20170921 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report (Buffer)_2021_20220114

ID#* 20170921
Select Reviewer:
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/14/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/14/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
ID#:* 20170921
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Major Hill
County: Alamance
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MajorHill_100015_MY3_2021.pdf 5.74MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature: *

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
2021 (Year 3)
MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2021— October 2021
Submission: January 2022
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to Monitoring Year 3 (2021) DMS Comments
Major Hill Mitigation Site (DMS #100015)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 100015
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
Stream/Wetland Section:
1. Page 7 2.2 Vegetation, please notate on the supplemental planting list which of the trees were in the
Mitigation Planting Plan and make note if the other species met the target community.
Response: Footnotes were created linking the species included in the mitigation plan, the species that
match the target community, and the species that were selected based solely on plant availability.
2. Revise table 1 to show final credit number out to 3 significant digits to match credit ledger (3,057.600 SMU
and 0.760 WMU)
Response: The overall assets in Table 1 were revised to match the credit ledger.
3. You may omit substrate data in future monitoring years.
Response: Understood.
4. Report states that the growing season is 3/1-10/22 but the graphs show a growing season end date of 11/9.
Please clarify and revise as needed. Growing season should match mitigation plan, and require vegetative
indicators including bud burst and leaf drop.
Response: The wetland hydrology data was revised to reflect the approved mitigation plan growing season
methodology.
5. There was no discussion of any planned fescue treatment. Please indicate if there will be any additional
fescue treatment or plans to re -plant in the future based on two vegetation plots not meeting final
requirements.
Response: The following was added to the Monitoring Summary and Section 2.3 Vegetation Monitoring of
the Stream and Wetland Monitoring Report, and to Section 4.4 of the Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report;
"Restoration Systems continues to monitor fescue onsite and is planning an additional treatment in April of
2022. Based on permanent and random vegetation monitoring plots and visual observations, planted stems
are establishing within areas where fescue was a concern. At this time, no additional planting is proposed."
Riparian Buffer Section:
1. Riparian buffer section is missing Appendix H. Remove or update.
Response: Appendix H was removed from the Report. Herbicide Application Forms are available upon
request.
Digital Comments:
1. The soil temperature data needs to be included in the report, represented with a time series, and must be
corroborated with vegetative indicators as determined in the Mitigation Plan.
Response: A soil temperature graph is included in Appendix E. This data is in the gauge data workbook in
the digital submittal.
2. Please include a figure displaying the 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly precipitation compared to
observed monthly precipitation.
Response: This figure is included in Appendix E. The excel data is included in the digital submittal.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Major Hill Year 3, 2021 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 3
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.) was observed.
Streams
• Stream monitoring data show that all stream channels and structures are stable.
Wetlands
Five of six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 3 (2021) monitoring period. Gauge 2 did
not meet success, however it was successful for 8.9% of the growing season. Wetland hydrology
data is in Appendix E.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1(2019)
Year 2 (2020)
Year 3 (2021)
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
No/14 days*
Yes/136 days
Yes/74 days
1
6.0 percent
57.9 percent
31.4 percent
2
No/19 days*
No/19 days
No/21 days
8.1 percent
8.0 percent
8.9 percent
Yes/25 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/226 days
3
10.6 percent
100 percent
95.8 percent
Yes/34 days
Yes/72 days
Yes/60 days
4
14.5 percent
30.5 percent
25.4 percent
Yes/119 days
Yes/135 days
Yes/53 days
5
50.6 percent
57.4 percent
22.5 percent
Yes/77 days
Yes/44 days
Yes/80 days
6
32.8 percent
18.7 percent
33.9 percent
Vegetation Summary
Measurements of the 8 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 364 planted stems/acre
excluding livestakes. All plots met success criteria except permanent plots 1, 4, and 5; however, when
including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and red oak (Quercus rubra),
plot 1 met success criteria. Additionally, all three temporary vegetation transects met success criteria
resulting in a sitewide average of 397 stems/acre, including natural recruits. Year 3 (2021) vegetation data
is included in Tables 8-10 (Appendix Q
MY 3 (2021) Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
MY 3 (2021) Vegetation Data Collection
October 2021
MY 3 (2021) Stream Data Collection
March 2021
MY 3 (2021) Monitoring Report
October 2021
January 2022
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Executive Summary
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Site Maintenance Report (2021)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
8/05/2021
Tree of Heaven, Johnson Grass, Privet,
Sweetgum, Princess Tree
None
11-12-2021
Fescue treatment
2022 Planned Vegetation Maintenance
Restoration Systems continues to monitor fescue onsite and is planning an additional treatment in April
of 2022. Based on permanent and random vegetation monitoring plots and visual observations, planted
stems are establishing within areas where fescue was a concern. At this time, no additional planting is
proposed.

