat No -- NA
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View(CCPV)
Tables 5A-5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

N
!
A-----
.1 .54ipm Environmlintal,Ins.
kR -4 �it----- ., - Prepared for:
x7'' .,14
ma.
S Pf.
; =4R ')r.-•-• Rs
� ..
r•r_ f ' „' :'; RESTORATION
. _ _: ,:.. +h/ •.. r SYSTF.MS I1 TC:
-.j 1 : Project:
L� i • Aycock Springs
iffillir- Stream and
e� .. Wetland
'F 2 �1�/ Mitigation
%k / Site
,,
5; 4 Ala mance County, NC
s Title:
� X59R '" , kS..\
•
�' R o Current Conditions
4Plan View
#,.„
411)
• 5 iSA�
kSB,o v-
• y xsaR -•
XS-2R Q XS-�R-,
' y/xS R 1. Background Imagery source:
`. :.' 2014 aerial photography
?.• p b� • 6 provided by the NC One Map
` Program(online, supported by
` the NC Geographic Information
Legend ./y Coordination Council).
E''
OConservation Easement-13.2 ac e.
Stream Restoration
r.
Stream Restoration(@1.5:1)
Stream Restoration(No Credit) i.
Stream Enhancement(Level II) -PP
In-stream Structures j�x , i a°s�'S
•
y Wetland Restoration Area • s4. L,.:• a.,.. 9
•
Wetland Enhancement Area , i ,} xir V1
Cross Sections `°
•• • • • r..
,. CVS Plots meeting success criteria during MY-05(2020) "� �l0 a ':->+h Drawn by: KRJ/CLF
CVS Plots not meeting success criteria during MY-05 §` •
A:'. y,'''r: • • g 8 y - &,f:' Date: OCT 2021
` � ,; + .* ', ,.,:' • Scale: 1:2400
O Groundwater Gauges R'.. ; f.x t. ,, •
:' './. el.+ :a k r' : Project No.: 14-006
• Stream Gauge r ''.'el. . .�'.:' ;
Constructed Crossings 'P..'�« 1 rr .. ��. z, •
7
'' Stream Bank Erosion '�" ;a.= .!, ',','.,. '•• ,
.t F, _ f .- ; • i ,:; FIGURE
Active Invasive Species Management Areas :-. �.4 't ! .ys s^R
1772 2020 SeedingAreas „, ' yr. s
jit.7:(•;,i*A';;;;'• -.:i.. .:,!..-,,,,:•'P7....::\::;•::::::::•::: ::•:::!::::;: . - •:' .%:• ..:',::::,, .;.... ,, . .:.r:t4:c..,:!..;•'' ......: 2
300 150 0 300 600 I ; ••' 99 '•. ��`•
Feet ti ;' :1 {K Y • •
• :.:..:
.i." a+px. . . ' . ' '. `�'I`t� OGt"t#�-P SAP t -o9 P
r. hi 0nformationsL;Tnl.
.... .,..,.• .. .. .. :' ... _ .. .. � �. .. ��1 .. .... �3i:ttL'r'.�� ...�,'..' �' �� '�4 ,4:air • .r. • Y`.'+:s k.p:�

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs-Travis Creek
Assessed Length 1550
Adjusted%
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended 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 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 10 10 1 00%
3.Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 9 9 100%
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 9 9 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 9 9 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 9 9 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 3 74 98% 98%
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 3 74 98% 0 0 98%
3.Engineered
Structures 1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 9 9 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 9 9 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 9 9 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 9 9 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 9 9 100/o

Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs UT1
Assessed Length 1317
Adjusted%
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended 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 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 45 45 100%
3.Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 44 44 100%
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 44 44 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 44 44 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 44 44 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 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. 10 10 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 10 10 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 10 10 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 10 10 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull °
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 10 10 100/o

Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs UT2
Assessed Length 675
Adjusted%
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended 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 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 25 25 100%
3.Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 24 24 100%
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 24 24 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 24 24 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 24 24 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 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. 6 6 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 6 6 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 6 6 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 6 6 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull °
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 6 6 100/o

Table 5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs UT3
Assessed Length 212
Adjusted%
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended 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 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9 1 00%
3.Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 8 8 100%
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 8 8 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 8 8 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 8 8 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 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. 1 1 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 1 1 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 1 1 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 1 1 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull °
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 1 1 100/o

Table 5E Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs UT4
Assessed Length 413
Adjusted%
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended 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 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9 1 00%
3.Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 8 8 100%
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 8 8 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 8 8 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 8 8 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 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. 5 5 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 5 5 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 5 5 100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull °
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 5 5 100/o

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Aycock Springs
Planted Acreage 11.9
%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 1550 none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage 13.3
%of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
Management of Chinese privet and multiflora rose is active and ongoing along Travis Creek.There is also
4.Ongoing Invasive Species Management Areas° ongoing treatment for cattail along UT1 and UT2. 2017-18 invasives management has improved vegetation 1000 SF yellow hatch 3 2.46 18.5%
condition in these areas,however treatment is ongoing.
5.Easement Encroachment Areas' None none none 0 0.00 0.0%
1=Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory,the channel acreage,crossings or
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 =The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3=Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1,2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item(i.e.,item 1,2 or 3)as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4=Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas,but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with
the potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term(e.g.monitoring period or shortly thereafter)or affect the community structure for existing,more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly
longer(e.g.1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity,but can be mapped,if in the
judgement of the observer their coverage,density or distribution is suppressing the viability,density,or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by DMS
such as species present,their coverage,distribution relative to native biomass,and the practicality of treatment. For example,even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not 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 dense,discreet patches. In any case,the point or polygon/area feature can be
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset,in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

APPENDIX C
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Table 7a-7e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 8a-8f. Monitoring Data
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 7A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 1
Parameter
Pre-Existing Project Reference Project Reference
USGS Gage Data Condition Cedarock Park Cripple Creek Design As-built
Dimension Min I Max I Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
BF Width(ft) USGS gage data is 3.8 9.6 6.7 8 12.1 8.1 3 6.1 4.6 7.2 8.3 7.8 6.4 9.6 8.0
Floodprone Width(ft) unavailable for this 8 73 30 15 25 18 150 150 150 20 70 50 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) project 4.3 8 5.9 4.3 3 6.6 3.9
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 1 2.3 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.7
Width/Depth Ratio 8 15.1 10.1 8 15.1 10.1 4 4.3 4.2 12 16 14 11 19 15
Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.1 24.6 50 37.3 2.6 9 6.4 9 14 11.3
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.8 1 1 1.8 1 1 1.5 1.3 1 1.2 1 1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hydraulic radius(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) No pattern of riffles 20 38 22.8 15.1 29.2 24.3 23 47 31 23 47 31
Radius of Curvature(ft) and pools due to 11 27 16.5 8.9 19.4 13.2 14 31 23 14 31 23
Meander Wavelength(ft) straightening activties 44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 47 94 66 47 94 66
Meander Width ratio 2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6 4
Profile
Riffle length(ft) No pattern of riffles =__ ___ __= 9 70 16
Riffle slope(ft/ft) and pools due to 1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 2.77% 6.47% 4.16% 0.01% 4.33% 2.23%
Pool length(ft) straightening activties === === === 4 23 9
Pool spacing(ft) 25 69 37.2 14 39.6 32.4 23 62 31 23 62 31
Substrate
d50(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
d84(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length(ft) ___ ___ === === ___
Channel Length(ft) ___ ___ === === ___
Sinuosity 1.02 1.2 1.22 1.1 1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 1.37%- 2.58% 0.50% 1.27%- 1.89%
3.61% 3.35%
BF slope(ft/ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Rosgen Classification Cg E E E/C E/C

Table 7B. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 2
Parameter
Pre-Existing Project Reference Project Reference
USGS Gage Data Condition Cedarock Park Cripple Creek Design As-built
Dimension Min I Max I Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
BF Width(ft) USGS gage data is 3.8 9.6 6.7 8 12.1 8.1 3 6.1 4.6 7.2 8.3 7.8 4.8 8.6 7.2
Floodprone Width(ft) unavailable for this 8 73 30 15 25 18 150 150 150 20 70 50 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) project 4.3 8 5.9 4.3 1 4.2 2.3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.3
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 1 2.3 1.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.6
Width/Depth Ratio 8 15.1 10.1 8 15.1 10.1 4 4.3 4.2 12 16 14 12 32 22
Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.1 24.6 50 37.3 2.6 9 6.4 11 19 13
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.8 1 1 1.8 1 1 1.5 1.3 1 1.2 1 1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hydraulic radius (ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) No pattern of riffles 20 38 22.8 15.1 29.2 24.3 23 47 31 23 47 31
Radius of Curvature(ft) and pools due to 11 27 16.5 8.9 19.4 13.2 14 31 23 14 31 23
Meander Wavelength(ft) straightening activties 44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 47 94 66 47 94 66
Meander Width ratio 2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6 4
Profile
Riffle length(ft) No pattern of riffles =__ ___ __= 9 23 14
Riffle slope(ft/ft) and pools due to 1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 2.77% 6.47% 4.16% 0.00% 5.24% 2.88%
Pool length(ft) straightening activties =__ ___ __= 5 17 10
Pool spacing(ft) 25 69 37.2 14 39.6 32.4 23 62 31 23 62 31
Substrate
d50(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
d84(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Channel Length(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Sinuosity 1.02 1.2 1.22 1.1 1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 1.37%- 2.58% 0.50% 1.27%- 3.01%
3.61% 3.35%
BF slope(ft/ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Rosgen Classification Cg E E E/C E/C
Note: UT 2 is characterized by a spring/seep, with a very small watershed. The channel was constructed with a smaller Bankfull Cross Sectional area to account for the
smaller stormwater pulses and controlled discharge. In addition, the lower reaches of the channel are low slope wetlands that elevate the width-to-depth ratio in post
construction measurements.