FINAI
MONITORING REPORT
2021 (Year 3)
MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2021— October 2021
Submission: January 2022
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Prepared by:
And
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Background.................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Project Components and Structure......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Success Criteria........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4.1 Stream Success Criteria..............................................................................................4
1.4.2 Wetland Success Criteria............................................................................................4
1.4.3 Vegetation Success Criteria........................................................................................ 4
2.0 METHODS...............................................................................................................................5
2.1 Stream Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Wetland Monitoring................................................................................................................6
2.3 Vegetation Monitoring............................................................................................................ 7
3.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................8
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D. Monitoring Data (Dimensional Morphology Summary & Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross -Section Plots
Substrate Plots
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamonce County, North Carolina
page 1
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2022

APPENDICES CONTINUED
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure E1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix F. Benthic Data
Benthic Results
Habitat Dataforms
Appendix G. Riparian Buffer MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
and on -site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field investigations. The
Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP report documents
benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good -Fair" possibly due to cattle, dairy, and poultry operations.
The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, RBRP goals are
addressed by project activities as follows with Site specific information following the RBRP goals in
parenthesis.
1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (reduction of 10.0 tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removal from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application, and marsh treatment areas may result in a direct reduction of 852.4 pounds of
nitrogen and 70.6 pounds of phosphorus per year);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas.
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
existing and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see Table 1).
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

u`n
v
v
"
v
>
o
O
i
0
o
E
u
�
u
v
v �
u ON"
�' u"
N
t0 U1 -6
- m
C U1 � t0 U1
U U1
U N
� U1
U1 0 U -
> N In U °
" 9 � N -
Y w N U
0
Ul U
N In U
Y
C E O 0
E o 0 c E'0
E O 0
E 0 0 U0
V
N O O
v N O
O
0 N
v w E
K w
Y O .ti =
w
O -6 to E
-6
-6
-o
m m >' C N
,O w
N u N C ,O
O
E O w
0
v O m y O
X
O> E o °A own x '�'
x m m
c E rco f0 O
O °
'=
O 0 v on 'z-
+, ro o O p ai ovn
N v
u v
v
ovo3>
E Ul
Nv°po�uo>
o3>
�°63>
M
C C C
CC Ul C°C
C o C
C C
C C Ul
>yO
� U
>N
> co v
O
U
E
0
v
�
c
E
'un
v
N E v
vv v
o
v v
c c
O O
io
c
4� ' O
io v O O O
>
9
c
9 > > c
C Ul
° c
c
C
0v
N N
c c
v
3 " O
>
=o ro
.`°
m -o
ro
v�
> m. 9 O -o
ro un ro m
-o c E
-o
0 -o .E -o
°o .0 O v
° v
° o °o v
`>
- u �-
-o
9
a O
u
- v
9
o o v v
- So v
� a
o`n 3
" 3
a ' a
v
a
O° O
v v o
° 3 v
a
U
u v v .O
" o oc
3 v 3 O
" w
6
_
cm
-o ro c
" ,ro
rco E
f0
U
o
c o 9
Y N v
o° c
U 9 N
9 c
3 3
.�
.�
v o> v o
U
o'
O
O
—cc
O a
.• O
Ym
3 >
3
E 3 2
3ow
voo
a
E46
o
c E
=
oc o
E
o
0
O
O 0 O
O v
O>
a
U>
o
Ua
U
a-uv
U U Ovv
cc
v
v
E
Y un un
c `v
rco
y c
E
" 0 9 c
'u
'v
-0 3
o
ro
v
o _ o
i
� o
o v v o
" o
v tln
0--
° o
0
" c
w
E E
E
- E
c
c
v .E
c
0
'c
0
°1 0 c v
Q Y UO 3
v a, on
in
E� -'o
3
a
E
0
c
c
u
O
O
o
O
0
O
ot
c
v
m
v
"
u
E
O
v
a
�
U
O
°
a
Q
o
°
a
a`
Y
v
9==
v
.-
OJ
E
°
`O
m
`°
"
0
c
v
�i
°
E
O
E
-o
a
E
v
E
>6
v
o
o
0°
3
0
U
v
a
v
a
v
m
Y
"
v
v
v
v
v
c y
c
io
}
x
°
a