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

Table 7D. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 4
Parameter
Pre-Existing Project Reference Project Reference
USGS Gage Data Condition Cedarock Park Cripple Creek Design As-built
Dimension Min I Max I Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
BF Width(ft) USGS gage data is 4.8 11.7 8.3 8 12.1 8.1 3 6.1 4.6 8.7 10 9.4 8 10.9 8.5
Floodprone Width(ft) unavailable for this 8 70 39 15 25 18 150 150 150 70 200 150 50
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) project 6.3 8 5.9 6.3 3.5 5.6 4.3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.9 2 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.4 1 2.3 1.7 0.8 1.1 1 0.6 0.9 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 3.7 23.4 12.4 8 15.1 10.1 4 4.3 4.2 12 16 14 16 22 19
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 11.5 4.9 1.9 2.2 2.1 24.6 50 37.3 7.5 21.3 16 5 6 6
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 2.4 1.8 1 1.8 1 1 1.5 1.3 1 1.2 1 1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hydraulic radius(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) No pattern of riffles 20 38 22.8 15.1 29.2 24.3 28 56 38 28 56 38
Radius of Curvature(ft) and pools due to 11 27 16.5 8.9 19.4 13.2 17 38 28 17 38 28
Meander Wavelength(ft) straightening activties 44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 56 113 80 56 113 80
Meander Width ratio 2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6 4
Profile
Riffle length(ft) No pattern of riffles =__ ___ __= 12 35 16
Riffle slope(ft/ft) and pools due to 1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 1.12% 2.60% 1.67% 0.61% 2.42% 1.28%
Pool length(ft) straightening activties === === === 14 42 22
Pool spacing(ft) 25 69 37.2 14 39.6 32.4 28 75 38 28 75 38
Substrate
d50(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
d84(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length(ft) ___ ___ ___ === ___
Channel Length(ft) ___ ___ === === ___
Sinuosity 1.1 1.2 1.22 1.1 1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.93% 2.58% 0.50% 0.93% 0.66%
BF slope(ft/ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Rosgen Classification Eg E E E/C E/C

Table 7E. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs Travis Creek
Parameter
Pre-Existing Project Reference Project Reference
USGS Gage Data Condition Cedarock Park Cripple Creek Design As-built
Dimension Min I Max I Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med Min Max Med
BF Width(ft) USGS gage data is 30 51.7 41.4 8 12.1 8.1 3 6.1 4.6 25.7 29.6 27.7 25.2 30.3 26.7
Floodprone Width(ft) unavailable for this 68 160 122 15 25 18 150 150 150 200 300 250 150
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) project 54.9 8 5.9 54.9 41.3 73.9 51.2
BF Mean Depth(ft) 1.1 1.8 1.4 0.8 1 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.9 2.1 2 1.6 2.4 2
BF Max Depth(ft) 3.3 4.1 3.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1 2.3 1.7 2.7 3 2.8 2.3 3.4 2.8
Width/Depth Ratio 16.7 47 32.1 8 15.1 10.1 4 4.3 4.2 12 16 14 12 16 13
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 5.3 3.2 1.9 2.2 2.1 24.6 50 37.3 7.2 10.8 9 5 6 5.6
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.1 1 1 1.8 1 1 1.5 1.3 1 1.2 1 1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hydraulic radius (ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) No pattern of riffles 20 38 22.8 15.1 29.2 24.3 83 166 111 83 166 111
Radius of Curvature(ft) and pools due to 11 27 16.5 8.9 19.4 13.2 55 111 83 55 111 83
Meander Wavelength(ft) straightening activties 44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 166 332 236 166 332 236
Meander Width ratio 2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6 4
Profile
Riffle length(ft) No pattern of riffles =__ ___ __= 16 87 54
Riffle slope(ft/ft) and pools due to 1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 0.28% 0.64% 0.41% 0.00% 0.70% 0.19%
Pool length(ft) straightening activties === === === 27 70 43
Pool spacing(ft) 25 69 37.2 14 39.6 32.4 83 222 111 83 222 111
Substrate
d50(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
d84(mm) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length(ft) ___ ___ === === ___
Channel Length(ft) ___ ___ ___ === ___
Sinuosity 1.05 1.2 1.22 1.05 1.05
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) NA 2.58% 0.50% 0.23% 0.10%
BF slope(ft/ft) ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Rosgen Classification Fc E E E/C E/C

Table 8A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock Travis Creek(Downstream)- Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 1 Riffle(Travis Down) XS 2 Riffle(Travis Down) XS 3 Pool(Travis Down) XS 4 Riffle(Travis Down) XS 5 Pool(Travis Down) XS 6 Riffle(Travis Down)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 26 26.7 26.4 27.3 28.5 25.2 26.2 26.3 28.3 27.7 33.7 33.2 35.4 39 43.5 25.5 27 26.5 28.4 29.2 26 26.7 26 25.7 32.5 27.3 27.7 26.8 28.9 29.8
Floodprone Width(ft) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 150 150 150 150 150 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 150 150 150 150 150
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 41.3 40 40.1 40.1 41.3 47.5 47.4 47.9 47.9 47.5 58.7 55.8 57.2 57.2 58.7 47.2 44.6 43.8 43.8 47.2 61.4 58.1 52.3 52.3 61.4 54.9 50.6 50.3 50.3 54.9
BF Mean Depth(ft) 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8
BF Max Depth(ft) 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.8 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.6 4 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.997 4 3.7 3.2 3.3 3.4 3 2.9 2.8 3 3.1
Width/Depth Ratio 16.4 17.8 17.4 18.6 19.7 13.4 14.5 14.4 16.7 16.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 13.8 16.3 16.0 18.4 18.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 13.6 15.2 14.3 16.6 16.1
Entrenchment Ratio 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.3 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.3 5.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.3 5.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.2 5.0
Low Bank Height(ft) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.07 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1 1.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1 <1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 <1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 27.1 27.4 27.2 28 29.4 26.4 27.5 27.3 29.5 29.1 34.8 34.4 36.4 40.2 45.1 26.6 28 27.5 29.6 30.4 27.6 28.2 27.3 26.9 33.8 28.7 29.1 27.9 30.4 31.3
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter XS 7 Pool(Travis Down) XS 8 Riffle(Travis Down) XS 9 Pool(Travis Down) XS 10 Pool(Travis Down) XS 11 Riffle(Travis Down)
Dimension MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 25.9 27.7 25.7 25.1 28.9 28.1 28.5 28.6 28 28.9 29.3 29.1 29.7 27.8 27.4 38.6 38.6 39.1 37.5 43.8 30.3 29.8 30.5 30.7 34.5
Floodprone Width(ft) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 150 150 150 150 150 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 150 150 150 150 150
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 60 45.8 44.9 44.9 60 64.6 57.4 58.3 58.3 64.6 65.9 63.1 60.8 60.8 65.9 100.1 91 87.5 87.5 100.1 73.9 66.6 69.6 69.6 73.9
BF Mean Depth(ft) 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1
BF Max Depth(ft) 3.9 2.8 2.5 3 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3 5.003 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8
Width/Depth Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12.2 14.2 14.0 13.4 12.9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12.4 13.3 13.4 13.6 16.1
Entrenchment Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.2 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.4
Low Bank Height(ft) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.9
Bank Height Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 <1 <1 <1 1.01
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 27.5 29.1 26.8 26.2 30.8 29.5 29.7 29.8 29.8 30.5 30.6 30.3 30.8 29.4 30 40.2 40 40.4 39.1 46 31.8 31.4 32.1 32.1 36.2
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of'Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MYO.
Table 8B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock Travis Creek(Upstream)- Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 12 Riffle (Travis Up) XS 13 Pool(Travis Up) XS 14 Riffle(Travis Up)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 29 29.6 29.7 31.3 30 26.9 26.9 27.8 27.8 30.7 32.8 32.3 31.9 33.6 36.4
Floodprone Width(ft) 150 150 150 150 150 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 150 150 150 150 150
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 68.7 66.4 67.9 67.9 68.7 64.0 50.3 51.9 48.2 64.0 104.5 92.4 94.6 94.6 104.5
BF Mean Depth(ft) 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.9
BF Max Depth(ft) 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.8 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.8
Width/Depth Ratio 12.2 13.2 13.0 14.4 13.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 10.295 11.29 10.76 11.9 12.7
Entrenchment Ratio 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.8 5.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.1
Low Bank Height(ft) 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.00 <1 <1 <1 1.02 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 30.4 30.8 30.9 32.5 31.4 28.8 28.1 28.8 32.5 32.9 35.0 34.2 33.8 35.8 38.5
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.9 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.6
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of'Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MYO.