1.2 Project Background
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line (Figure 1, Appendix B).
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been relocated
to the floodplain edge, ditched, impounded, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures. Approximately
60 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from the Site
resulting from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside wetlands were
cleared and drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in
degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable
channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive
forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle -pool morphology aiding in
energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and will greatly reduce sediment
loss from channel banks.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Site restoration activities generated 3058 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.76 Wetland Mitigation
Units (WMUs) as the result of the following:
• 1738 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 3299 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level 11)
• 0.54 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.44 acre of riparian wetland enhancement
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of a marsh treatment area to treat drainage prior to entering UT1.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing, removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 8.11 acres of the Site with 8600 stems (planted species and densities by zone are included
in Table 5 [Appendix Q.
• Removing a small, abandoned farm pond by 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the
dam to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that was unsuitable for
channel bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel
construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel
with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.
Site design was completed in February 2018. Construction started on July 25, 2018 and ended within a
final walkthrough on September 6, 2018. The Site was planted in December 2018-January 2019.
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

1.4.1 Stream Success Criteria
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated
by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered
successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria.
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-section.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from
baseline condition during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met
through four separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring
years 1-7.
1.4.2 Wetland Success Criteria
The following summarizes wetland success criteria.
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10
percent of the growing season, during average climatic conditions
According to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, the growing season for Alamance County is from April
17 — October 22 (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the
Piedmont region; therefore, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using
data from March 1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity. Based on
growing season information outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE 2010), this will be
confirmed annually by soil temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches depth and/or bud
burst.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored
period (March 1-October 22), during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic
conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used for comparison to the Site; however,
reference gauge data will not be tied to success criteria. These areas are expected to support hydrophytic
vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring,
a jurisdictional determination will be performed. The jurisdictional determination will not supersede
monitoring data, or overturn a failure in meeting success criteria; however, this information may be used
by the IRT, at the discretion of the IRT, to make a final determination on Site wetland re-establishment
success.
1.4.3 Vegetation Success Criteria
The following summarizes vegetation success criteria.
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3;
and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting
list for the site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -
by -case basis.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems within any vegetation plot.
2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Macroinvertebrates
X
X
X
Water Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Visual Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Report Submittal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross -sections and substrate on riffles and pools
(Figure 2, Appendix B). Data presented in graphic and tabular format include 1) cross -sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width -to -depth ratio. Longitudinal profiles
were monitored for as -built; however, profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring
demonstrates channel bank or bed instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the
USACE along reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.
Stream Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
All restored stream
required)
channels
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
10 cross -sections
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream
channels
Only if instability is
Bank Pins
Yearly
documented during
Channel Stability
monitoring
Only if instability is
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
documented during
monitoring
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