Table 8C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-1- Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 1 Riffle(UT 1) XS 2 Riffle(UT 1) XS 3 Pool(UT 1) XS 4 Riffle(UT 1) XS 5 Riffle(UT 1)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 9.3 9.2 9.7 9.1 11.3 8.8 9.3 9.2 10.2 12.9 8.4 8.4 9.3 9.5 8.6 9.3 9.7 9.3 10.2 10.7 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.2 11.6
Floodprone Width(ft) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 5.6 4.7 4.4 4.4 5.6 4.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.6 6.7 5.6 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.2 5.5 5.7 5.7 6.2 6.6 5.9 5.8 5.8 6.6
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
BF Max Depth(ft) 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 15.4 18.0 21.4 18.8 22.7 16.8 23.4 22.9 28.1 36.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 14.0 17.1 15.2 18.4 18.3 14.0 15.3 14.9 14.8 20.4
Entrenchment Ratio 9.7 9.8 9.3 9.9 8.0 10.2 9.7 9.8 8.8 7.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 9.7 9.3 9.7 8.8 8.4 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.8 7.8
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 <1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 <1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.01
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 9.7 9.4 10 9.3 11.5 9 9.4 9.4 10.3 13.1 8.9 8.9 9.8 10 9.3 9.7 10 9.6 10.5 11 10 10 9.8 9.7 12
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter XS 6 Riffle(UT 1) XS 7 Riffle(UT 1) XS 8 Pool(UT 1) XS 9 Riffle(UT 1) XS 10 Pool(UT 1)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 NIY7 MY 0 NIY1 NIY2 NIY3 NIYS NIY7
BF Width(ft) 6.9 7.5 6.7 6.9 11.4 7.5 7.2 7.3 6.7 9.6 7.8 8.7 7.2 6 11.2 7.9 7.2 7.6 6.7 9.6 7.6 7 6.9 5.5 4.8
Floodprone Width(ft) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.6 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.6 3.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.9 5.7 4.1 3.6 3.6 5.7 3 4.1 1.6 1.6 3 4.7 5.6 5.5 5.5 4.7
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.0
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1 0.9 1 1.2 0.7 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.798 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.38
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 29.6 20.4 21.9 36.1 14.4 21.6 22.2 18.9 23.6 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20.8 12.6 36.1 28.1 30.7 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Entrenchment Ratio 13.0 12.0 13.4 13.1 7.9 12.0 12.5 12.3 13.4 9.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 11.4 12.5 11.8 13.5 9.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 <1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 0.6 1.8 1.2 1.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 7.2 7.6 6.8 7 11.6 7.8 7.3 7.5 6.9 9.9 8.3 9.1 7.5 6.6 11.8 8 7.8 7.7 7 9.9 8 7.7 7.7 6.6 6
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter XS 11 Riffle(UT 1) XS 12 Riffle(UT 1) XS 13 Pool(UT 1) XS 14 Riffle(UT 1) XS 15 Riffle(UT 1)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 7.4 7 7.8 8.4 8.4 8 7.4 6.4 7.3 9.4 8.6 8 8.3 8.3 11.8 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.2 6.5 7.1 7.2 6.3 5.6 9.1
Floodprone Width(11) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 6.5 4.3 4.7 4.7 6.5 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 4 3.3 2.4 2.4 4
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9
Width/Depth Ratio 15.6 14.0 17.4 19.8 19.8 17.3 19.6 14.6 18.8 23.9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 13.2 14.2 14.2 14.0 13.6 12.6 15.7 16.5 13.0 20.7
Entrenchment Ratio 12.2 12.9 11.5 10.8 10.8 11.3 12.2 14.1 12.3 9.6 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 14.1 14.3 14.3 14.4 13.8 12.7 12.5 14.3 16.1 9.9
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 <1 1.03 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.03 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 7.8 7.3 8.1 8.9 8.9 8.5 7.6 6.6 7.5 9.6 9.2 8.5 9.0 9.0 12.7 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.8 7.4 7.6 6.6 6.1 9.5
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,fixing the
cross-sectional area to MYO.

Table 8C continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-1- Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 16 Riffle(UT 1) XS 17 Riffle(UT 1) XS 18 Riffle(UT 1) XS 19 Pool(UT 1) XS 20 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 9 8.3 8.5 8.8 11.3 8.5 8.1 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.2 6.7 6.9 6.4 7.6 7.7 8.1 8.1 9 9.1 8.5 8.7 9.4 9.1
Floodprone Width(ft) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.6 3.9 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 6.5 5.4 5.3 5.3 6.5 5.3 4.4 4.9 4.9 5.3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.42 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9
Width/Depth Ratio 17.6 26.5 25.8 27.6 27.8 18.5 18.2 14.8 14.5 13.7 14.4 15.2 12.5 13.5 11.7 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 15.6 16.4 15.4 18.1 15.6
Entrenchment Ratio 10.0 10.8 10.6 10.2 8.0 10.6 11.1 12.2 12.2 12.3 12.7 12.5 13.4 13.0 14.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 9.9 10.6 10.3 9.6 9.9
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 <1 1.0 1.0 <1 <1 <1 1.0 <1 <1 <1 1.01 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 9.3 8.4 8.7 9.0 11.5 8.7 8.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.4 7.0 7.4 7.7 8.2 8.3 8.7 8.6 9.8 9.4 8.7 9.0 9.8 9.4
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter XS 21 Pool(UT 1) XS 22 Riffle(UT 1) XS 23 Riffle(UT 1) XS 24 Riffle(UT 1)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 8.3 8.2 9.7 8.4 15 7.2 7.5 7.3 6.4 7 7.6 6.8 7 7 6.9 8 7.7 7.6 7.8 11.3
Floodprone Width(ft) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 9.3 5.9 5.4 5.4 9.3 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.2 3.2 3 3 3.2 4 3.2 3.4 3.4 4
BF Mean Depth(ft) 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
BF Max Depth(ft) 2.1 1.4 1.3 1.7 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 14.4 16.5 16.1 12.4 13.6 18.1 14.5 16.3 16.1 14.9 16.0 18.5 17.0 17.7 31.9
Entrenchment Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12.5 12.0 12.3 14.1 12.9 11.8 13.2 12.9 12.9 13.0 11.3 11.7 11.8 11.6 8.0
Low Bank Height(ft) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bank Height Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 <1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 9.5 9.2 10.4 10 16.6 7.5 7.8 7.5 6.8 7.6 9.3 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.3 9.3 7.8 7.8 8 11.5
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 1 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,fixing the
cross-sectional area to MYO.

Table 8D. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-2- Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 1 Pool(UT 2) XS 2 Riffle(UT 2) XS 3 Riffle (UT 2) XS 4 Riffle(UT 2) XS 5 Riffle(UT 2) XS 6 Riffle(UT 2) XS 7 Pool(UT 2)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 6.5 6.3 6.9 7.3 10.4 4.8 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.7 5.3 5.8 5.8 8.4 6.4 5.7 5.4 5.4 4.7 8.4 7.7 8.5 9.9 9.2 6.9 7 6.8 6.4 9.9 8.3 9.4 8.2 8.4 10.8
Floodprone Width(ft) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.8 2.1 3.2 3.2 3.8 1 1.1 1 1 1 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.7 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.3 1.4 1 1 2.3 5.1 4.1 3.8 3.8 5.1
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0
Width/Depth Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 23.0 28.5 30.3 32.3 25.4 19.1 20.1 28.0 26.9 41.5 41.0 36.1 32.4 33.0 22.1 22.8 21.2 24.9 33.2 27.3 20.7 35.0 46.2 40.5 42.6 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Entrenchment Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 18.8 16.1 16.4 16.2 17.7 15.8 17.0 15.5 15.6 10.7 14.1 15.8 16.7 16.7 19.1 10.7 11.7 10.6 9.1 9.8 13.0 12.9 13.2 14.1 9.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0
Bank Height Ratio ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.09 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 <1 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.02 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 <1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 6.9 6.5 7.2 7.4 10.6 4.9 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.8 5.4 6.0 5.9 8.5 6.5 5.7 5.5 5.5 4.7 8.6 7.9 8.6 10.0 9.4 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.4 10.0 8.8 9.5 8.4 8.6 11.0
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter XS 8 Riffle(UT 2) XS 9 Riffle(UT 2) XS 10 Pool(UT 2) XS 11 Pool(UT 2) XS 12 Riffle(UT 2) XS 13 Riffle(UT 2)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 8.6 8.3 8.3 10.1 10.5 7.4 7.9 7.9 8.5 9.6 7.5 7.8 7.6 6.7 9.8 6.2 6.4 5.6 5.8 7.1 8.3 9.2 7.7 7.2 9.2 7.2 7.6 7.4 6.7 7.2
Floodprone Width(ft) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.6 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.6 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.2 5.2 4 4 4 5.2 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.2 2.3 1.9 1.9 3.2 2.1 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.1
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Width/Depth Ratio 20.5 22.2 24.6 36.6 30.6 13.0 16.4 14.2 16.5 21.9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 21.5 36.8 31.2 27.4 26.5 24.7 34.0 30.4 24.8 24.7
Entrenchment Ratio 10.5 10.8 10.8 8.9 8.6 12.2 11.4 11.4 10.5 9.4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 10.8 9.8 11.7 12.5 9.8 12.5 11.8 12.2 13.4 12.5
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 <1 1.09 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 <1
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 8.8 8.5 8.6 10.3 10.6 7.7 8.1 8.2 8.5 9.8 8.1 8.2 8.0 7.2 10.1 6.6 6.6 5.8 6.1 7.1 8.6 9.3 8.0 7.4 9.3 7.3 7.7 7.5 6.8 7.3
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MYO.

Table 8E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-3 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 1 Riffle (UT 3) XS 2 Riffle (UT 3) XS 3 Pool (UT 3) XS 4 Riffle (UT 3) XS 5 Riffle (UT 3)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 6.5 6.9 6.7 7.2 7 4.7 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5 5.4 5.2 5.7 5 7 6.8 6.9 7.5 8.8 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.5 6.3
Floodprone Width(ft) 10 11 11 11 10 20 8 8 8 8 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.7 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3
Width/Depth Ratio 15.6 20.7 18.7 21.8 18.1 11.6 16.9 14.2 13.9 12.5 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 22.3 24.3 28.0 33.7 35.2 23.4 28.5 28.0 35.4 33.6
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 4.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.2
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1 <1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.02 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 6.8 7.1 6.9 7.5 7.2 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.8 5.7 6.2 5.7 7.1 6.9 7.0 7.7 8.9 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.7 6.4
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,
fixing the cross-sectional area to MYO.
Table 8F. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-4- Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter XS 1 Riffle(UT 4) XS 2 Pool(UT 4) XS 3 Riffle(UT 4) XS 4 Pool(UT 4) XS 5 Riffle(UT 4)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 8.3 9.4 8.8 9.1 10.2 8.5 9.1 9.5 9.2 11.1 8.6 8.7 8.4 9 12 8.5 10.6 10.7 10.5 11.6 8 8.3 7.8 7.9 8.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 50 50 50 50 50 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 50 50 50 50 50
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.7 6.4 5.4 5.8 5.8 6.4 4.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 4.3 6.2 5.2 5.6 5.6 6.2 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.8 4.3
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.5 1 1.1 1 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 1 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 18.6 26.8 23.5 25.2 28.1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 17.2 22.3 20.2 23.2 33.5 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 14.9 16.8 16.0 16.5 16.8
Entrenchment Ratio 6.0 5.3 5.7 5.5 4.9 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5.8 5.7 6.0 5.6 4.2 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 6.3 6.0 6.4 6.3 5.9
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.19 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.3 <1 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 8.6 9.5 9.0 9.3 10.4 9.2 9.5 10.0 9.8 11.4 9.0 8.8 8.6 9.1 12.2 9.1 10.9 11.1 11.0 12.0 8.3 8.5 8.1 8.2 8.8
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Parameter XS 6 Riffle(UT 4) XS 7 Riffle(UT 4) XS 8 Riffle(UT 4)
Dimension MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
BF Width(ft) 8.1 8.9 8.9 8.4 9 9.9 11.7 9.1 9.8 11.4 10.9 11.1 11 10.6 11.7
Floodprone Width(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
BF Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 5.6 4.9 5 5 5.6 5.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.6
BF Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9
Width/Depth Ratio 18.7 24.0 24.0 21.7 23.1 17.5 27.9 16.6 19 23.2 21.2 25.1 24.7 22.9 24.4
Entrenchment Ratio 6.2 5.6 5.6 5.9 5.6 5.1 4.3 5.5 5.1 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.3
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 1.0 <1 1.10 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 <1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.07
Wetted Perimeter(ft) 8.4 9.0 9.0 8.9 9.2 10.2 11.9 9.4 10 11.7 11.1 11.3 11.2 10.8 12.1
Hydraulic Radius(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5
Substrate
d50(mm) ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
d84(mm) ---- ---- ---
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x/Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit,fixing the cross-sectional area to MY2.MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,
fixing the cross-sectional area to MYO.

APPENDIX D
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 9. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 10.Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 11. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 9. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence Year 1(2016) Year 2(2017) Year 3(2018) Year 4(2019) Year 5(2020) Year 6
(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 37 110 276 145 152 134
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
otherwise)
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
transport
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
for flow or inundation for a long duration,including
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of No No No No No No
flow
Other:
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

NV ,` e , f r l;, UT 3 Channel Formation
• `� „> 0 tic, ''i '.,Y 4. i` ,, ,f/` r
At CAP 1 1 1T r / 1. ;
r4-1 i..'4:I'l.•.•!/...•,,T•.'Y I,";r:r',L.,.,1,;•.e•%..'.1':,a.r...'...g,'...y''1 I$..,.
64 1 1 1►I ' ' 11 fl r {1. .t '
�'.i.•�rj♦� M, s{ �` ' r +`;R. flr d'Z 4 y ',+I 'r t ; '•r;,.
\\•.... .\, V'.11 c i : k t ,ip 1l•ri,r't e Y!+�i/ Y f 4
1 1 p.4•1'cs�,�' -' .rp r.,•1, ,(`3,, , ; ;yJ;mot.,ti,t `;4 i/•` .•. '/,
t 0. -•- `1:'' ?. '� e'il � 1. it, '
•i tJ{ y' Rom+ t+' 'fif �A.f'. ,` fsr, ^�'.P 4
>1 C '
- , ,•• . .t.lorzi,4..44),:- ' ,k r,,-.•? r ft:1 >--• , . , '\'
., •*:\ • :'NI,,. , ;;,/,:,• *,.!,`" „.:- ' '. ,," •q • ;,-. 1*.:-,,,,,' .'!.,',..• ::/ ,40,‘, ,, / ., .. •.,.,, I",,
1 ' 4 � SDI , '1 • • . h) • T 1Vf+i
1 .j ,. , Y',ti ^ �� ;'ril r r� /I� f5.r1
a,. EL'`• i'' ') ;'• , • r' ` 1 '' k fix +y C.',s, '1� Se '1'r
,' k M -:';f L., ,F- i-.• .s ..� /, -A,' ' t�j,ffs' �
' 4
iY ', - sfir. C•
,• )_it. 1 y:i74i} • 1•- 4. . ...,,
w+ )yi r : ^''�A q- r rrr-�,.41, . - .T „ !S' +trr; . }sue- • i
. ,� l a 4.y r • f .(b yJ,f y,• ., r y ..., F. f f ; 7 .„
3� id�r' . lfc.• 'dG r r• 1�7. - F r 1
..*,41::: 1. c-.0.,z,,,,N._• '...4 •A, ,,, ,
, .a ak >>`f.� _ �' r',• .,� X »'. • "�"h:''1 p!/,�j,�st,yl�yfL, , +y , ".
.s may, -+..,.• '1; ,?. t . '%• ;iY. I !m .• ,,,1/ ).
,,,, ,„ ,..,,, ...,.
.,„: ; i
, \ , k
- - , /4.,t,,..,:kkt,,,,,,-„,, ..,,-.,',61,,,.„„,...\ ,,..4,,,,,, -,....„.0, ,,i ,,,, k• ••••!
,,.. .
.... ...._. ..,..,_..._-litle4,A.-, •
•
` \ j ,' - /_„,. , fo„""�"r i',,•r - i d1.' ifs,-,'may. ,t'" •l'
,ft
\I-".. - lifil Ct,EIPA' i ii .11, . ifile ..7.e-444- , .,,i,j1, en c-, , , • ,' ' ,C..7..iiki 441,, .,.. ...#60,i-,414:•,,, : ,1
„J ,,„,,F„eiakW, .1,,i;:i.i,S .;. :...12... ..Fis.,6.14ribei r.' f.,,,,4, . /
avi,'rt Y flip lqiiih. .›•ids",'14f,):;ii;''',.'1 ,, • t A.41 ;I.'t'AIN "t ..' ,,,,44,.. .1,4 :, ' :'—‘1...)' ''''"iiti‘‘. Ill
sirmihliv :111. .:40-itt,f .., _fily,..,'./.. .6.'-fi
f r�. J �v I , `1 .4,t s;s•,. ,..,%%,;. /,2 ` li ,, . �
pI
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT-3
Year 6 (2021 Data)
26 3.0
24 -
22 Al.
20 I - 2.5
18 -
16 -
14 - 2.0
��—, 12 I
ar
10 134 Days 3
iIfLIALArlce
tij 21111 ik—j444".... ".""tkij
0 -
"2 � - 0.5
4 ,
11 A il
-8 LI 0.0
F— F— F— F— N N N N W W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Cr) Cr) Cr) Cr) N N N N 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-0 F-0 I N-� I N
-� I-�
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N
F-, l0 F-, N N 1--0 1--0 N Cr) F-, N W N F-` N F-, l0 F-J N N 1--0 1--0 N A F-, N 00 Ul F-W N N Cr) F-, N UJ
N Ul \ 0 00 Cl A N 0 Ul W \ \ N Ul \ 0 00 Cl N 0 00 W I- l0 A N 0 00 I- N I- l0 I-
N.) N..) \ \ N \ \ \ N..) \ \ \ N.) \ \ N N..) \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ Cl 01 A \ \ V
I- I- N N I- N N N I- N N N I- N N I- I- N N I- N N N I- N N N I- N N N I- N N N fJ N N N fJ N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, N N I- I- N

Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Date of Photo
Collection Occurrence Method (if available)
Wrack, laid-back vegetation,sediment,and standing water
May 5,2016 May 3,2016 observed in the floodplain after 1.55 inches of rain 1
documented* on May 3,2016,at a nearby rain gauge
September 28, 2.05 inches of rain was recorded on September 28,2016,at an
October 13,2016 --
2016 onsite rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of the bank
October 13,2016 October 8,2016 after 3.05 inches of rain was recorded on October 8, 2016,at an 2
onsite rain gauge
4.66 inches of rain was recorded between April 23 and 25,2017,
June 15,2017 April 25,2017 at an onsite rain gauge.Visual observation of wrack and --
reclining vegetation in the floodplain of UT2
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed in the floodplain of
October 27,2017 June 19,2017 Travis Creek after 1.93 inches of rain was recorded on June 19, 3
2017,at an onsite rain gauge
October 24,2018 September 17, Overbank as the result of Hurricane Florence on September 15-
2018 17,2018
October 24,2018 October 11,2018 Overbank as the result of Hurricane Michael on October 11,
--
2018
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 1.82
October 16,2019 July 7,2019 inches of rain was recorded on July 7,2019,at an onsite rain --
gauge
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 1.35
October 16,2019 July 23,2019 inches of rain was recorded on July 23,2019,at an onsite rain --
gauge
Visual and onsite rain gauge data indicated that a bankfull event
November 21,
2019
be October 22,2019 occurred after 1.8 inches of rain was recorded on October 22, 4
2019,at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of bank and
February 7,2020 February 6,2020 floodplain after 4.04 inches of rain was recorded on February 6, 5
2020,at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack observed along fencing in the Travis Creek floodplain
June 18,2020 May 20,2020 after 3.70 inches of rain was recorded between May 19-20, 6
2020,at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack observed in the floodplain of Travis Creek after 3.88
September 17,
November 5,2020 2020 inches of rain was recorded between September 17,2020, at an 7
onsite rain gauge
Trail cameras captured Travis Creek at bankfull after 1.02 inches
March 2,2021 January 31,2021 8
of rain was recorded on January 31,2021 at an onsite rain gauge
Trail cameras captured Travis Creek at bankfull after 1.81 inches
March 2,2021 February 13,2021 of rain was recorded between February 11 and 13,2021 at an 9
onsite rain gauge
August 4,2021 July 19,2021 Trail cameras captured Travis Creek at bankfull after 2.51 inches 10
of rain was recorded on July 19,2021 at an onsite rain gauge
*The onsite rain gauge was installed on May 18,2016-rain data from a nearby Site(Abbey Lamm Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site)was used to confirm this bankfull event.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