Stream Monitoring Summary (continued)
Two gauges on UT1
Continuous monitoring
Continuous recording
(upstream and
Stream Hydrology
water level gauges and/or
through monitoring period
downstream) and one
trail camera
trail camera on UT1
(downstream)
Water Quality
Water samples
Yearly
Two locations
Macroinvertebrates
Qual 4 sampling
Years 3, 5, and 7
Two locations
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 3
(2021) monitoring. Stream morphology and water quality data is available in Appendix D, and benthic
macroinvertebrate data is in Appendix F.
2.2 Wetland Monitoring
Six groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the drained pond area and the remaining
wetland restoration areas to take measurements after hydrological modifications were performed at the
Site (Figure 2, Appendix B). Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the entire year at intervals
necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria. In addition, an on -site rain gauge will
document rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and
a trail camera was installed to confirm overbank flooding events. Growing season soil temperatures will
also be documented using a continuously logging soil temperature probe, this data will be provided with
wetland hydrology data.
Wetland Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected
6 gauges spread
Soil temperature at the
Wetland
Groundwater
As -built, Years 1, 2,
throughout
beginning of each monitoring
Restoration
gauges
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
restored
period, groundwater and rain
wetlands
data for each monitoring period
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Year
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1)
March 1, 2019*
March 1-October 22
24 Days
(235 days)
2020 (Year 2)
March 1, 2020**
March 1-October 22
24 Days
(235 days)
2021 (Year 3)
March 1, 2021'
March 1- October 22
24 Days
(236 days)
*An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 47.90°F on March 1, and the soil
temperature remained well above 41OF thereafter.
**An onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 48.13°F on March 1, and the soil
temperature was well -above 41OF the weeks prior and thereafter. Additionally, bud bursts were documented on March 2.
AAn onsite soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 49.14°F on March 1, and the soil
temperature remained well -above 41OF thereafter. Additionally, bud bursts were documented on March 1.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

Five of the six groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 3 (2021) monitoring period. Gauge 2
was inundated/saturated for 21 days, or 8.9 percent of the growing season. Year 3 (2021) groundwater
gauge data and graphs are located in Appendix E.
2.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Planting occurred in December 2018-January 2019 within 8.11 acres of the Site and included 8600 stems
(planted species and densities by zone are included in Table 7 [Appendix Q. After planting was
completed, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species
composition and density.
In early January 2020, a winter -time visual assessment of the site was performed, and it was determined
that although Year 1 (2019) vegetation data, including random transects, showed a high density of trees,
a light supplemental planting would help ensure the long-term success in several areas. On January 31,
2020, three areas that visually exhibited low stem density and/or poor vigor were supplemental ly planted
(Figure 2, Appendix B). During the supplemental planting effort approximately 370 stems were planted
across 1.20 acres (approximately 300 stems per acre). As the planting was designated for visual purposes
and was not an effort to increase stem density data, no stems were planted within permanent vegetation
plots. The following table lists species included in the supplemental planting list. Preparation included
the application of 100 Ibs of lime, 50 Ibs of fertilizer, and 3 Ibs of seed to stabilize bare areas. In addition,
three random vegetation transects were measured after planting was complete to determine that those
areas met required stem densities.
2020 Supplemental Planting Species List
Species
Number of Stems
Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata)@
20
Chinkapin (Castanea pumila)@
20
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)'
50
Hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii)@
20
Crab Apple (Malus angustifolia)@
50
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra)@
100
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)*
50
Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii)@
50
Total
370
* Included in mitigation plan planting list
Not included in mitigation plan planting list but meets target community
@ Species selected based on lack of availability of mitigation plan planting list and target community species
An assessment was made during the early Fall 2018 to treat fescue within the Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory
Forest planting zones to reduce competition with planted stems. Treatment was conducted December
2018 and will continue as needed. Treatments of invasive plant species continued during 2019 throughout
the Site. Japanese Stiltgrass and Tree -of -Heaven were high priority during the 2019 invasive treatment
season. Restoration Systems will continue to treat and monitor the site for invasive species throughout
the monitoring period. See Appendix H (Herbicide Application Forms) for a detailed account of site -wide
treatments.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected
Permanent
Species, height,
vegetation plots
As -built, Years 1, 2,
8 plots spread
location, planted
0.0247 acre (100
3, 5, and 7
across the Site
volunteer, and age e
Vegetation
square meters) in size
establishment and
vigor
Random vegetation
plots, 0.0247 acre
As -built, Years 1, 2,
2 plots randomly
Species and height
(100 square meters)
3, 5, and 7
selected each year
in size
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 8 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). Measurement also included three random sample plots (50-meter by 2-meter). Measurements of
the 8 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 364 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes.
All plots met success criteria except permanent plots 1, 4, and 5; however, when including naturally
recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and red oak (Quercus rubra), plot 1 met success
criteria. Additionally, all three temporary vegetation transects met success criteria resulting in a sitewide
average of 397 stems/acre, including natural recruits. Year 3 (2021) vegetation data is included in Tables
8-10 (Appendix C).
2022 Planned Vegetation Maintenance
Restoration Systems continues to monitor fescue onsite and is planning an additional treatment in April
of 2022. Based on permanent and random vegetation monitoring plots and visual observations, planted
stems are establishing within areas where fescue was a concern. At this time, no additional planting is
proposed.
3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8, 2016]. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeg/Water%20Quality/Environmental%2OSciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016 final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-
82fd-04005f48eaa7&groupld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=
864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
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
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