i"..-- _ - _ . - _ r
Bankfull Photo 1:Wrack, laid-back vegetation, - •y..- ;y :: , Nfr,;Y_''.;::
and sediment in the floodplain of Travis Creek
tom.. 1Lf}". "t c?_i_.`'4 . , +t..,:: �. _' ,„
. ' .'',.YV . •�.:k '-f+br+{IG :..V'.•' - `4l-2 .'.'. L,..
•
• 1 e t'±:.. I ''->f j t x'4yi .• .;-.'Y , 6 4 cc. :t'3*/..'
'' .•7. 1 ` ,. e ''J. :' ,r-?'- .,.t n _fir-"._�` j{' ''ik'c.' •*., ""-t.,n1'' - .may ;^:
k ►+' +1. = :.' ivy. _k..'-f:.-aryx';+S_F.-?,`t,_'xY`' . .-it,—.,4ti„f5f. 1`-,.. • -..• ,
•
€} 'y Y::•'^;' �•'.-3 may'-* 4
} { .- k -`..;'3:_'Si-.? - �iC•;_., ''..••
.' r. y�'-. � :.s,+JC4x•�4y�iYM����- �' -rF w
r ti{F -' . :'•:! t;" * _.*.". 't:c'r. `:ji.,`•.ra.h• a ,,h
f�ry-0;./ •'•' - a - `• yam- tip-. ,F �'�' • •'' .. *-i -,'+.14-'k,? 4.4P• •uy -.''-11{5' Tt: ~A�-..- r„-' '._ rA' :'r'F .'
:,s:1F`{ 1 ,..,r,. 4,-' ,1,,.:iS' y+�'' -. rV ti `^_s* iyy«##.t_s •r .
•
• 'JJr- t M1� __ �- ;- �- ��- � '.h`4 t'-1�`?# ��3".�.. 3,F��,r• .' 1 5f Y , �;Yl'�^,
4,4
It .•.P:0 elf 2 4;PL1'••=1,:g._''..1$11.:1 7,
Bankfull Photo 2:Wrack, laid-back vegetation, +. -.t• �' 1 . 'rk ,,,, ►.:; ,
on the top of bank of Travis Creek ,,; 4,.k. ; . '
.f
• a
. ft: nr, t:;.: .
•
1 1!. ,tr. hi • ESL f
' .: 1 �, 4,:17C— ' 1 i.
•
•
. 1
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 3:Wrack and laid-back Y . tee*° Bankfull Photo 4:Wrack and laid-back :,k. ::;' {•4
vegetation around a cross-section marker in vegetation on the top of bank and floodplain t.� ,, :° }
all F+' = -' '.' ~+G
the floodplain of Travis Creek s. =' rr of 11T� _ .
or .rt, - ..4'¢t • "fir , s k •i _ ,�-:n.'�'.: f g
7p•; - -IV a .sle + •.,�c ' rj* yt.. Sti. x .`r;:. 111 'Ly 1° 7,� . _'•. 4,
„........4N.L.
_ - ,.{ 5 � ..i..2.:v ,.F. FN a'ft,
.. t` .em • . 5
Lam. �; 1. r y - .. `t. • -. _t .S ..j'• ii,7k- ,e- 1 } '�'' ', 'F Tr/ ~
k.
•
F • ••• . .� r•. Y -.a ' ,I}. r ',F., • I - f _.,„ '^1.'r Y n5.
�+�• .{.'lam} - }'••. --. '• 1/. `�,• .. ,,-.a n 4 Yea 'F- / ,.'i i.. „ t }•
'}` ` #JA
.f I • -• +' l�- `Y�.S- s,y�, - ki5Tt ' r' �fyy ., ,?'•-afi .
`?, _ v ' ?+- #: K-.` s• • 'pitb;' _ R4j�.;..' --
•-E.-
44*
#� ;? ,. _,'., t ,. r• .�. YrJ + � ^s..f. x r�° s • '
L4V ;
.• -1' k {� j {t r i }' -i-- 'i l'y!3x,¢. ..!, f:JA yR i�f•.:.,::.'�. f` - c L
•
: -• .1• $ - r -,. A.,..-. ..` i - } yL. .r_� k-
.:� -r}- • - T .. 4. �_t- , 7N'. A. ..4 r- ` •4 .. • -• Y ,. 4 3
•
•
Jsr • -'� is !- -.� .w'k: .�W,
-.7•' 4.., :yam qy
_ _ T= _ ri,L ,T- W'. - A fi..•.. _+ :
711-
ik r k.t,' yam` _ {' ti ` ; 4 ..
•
.Tir i • „N. • -/` L.C-- ',..1;2.--.E....•.' ..C. • -...':.--6 -'_,-, '.7rj1.;#6,...j; i —, .:' .-21..; .•'`,.;4-.i.ifi
Ili
art. •. } �+ ,� .�. -
• f :w #�s � i n M1 -� M� is
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

�-Mv-. MMEli.+ter,:;.vs•.
Bankfull Photo 5:Wrack, laid back vegetation,
and sediment in the floodplain of UT1 r
7141..ittr,„ ,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,14,.,.,..:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,
4k44 Fit if
t r� r p(V 1- 5+ i.
V � ' �a
-.rx r#��a. / r� ld '` et i ., '. i' ' r i
q ,-_ t 4 j :I att ,''"°�'� F f 'rt`, d, i .+ ',, �`
, .f f, 1 .g / y.a _ r l Y ion y, N '',,�— ,&
- t-` �� ,P 1 k H4F 'M. `1Q' \ • -�1' Itr.''j, `- _ LTA"_
w ^�' �.ti ��' VV LE 14. d V''' ;t �•� -4- .4,y -V . �2 a .F`', r�a ''�, f
►c•` � rt, �k;,.Vill , � l'r 1.' + t ,,/' .4 • ' �I floc i.ii,,,,,-, ,i'.'A �+'' \� - .`.,
i�.`le ti` \,.. ' i,,, .... ,v..orc( \ ' ,-'i--- .', L'.. ,,-•• ,k 1 "t 'i,Ai 11,:.381;','",:_•,:.:.,
♦ �i S '�iF` t1 ''�{VI Y �' � t t� � � _ �,�L � y � �, ��
V-.±1 it ri vir. fi t,'1'm ip. - - - ' ' i'' .!0 , L: — 1,,,,,C.„.1) 1 , ' jv,c; ,. 4\ mso
P. b'
i t-*-0'ir'')I T 11 ' \ I ' - ' , . 1 '1 't' t‘ A VO Illi v-,',4‘.\\ t-,.
,,Z.-5:4k//,;' , iiri 4.- 4,! 1','.14 ;1/4
. ,
1 ,�� ,r � �" � rk;� � � 1a' 1� �l ' �� �'" ,�' �� S l� <L
/ 70
Bankfull Photo 6:Wrack along the UT-2 easement `
fencing in the floodplain of Travis Creek
•
.i‘ii,
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 7:Wrack in the e, , x 4
floodplain of Travis Creek � ;a,' � r
.''"''4','.-.,.'.,..,';5.p,1,k,1t,'.i,4-,k,'„'vr,,',.•,7 1,,1,,.„\\..,.7,1,Pf:,A,44,1.,,tj,,,,t,1.,'4,
!J▪ 5 . r k' C' , }
, S v . ", IAaI 8Jv ,+,,_',. r S
'„,a:r•,i`7„.t,,Ii\1N,,,i,1_s,7:,,,4,k#,`.A",,"k-',,;.k.''l,'t‘'.y.ir."ti,,-,.-,,'..T.1.,_4:,:„j4-p.r_i,..'i‘,„7n,;%q,.'.„,.'.
',„'t''i▪ '
':,p:i..P..-.1-e.i,P,_`,,,‘,e-.f.'-.i..r4..,:7',,
1��a �` " 4 x1Y R, x � I, t`l1,I+J J 5 Y We.-,'"1'4:',,-.',..
qi',ff$.N,,,,1,,r,4-.,k.t-'..4i.t,,,Z,.„:_'CV
, ' s !fig c x/k a p
ikn-,.'.,,'.,'z'','1'':
...i,-
14,
5;w c '
`$1 ,t� *\�i�4�` .pr i11`i� f .i - "re �. r fyb -�iu,
A t._. ,,
.' .1 5T * �`. �a : .,A r�'a s"ter ,114" a 'k-4+;
'''''''+`';' ,7,ict:,0,t ''`"-;..,I.'\141:.'r \-': ' tikt'. ",4.140t.\''''
i4t,
I''..,'''' , l' 4' J 1,''' tea.
ek* : Asa' Via.,..,.„,:„ . .,„.:.. \ \' -,,,,,--.i..4::,,_,_..-,
. ,i4
it.
^^
\ , ;off\y 1r
, k. ,
s
1 Bankfull Photo 8:Trail Cam photo of
i
s :, Travis Creek at bankfull stage
5,
iV.
ti
b35F - AYCOCK w •O1/3112021 0224PM
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 9:Trail Cam photo of
Travis Creek at bankfull stage
J
,
i`. I'..
•
4,33F AYCOCK )02/13/2021 0345PA7
Bankfull Photo 10:Trail Cam photo of K44 e f� � �.. /-
Travis Creek receding from bankfull stage ,, 4 -11� e, , ��s 1
to_. ,...„?.....,.. .....„.„.„.., .... __,,_.....,. ._....„,„, . . ._4...\,.._ „,_. 4.0-•,,,,,,,-4.4.----,-." -+11`p 'i.-,7:- II'-'`'47,"' "0.-•
i �, ..'.� - I li r -,.vrt� ' - , .. _ = mil ,r,4 :„:y`- 1 �!' '/vi -' ,. .,.v� �` / a . l
��► - - E— t ! L - i s '3'4-,, z* .. }�*5}ry�3Ry
el,
�' r "AA,'
1 Oar ',, .4€ . q '' $y 1 - '1�.�.1
�IIV ~s Je a :: � T \ t !h`� �I ? 4
it
.ter` r,
�Cn - 380E - - AYCOCK
- - -_ �07119/20210511PM
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Table 11. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge Year 1* Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022)
1 Yes/55 days Yes/26 days Yes/58 days Yes/59 days Yes/95 days Yes/47 days
(29.1 percent) (11.0 percent) (25.1 percent) (27 percent) (41 percent) (19.9 percent)
2 Yes/46 days Yes/25 days Yes/65 days Yes/66 days Yes/71 days Yes/76 days
(24.3 percent) (10.5 percent) (28.1 percent) (30 percent) (30 percent) (32.2 percent)
3 Yes/44 days Yes/25 days Yes/46 days No/14 days Yes/34 days Yes/39 days
(23.3 percent) (10.5 percent) (19.9 percent) (6.5 percent) (14.5 percent) (16.5 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities,groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5, 2016; therefore,the growing season for
Year 1(2016)is based on the soil survey start date of April 17.
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Figure Dl: Aycock Springs
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Data from WETS Station : Burlington Alamance Regional Airport, NC
10
9
8
,4 7 2016
U
6 2017
.—
5 _2018
4 2019
3 M
O 2020
114111111211
� 2021
. I II IF hr
I 30th Percentile
1 I IN
-70th Percentile
0
N c.z' �e"4 0 �0`� rev

APPENDIX E
MISCELLANEOUS
2016-2017 Remediation
2021 Year 6 Monitoring Report(Contract No.5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

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

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
Replant Area 1 i - E - - . )
Deas11y:1201rees In 097 ac-250 Trees rAc .+1 l - _ ° - ,/
new panted stemsaddearoveg plat 13 .+� I r, ., .- •
(` .`.C{i' _ -
,.:.,:to .
• : ii•- •• 17. id Replant Area 2. _ 0' -• . llf -
•
'#• +• •'J'.' •.!¢ • Density.170 trees m l.S ac-172 TraesrAc � '•' �l rl ('
:�•1 ►'y_- i • 3 new planred atoms added to veg plats 12 8 Id .s,.- • i - ((.
d' y� '
Replant Area 3' I .
:O'
Dens,ry:M O448ln.22 a[-71 trees!AC, - I C.- I
--. ReplantArea4. _ I .. +�.
DEOSOT:25 tees in❑.28 ac-5,0 Treea;Ac. .
2 new planted stems added to veg pots 10 '! - •
RepLad Area 7
Density:3t01rees In 1.55 ec-200 Trees i Ac '
Wadded
Replant Area 6. - No new'gamed stems adled to rag p1d I
Density 75 trees.n 0,32 ac-220 Trees r Ac
•R4,F.- new
w planted aems'addedtc veg plot 5 • 1
Re-giant Area: -
' A •:• " Density:1501rees In.57 acres-28011ees/Ac.
Non
•
e114‘
l Replant Area S • -
• Density:',p Imes.n 0.92 ac-.200 Trees I Ac
• 4 2n 4 new planted stems added tovepp1o0889
•.. a 9 - 2 neer planted stems added toreg pb1 2
8'1
i RESTORATION SYSTEMS,LLC SCNL 1""2]Ba `
_Z n.1..rvEss,.awrsxtl i Aycock Springs lton Site
GAM 5.2116
xa-pG+.in trope 2016 Remedial Planting Plan
,1:V1S sow SS,49G Gf'F a5..2316 ,s
_ F.11 91 e,5;Mgt
MO+vaw1 fe1 EII
Rr..vre,RIY 111N na tre swore
0.0Y�IS 11C . .. •1 ,,, Iswore165 391_Il 2.�.1
15I.II.W.S1 u-h '• lr erzr..r�g.`AWTf c PC. b UMW., t 0, cuGcz3il�h wail.iwrot 1. r
147i0'Dodgy
Map of Replant Areas-green dots indicate approximate location of where photos were taken.

Aycock Springs-Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
F y t kr W'1 r
�' i
• {1 @ 1d' iri. .._ I #� i i "., X- is a lY k sE r {, e� `
I � g f u_r 4
l' , 1. loitt..:, - % /4( , 0 , „ . ,
0.
v.
?- ... t - i1 t, p? u '� � fi i r'le
4i v ,I, E ia d x . 1 „.1' � d ! a �: `
A r
U - - t+
+ "'"", x • ,,I 14. I ^n • r
nI n +IIr ':iz :;
r ,'f I E . r: r .f"
l �,�, /"t5` � __.��Ip 5.xi' o� �< F{! -' e�� � •�fl,� J' d f �hl ��ry �
� �- • x'L• i ' b q' '' T\. i. r tt' ci 9 ,D i
r� t,'� 'Rp ,� '• '`' i s•r Ali!' '�Ayr,-Ab �_e - 'Y._ G E.�':-:r`a E't 4k``y-;-,, , 3.,.,
���. n.f 3a r-
;rs 1. 't�} 6 - ` ' a 5 q' 9. u ,`', E y ktq� ,,,.r &h : k, 1.
�'a S T •
+,r `�'...s'. gam+ 0."A'` t'° s 7 ' t 1,k. }-, ,% .{''§a Y.-,`,C'r,,€ _.r
ks
... -A ,.- ' -!-0 ,, ;„, ,,..-,,- , , 'I\ ,,,,,,,- , -
ter+ �\ r4 t '
•-,4 i •.
"•
g
t�• 1 'r; � 4: k r\ 1r . G�� �Y {' +•y! 4' alp �.
i'.. ` `'Y' d „ . ` I rs 4,f,,, , lI t 4, A%,- ;NI ,'1 oi 4Y�4 " ,.
�},
4r a .,•,F Vi ,ai : i.-
1s I 6 3 ,.' %) ,x ,. 4' , h's. • � .e �r, r 'R.), i.i.. .►"a v , .. .mot .. -
Photo 1:Looking SW.along Replant Area-1 Photo Date:1-13-2017

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
i
y • • J.
Z f , j �44.\ F.44.1, lilt '
t ' ,i; .1'. ,i''' '''' 4,016k, at% ..' !AO.%. .', '91 li '
I
- y.- • 1. ,4 �
- rlsl ..
1 ►k 1
7 tf�d , L i Jf ` • 4y77 •
14l '; + �'.• SN } .�1 `t ` •.� ' ',,f `., ? 161_ l . ,: -' k ^�k I `_- ! r
w Iv rw 1� �,t Al i �F u f �1 \_ > ; la r3, E, nV i • r �'`
�. 5,.,' ,r1R r - J i1L •r ,„Cs '�"s 1, , 1 b [ y' rx ` t . r�{,:, �,a yE,1i� .
-. 1yY'.' :Nri •Z { .4r i '''' ?' 1 � ,. J,fi'+ �x , <: M 'f , ^�9�'jj ^I'C �
"' ;psi a oil
_!" V F ,i,, ___.-"'cr.'!", >, 1 f F{" . ° r
sti Api gCgi,:..,. ,„-iI.,,,I ,....4. ..:,1...re "i'� ^ p er„`, 1 r ar;r } . z:L 1,�- , . R - l`'�. •5 , F ,t '-,II 0',•4i, 4 .t1 1. -�' i 1'''- ..« ,.,•;� ,F�r 'f �f-_ ;., ft k,`•i} '1 I . , Y'. �.r
•
.rig -7 ' } yr. . ;„ ' r . +T� • ,,y ! "`�"a 4 'WI -'''r �r r�T_r } :,'.t
{' "`-''• .� 4 ,r� � { . �? .,k,"� �i
��, �. ti I `�`� ' ry_ i��� "I°_� t Fk A,.+. a'�'Y�� ��q�L�c °�R�;a I�rl,lt��'a�;' � r - �
; # ,sz'-',., t ll ca ,�,',y°, _.3 ep �1'-�- 7 4, I 9.. P;' � �r:. .� , ry zr�i Yr . ,a,,e '",, °o-, ,.(I �i`�, ., -'.+ .-1 fh y , 1 ,a z R , . - I ''I •: Y ,Irw � >'�s� � ;�a r I ',��,^� - ��" �>br�if r�'� °�•"u ���,� ,, ,'I ��r;Y �1&�,�a " i ,F r° •�� , ' �i " �-f. "�k�•. -[ 1. i',' -aM_ . f ..1r' ;1 I -- ' ..r i 1 ii .'`$ s 5,. 1,#. Y ,y s•: R,F 48 ... " s ' ) ' 'j'' 1 ty 3' i
- = 9p`. —R !'�r { �< �4 ,�'�! u � ftF'k , �w� � -y;.�� -=3,y _;., ,, t - it, � .��,. `ti5r .i'!v!S r�� /S F ,���•�4
E ?c 3:' "7' �� '� y :�t :Y, :,.j f i S A r.�Y, r1.5. ,:.: ��- 1 - .y.\.. �• :I- y, � l�' � �"• ��'•t '�:
ys,:t t� •., ' r,.g""�� S" '7` I °"..':fir. s i a � 4 -1 � ry c 9 � . 'i �I�y>..� - 1 6� �'.`�}Ix`' `f,�•• ',�' I� .�: :R
\-� �. �.: -�:.1 s} :,h. ,,�s�` §a I �`A+R' �9„�,Q� � , .Ft f�p� t : r -° ! -Y;�§, h � :,'st{M. ��$ ' = I Y 7.�r..i
�� -;',- +: 'Sr ir`,6 r .ls' p,r I wl --!C3 , Atr,." u. 3'�,gr� r': ', l'{ '-' y', -:� 1 t. ".', F i- �'I r r.
-..`. d- t :, ;-:'. �,, s'f ,-s-- Ci if,,,.. 10-,,,-,,..,,,,vire
k�k 4. ,y `t 'dw,. F,, v�_bti'�...Ir. Vic,x li ,""Ir' fl 3 3f1 (E. 'y,
,4' ' li
-ate sT �j „� i i 1. # I t ..
il
krb
�..,k\ ., 4 ,� 9 1 8t, �:., ., q�At' ' }'' is ! r ; ' .�- : dl/ .r
,,,..,
,,iff;-=•-' .:.----.7-;-0.-.-,--',-;.
F"%a" fit p R� 1f}ACE , y��,y'� 4 '' ; ..
g• ; ��a@� � r .ttJ ' W. �•' 1 e • iR"; ICI_ a , �.:
_7 y i
}:� _, ��
i�, �{I r r.;r :,� � h t � r� 4 � p�''i:°rl y� > '' dl 4r(
•
artk,
fl.. '. yy,�, -fir. ;, .�.7l A,re,.. x .!'., c;.5 - I f. 1 `a ;t I�+Eg�� f '•r n?r �e��r ��'' � • ,
- I S. :� � .I r-s' '4 �1 Al') _r I *`* .`' = ,G a �'_1 ��,�i I
4.
r,
t *- ;_ b'.T i- r� 8, , '-,t'''rh 34 a n - - re -
v�• I a�a.:. i, :d". a �- tii..
i t ^r'.1" �''�i '' _ "e- - ,v, .F .. - - - ,,:--tea'�.:11��V. r,;.. , d 1, ... -"`* v
Photo 2:Looking S.in Replant Area 2,just N.of veg.plot 14 Photo Date:1-13-2017

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
I' i 1iks,\�" � r Are F'4 d
•iii }i' tS :.i':'e
•
a 1.`.ti. ` , I
'e k � tel ;ay i ;.lit ,n..
. L -' I% W. 3 •'
' - ' / ` \ / t� �? ..7 b 4 i�^ i I'r k, f f +-F'i`�Iy!r a l.. `'� n i '�F r-t,l..
1• k410` 4 zn ,
• I ws • i yi i�'
1 ,,, Y .
,. N •.. . �.,, ' s ram.' .-, w* °`.:,
•
•
Yam' •
- Aul _
•
r-•ram'.^_ -+ �y / ' -
r - / y - .I .. ,[j.,
•
J j'_ .t lam. LI
! - ♦ zt i .tit V,
M.. ' !- (siya - .���"✓Y.tip vy
Photo 3:Looking SE.in Replant Area 4,near veg.plot 9 Photo Date:1-13-2017

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
\ tki
10.3 f r '`?� ` I ��*�-i' FAS, '' 'l' +r et n, , , i�� 'S 'r' • : t •�' �,, ii
,,,, , y ,.,1,� 'If ei'�, =F 10.1,0 i r''4141
1'' 9 -„rt " t%#,Pih t oljk .1p 4� tl _ ill 1 ' a S '1 a, .1
A. •'' 4 i #- ; , ",;1•-.:11".11'11:41.'.5." .t Illi, 1 Olt Ib :. . 4 * '. IP'. 11 . 1
• ,A► $.,' ; nil ,gf:f 4 it y, i' '' •# ° .1. 1 r i':
k
•
`,1 ..- ; . ,+;1•Iffcir ' ' ; ' I i
r h �� • a�
l I.
4i i.-
4.
{ ) ., .e—
.' 4 I I' rx
{ �'i JI 1"e e 1 at - k k-ci'.. ;•
.r k C. @y',�4
t
{ L
y L, 1 of
J
,- f
cT I-.
Photo 5:Looking S.in Replant Area 5,N.of veg.plot 5 Photo Date:1-13-2017

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
-.7 1111
11411, :a.foor,:reiribiaj
rigea• ---7,7447
11,8111810111, 4
...., ,
,..-
, .
• I 'L} "., i /PAO,.
Air
7r,74f&N i • 411"itigekr ''''' ,, ''..., f 4
tab,,'-`$Zi:It V -.. ''..le•-341V1".111R1 p, ..,41
6.71R41?-7.7,N, ..0•44-kiis.--.L-TA...V,,, .Jr--. ' • it - - 4.•'•; . 46. ‘„,,, . - , _, ,' ,, -,8r:;:,-, '1.. .4,
„,,w.,..,,,,. . „t-..t..„..v4.•_.R.;.,rwr' - =7-
,, '
,,..--•:.••r•-:, ••-•.4 ..ft.•
., •
i -
-:-.
.....iiimplo=iiiiiri-- -•
. . .
• r i •
—. ... .
' r r
,
e ,
•
r r
• ' r
-.--'-' j. - - 1,lica% . ,t, .'-• ,
• ,. .,, - --, . :.9,:''' -;-:,"--1-::r&'4:r.,'',. ' ''.: vr- '4..'Ffs.41104;4111 -Pri,"V"Zi'''-' , , ,"1-4.,.*......- ' '• . -I a, ... '-. .
'
I
• 1 " i .,:,-7,7• ''P.,' ' •- - • 1 ,`41.""-- '• latifillinik"
- , ' . , ' '-1.• r,-ti,' L Z." •' , ,- •Lf.: •- .'„,-&-' '''.. -' -- — .
A ,
-,....... -
t
r - '' :o 1 L
':.... ...........
.1 , .
. '"'
---__ -410101111PP- e - '',' -. 7- . --,
• I
.4-
--...--..'.
•-t''.
-'_.-.441 '.",:- -1' .-r, . '••• , ----'-'-'' -....:- --.: . - - - - ''.!.'.--. r'.--'4.- ---,' ..,,,,', - ., . ""
' --•,:!--:-'=- 7-1.- • '.1 .__,,, ....;-_ • ,,-..„4,0Fri404,--.-,'._'-_-,:--` - , - , ,,' - ' - - • ,-.. ' -,:,-.__ . , ..e . .,..-• ,: ,
.. _
- AO-
-
r-- ' -
- -
Photo Date:1-13-2017 Photo 4:Looking S.in Replant Area 6, from outside of the easement

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan- Vegetation Update
Fi i i ,
r 1.
, 7; .
S
I , J,
• ,s
� r l r I"� � is �' /1:
'
At • J •1
' c tip - 1\, 'i - P. I ��^ .� r' # _ �� •
'
J/ .-_ .x.4—.TOIL N. .
-• liat 44a6."'A
y _ •
, s •
L - - `y - ' 44 .611, _c.+? '..p..4 -1 -!:,. '4 r ' ., - _-1r —� - w
Photo 6/7:Live stake establishment on bank in Replant area 6 Photo Date:1-13-2017

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement-Update
•
I *■�.
1{ 3 3 A}rnrk Springs,UT 1,XS-11.Riffle
J13... •
.• Historic Channel '
• A'•ja
* Restored Channel
r • •nvaer 19.A
. •14.1•0044116
12' IM✓Il 105.540
Substrate Replacement - •e
Area 2--12' s �s
9 _ h E ID l2 LA
J
_ Substrate Replacement ,_ Aycock Springs,UT 1,XS-10,Pool
Area 1 --15' • ,�,!k=
1"a, s9a
ti! yT 7r
•'i• 595
t _ -
t
W 594
' ----Flood Prone Area
- .. MY-00 N5115
593 MY.01 103236
_ 0 2 4 6 S 10 12 14
•'•\ t' - - . - _ Station(foot)
ti A Si
s ,•,—, .., _ _-_ 4• Aycock Springs,UT 1,XS- 1UL1IC
EN EWT2 • C� 594 - -
:, STA4t6+75 C •
•
s 593
- - ' .t-_. 1 - SAWO!1Mm76
V 3 4 69 1p i3
RESTORATION SYSTEMS,LLC SCALE:I in-42n so
„V,NAYNESST.SUITE 211 DATE:2-2017
shone r.
sl S RALEIGH,NC 27601
PHONE:9re.755.9400 SITE, Substrate replacement-2-23-2017
FA%:SIR.9592
RF.Y ToRAT,c 1\' uy�W AenalImage.'. ESRI
SYSTEMS,TIC a,,,,Ky„I,-„p,,,.,,,„e•,,,�„dwr "x<..•.,<���ax,-r•.erz�ne.., ee- NADC. I 3 SF m_
C 5 10 70 30 40 NAfl1983SP NGFIPS32W Ft.
Map of Area—UT 1,XC 9,10,11

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:2-23-2017
• vtr �� 41
+2 4s^'IAA^7ii' 1•Pik
ter
�. [ P� I. tr • y .
• y • I yIt. '� '
a
I.
XC-10 -----------------
50 tj4 1 1 ( � I '- f l
i �fit' iti,fi T"' i ' .,« I .,� 10. I',, ' z� �_t ;.�
0, t z y,q. r ' .} y ti1,. :vt1,:or K. �! r 6� � � r.9$'I 1".. ' •
d . „.. I 17 'I � tal.. "i, d 1 Le k rMv,yy ylg1 � t 1i
' y h` 4y _ �i t `
_ - 1 q` , \. I t }l 1' yyyy �5, .� .GT l �:
t.
4.
v �. . - •?5;' r'kM1a ti 11 l ' R °fit: ., ,,t dal "c . "\ °^
� `�i;ln,.ee 6t 4i4'1
1 `f" ti
e
�,r ..., •.tom % '�"se.,,,„ ,,a=,�. . t
�! �� Q4 ,,i 3 - #@ 4 c,4` 1 it r - ' .
Y L a�1/ S` -. _ �.41 fl�'^i. ^h i \ r
a { ;ter ,,g�, 1 J� _ " Al,-_' 1' e' r -,. g i
P at
z `
'r'& ) a af'1 p e _ h
Air ivt - }
>, �h;e Tay .r I i. • ,a
41,
Ill
'A" ,ti(:T !,/',(/ Sh"""1`K2�, .---Z \ 73` ''R',.k�4e',s tJ+,- 'g/ ,i a ,d.Yp./ L _ _ -4
w C:: .e p e A / ..., \ . --.\.r l -�- l' �k_..'i51'l\.' *' =x rx,-nr :�'^ T'i 13T`-.�+ _a yl
Photo 1:Substrate loss,6"head-cut at UT 1,XC 9 Photo 2:Pool,upstream of 6"head-cut at UT 1,XC 9(XC 10 in background)

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:2-23-2017
M1
y iM.�r
- .W"ri .'
• '�
h
J
. ai i'
r ^
' P
yr 1� li NR 1i •
S ��� Fl{,:rpd�iA r/ra �t'k' r♦ i Izr _,#`iti°•• '�s@ �..
h Y�'7Y y lA' t�47yy ` , � t+�p' `' '�, }
r t,t re a I r ,J, } .- •
{s �• 1 •
.. . r
'`
• am. . $�4 p, w . t4' 5r v' 'e{� -7,.cE � Jas #
_ ' t { r ,1 o .' K *,A � too ,
} P
yt -Rs,X cans - .'. a„ '- L ' as f, a3 i {r F P+7 .E S � ^C'I { ii ti. '' py; tyr" < . r ` RRf - i � 7 1 p �_...e � ' ';, , iA o 4 t i c ' ' ,Jis 3�
•
4' 1 9^ 'g - .44,nrr
7_,„,,,..._,. ._.;,.... ..(..'..:11g.,.- . ----'/
L 4 ' - it-,-. -' <r+», -, . �� � IB C n A/'? �. �/r r .44 X� �� v.--% w..
+• / , fi - Y;
9 �' .l �' x�•fit At. %•"fi,, _r,,1+ , '-
L 'y [ 'te'27.a g a f1 pp \ 0
Photo 3:Substrate replacement at UT 1,XC 9

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:2-23-2017
I
f
''r
. ..„ . _
,, ,
,, , , :, i , , -
,,- i
,. ,
.. .... _
. Y _ r '- 1
% +,
v. r. ~"
t i
r ,
3 a j!
{l'k i t e.
T_I. t ✓• '' \li - 11 L /ate.'I. t,, �i,z' yaK_,- ,� •* e 3— , F _ ,}:.,
5 +A`4 t I - l i lia t t r y , , -,� I � � 1 - 1 s l �
-. .lw. _7
��a 1 tG""' ', -'.''i ,9p,� 'TTT( ¢':5:3,r #� •t`A' Dy,;SDI /1�}_! _'_y
•
r a a �-„, - - •. , `7, %, r ,,. t .a6. ifP, t E `' ,1� ry '.'dF .... ,Iw, e*+
3 r;,: �.. ..', t rr f, ~fi.. _ Ip ' '�'I�':r 1''g w+ }6 -.I-'.� c x ,�,-�' �a , z '.F ... .
•
_ i( ,,.. __
,.1.
;,
, ,,,
voi
r � s.-..'w A��ypy -�",1�.'� {`�1ry9 �/ � e �r.'!, ��;�li iir4 -1f S'S ' S �/ ,.✓yx +��. ;i �.l s h,.
.:-„,.„
z+t• t`'4 �� nr�, e•�dy� ,' e'ofb�• ./F -0`? se `' :cE' l
' w w. y{ Is �� � � ! �'flii I�� ✓f i�• -4 I'� ,'y -a •'�'�cIDa. ' isa _ rf
u�V� - , �, f� F tit I/ -i � - Ast ,/ i. �` 1 6:' k „7R .,e ^' .i- � t a • x` , op
'. ' l!'y. . Y%J rl A' -' �144i i At, frfr�� ',: .si,,f. `6y'?.f. . •t "A�; r -.. qq - 5- ll[[ 'ki
,"'�' •3�ay , .��. -,��• , � � � +�r ,'1 s v'R' r,� n•�t- '1 y`.1,: ��:y �p.s.. � fy��� ;� �{ �,.� �rSK U :a <�`jt .y � .Y i Ii y ` ie ;,' ,, ,' `•,-, s. <`I`Sl, .I - ' s�r .f )t. �. V,'c',_ '„ , t5 "�[ tY :'M b/l ?)
f. . .,! �.a �1 �., (Y!d -� 54r ." P • ' fr,er'',I: '"O .'n,. _:dh`` st <.
r 1 - r[ L b v �T I
el `14 e'i {�, �1 1 �'. 1, I I'. [.:'.'' :sr'. '''. ' ;s r� �w ,,� -k f F i3.. d+ p4 ?\ _ EI 3 -
,.1 ! - �. .._ Y. ���'� �.�����-�(V !tb•° .jg-°: � . a+ �'e- ?�..1 _. _, �.'�.�r ''tr-Y���.>sx.. �}r./�,!_! a��r _; :''v.Ya. .3:'s.+ir'a `c.;..�' s!ii' -Il���•c�, es-. �;
Photo 3:Substrate loss,upstream riffle of XC 10(pool)

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:2-23-2017
i 1 °
t: '-..
A r.
f / C * L ,{ fi) / 1J�
.1 r 1 1 J •SY�. f ;1 •,.R 1 r
111 ,ter'' . ' Fr �.
y16 rw
A �� �i,-Q,•ti
IA. !tl�j I, i•.'_"1• .'0 lr tt 1 ' S r;d,•
I v I _ -r.
Of 4
y I,
kIpfkl :1: I'Ylr• I f I i � tir,
1 b �i., s 1 r tR $
A •.' z I r, �) f_Ir��4 �_ • Jp?Ail':I'i �f i} 1« SJ''rAfsr :r �? a ,� �.
L
Y 1 � T
=�' 6•'''' k ', &' 4{ ,.,, e s pf' d N3 r k4::x �', 'I 7-4 yr ' ,, t4 , Y.a
7 L.1 4 r ,,X' ..r riC ��$ •-`v� 3' ••11 ,, � t. � r g �..k ,, Zl� i ..
s`'s t , '-` . ..i'a�.,4+ti t x- `.,- •° •0'F' '` -•,00.=-dew 4 d4 L r, ' .1 y� -a,_ r -
...
•
�'� 'rt.'.' 'w�/ .�,,���f''r 1 r '�x `�� -r+ "'e ro "r�'r tip. I y t.�...� SEA: I A, �"' tr & .. „
o f �{ �r5y ' "�a3 x a;'�'$fF \ � • • I"i t 1 , > i
3 -V ii „Ft.,,,,.:-.,
1 t' _
y {�{� � � i� a'E .'>s-3� 1'9�. �m,,. �'�,f.i� � - �� ��{ e ��y' � "�C.J�sr r -_"�i r ;:��ar ���3'� �;j
i3i s. °" p'- ,y--.qrl r•�`, .._. r '.., I 1'.. ,1 ri �,.. %(- �,X a• - X �•�. ;,� !7 .,
,"=- s; �-.vj. r <•:,, — `*� 7f;'r�1','.:V il I \ ` :i',-j` t �, k" k.r, . s • dea -;rr '1- rwiC` PIS �A,-
1'Al.'?s"f� L _: ..� �s. ,�y. - -,�f, . -, r , I'-., {[y/I -- 1 6,.i ,.--i L,-.. ,.,',,,PJ 0..1' t * S • '�. .�
�.r •'F' �4 ��'�l AL! �i':- y _ \ ' �L(' � _ � / `�i: ! ‘,..,,,,,..fir. .��'`i'.1V V•s�;'Z —`f4! -."e - '`�.....
,,
4t vim+-,. fY� L� ` _ . ]�. 1 _ / r�.. P 1b, Y ,�
�1 ��'a�:ti��i/ ,��'�'I �R�'uY^� r�l'-'�r �'li :,�;hL� � � I�+ �.� :,����i�� .�'r� ,���:c`t�}y��L:�+' 'M'tr t i,4�' "'� °�' � L
'•` I ..• -, , ♦ t!s i ,�,t ` I� 1 rt � w�' :�?aci ' P1�` .. ___.
• ,
y ;��t� - Y spy. -{, r- i ` I iv/ y\ ,ln a �:+F` / i[t,�+p�1. ,;Ls �aL, , y >mL c▪ .CaS '6k t� ^' L - �;:.
"` q '�' ' - 1*.° 3a Jui al''a 4 er+(.3 .
1..r j. :'•.1 'rk�;4.'�f P' . ,.,a i �b� e ..��.. a t ,, • x. 4;3. ?4 4 �* :4 r+t w`' °�a o' :° rri. l
Photo 4:Substrate replaced,upstream riffle of XC 10(pool)

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:2-23-2017
.—"Mr;iittliieltl.,4;.?4 1:;.&;kl
..
X C 1 . , ':.
NI.tia
.1:- _ ti,t r ,
i.
�F �y 3 -
�` k.
is
- r +. e t.c §wi Ili,
't+'} r
XC-09
7 ' i a•f7'r
ti � rt xtiS, 4 t r d e .
a s 't�l. !J�, u1r� a 2• t '.- ,._`°" pfLa - pt�V bt i3
Lrr qYd�f/�'r�" d;l _ i'- 3 �'‘yIr Er y �-
g Y ! .Y :V-� 1J 4.,'� � ' j S - '.- -:{ - it F
� I' rrf ,- 11-4�`'a• 77l144�� r J '��ll e' y sae/
�Y ' - ---.7i i6,:4,,; ..ii
Y f, r 4 ._ 4��i{@ �Sri�6!v r f - g cr.
r -`
._, ,..,. ,,,..
.e * r - _fit
,_ , ..,. . ,,,„,, 4, ..,, ,,;„...
y 1 . r -.r ear ti, r r • / r 1' OIL P" < +'-," 'vk? 1' .a y .`i• -2. e 3l '_Y
},,, Mtn y� ,
._, ,. y 4" .l ''f lb J4• f '• x M {r' 1 ii Y j ? ,RZ ,may+
4, = '' i:- t' 4rtir d Y r 3"k 3 ti�\y � }V — y11/ I ,fy f, 7 -J '�1F �1 �?�. .v r .4 - - r d � ��tr 11,�t � x ��`'� ..�� '�- � c .yl �' • -. 4 1 t itA A, ...• � �f �J ! ;ri, V`a r' ^'" ',' 4' Rr t t by-.e..�r4�.
•
!ill's'
F .�1: Y $: .+ F7L F ;r•,- 444.t.l i A. r ,.y ../ , i ,` � ..,�� z � 0' A,. ,: � r ;F'r . ,;1•'-, ,7,,
° #C
'' rt � f ." . .,,t 'A ?fore) � ' ,4 . :} ,} a _ s S .f7y i i ( . ` d , 1 _3 . ,+ • : ila ,ttr e d?k 1 yr' yf e. �'laC ' , , r .# .-r- 0I V e - r' - 0 4:} ,f : -)er ,t ,.,,, .: e , :lef R '. eft C' rni: '
Photo 5:post replacement overview

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:2-23-2017
-- — T-a— 1 • 1 IL ; —41
r 11
-__
•
%
•
��.4. XC-09 ., ' _ r
•
' F f I
4"111
! " 2,, ` XC-10
' .ray- _ '� I� ♦. '
.-*s._ - 1
ti
Y
g+fi u�r4
•
4-
riP
•
a.. ..7a I4r .Oe w
•
s
V
t
Photo 6:UT-1 looking downstream from XC-11

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement—Update Photo Date:3-03-2017
• r
i
'C
ry
•
•
•
t Y i s
itw
{ar.
i
•
XXX �y ♦ r �� r i _
1 t\ 3 .- h \ - !-�fr y l .r.,
'2-•te r �'yF,A hf\ 'l \ .�4. { ,11 f"y ,.-ram _ Ri -_ L' .
If
_ .Ri f" y `S ,t-:,1 A ' c h.'r Ji< - .
J °rb .� "ay . ' s ' a4 ` r `
� t� - ....,,,,,,I,- f • /•., +SS W. .. -
Y Y • m - 4,1.9:.% .��gLa `eta . F
`�-' .,-- `` F. +s F RS 4i�'f4�bNj � ..
-Nri‘
s\�
.,t j v+ ` _s _.—f�� ,.� aC` "•.ti _.a"L5 /i f, 1 Y� +lir r Q ± �, � , T��'S r. r
Photo 7:XC-9—Post 3-1-2017 0.92 inch rain event(Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK(SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE,NC)'"7 miles from Site