\7
\ t§o
=
t
0
/
/
m=-
2
\ 7
0
y
_ #_®�
E
\ { k / k 0 §
\
0
u
0 = % _
#&C{§-@
:
\ � E to
)
a-)§ � \
R
° m\
*
�
\ u 0
0
u ƒ
\
J
%
$
5
7
#
<
0
0
§ u
0
\ /
/
/
/
/
r-4
/
K
K
I
0 r _
&
z.
3
0
e
e®
e
/
6 0
«
«
§ 0±
\
0\
m
m®
9
«
o
6
§�J
/j
K
2
/
/
E
\
\
�
\
3
\
e
0
LU
(
aj
2
/
/
\
U
& &
§
e
r,
m
2@
}
0/
q
7
J
f 0 u
«
%
o
0
0
ctxo
&
cu
\
ko
\
\
G\0J
. a
r4
ci
o7
k <
& &
a
»
m
r4
- 2 @
\
j
\
q
E
Ln
� J
d
00
k
\
ƒ
\
}
+
E 3 e
S
Q
0/
%
m$
_
c
§ 0 2
2
3
2
3
2
S
ƒ J
ƒ J
k
o
.D
±
3
%
0
0
0
0
=
e
e
r,4
rlj
m
2
e
7
;
°

O
Q1
Y
d
HA
m
a)
U
v
C
d
C
m
.y
M
�
O
O
V
C
�
O
NO
y�
m
=�
�a+
O
�
y
C
co
a)
Cf1
C
Mof
=
O
E
d
m
E
H
E
7
Ln
m
a1
a
co
s
ao
C
v
>
>
a
J
aj
C
J
J
o
c
C
+�
v
E
O
C
aj
O
aJ
U
i
E
C
O
N
ci
(31
t
«vf
of
C
aj
C
LL,
LL,
Y
C
C
O
C
O
O
C
O L
U �
O
Ln C
C ca
O a
CL a)
N 3
aJ
L �
L
O uo
C
N N
N
C �
N U
N
O
L
U �
(a L
O U
L C
Ln
+� aJ
C �
E t
aJ a
N
to O
aJ +�
v
C N
+ O
O ca
aJ 75
_0 U LnN 5 Ln
U
0 +,
O U
C
V1 U
O C L
CL O
O '—
C
Q
N +'
O
C
C -
> L
O
+� f6 C
O
E Ln 3
U
C
t �
L
E
� U �
� C C
N a LnO
O C: X
O O
M U
C + pp
Ln O
� � O
N C
ci
C � ca
.2 E
GJ
Vl L
Q
Q
Qua
� o �
N
�
O
O
�
O
n
n
Ln
O
i
O
en
T
>
O
E
E
Ln
Y
C
C
Q1
a
T
cu
O
$A
E
a,
C
>
U
M
i
i
«
>
NN
C
a
m
CL
12
v

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History - Major Hill Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal Issue Date (RFP No. 16-006990)
September 16, 2016
September 16, 2016
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 7193)
--
May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan
--
February 2018
404 Permit Date
--
June 28, 2018
Construction Plans
--
July 2018
Site Construction
--
July 25-September 6, 2018
Planting
--
December 2018-January 2019
Asbuilt Stream Data Collection
September 19, 2018
Asbuilt Vegetation Data Collection
January 8, 2019
Asbuilt Baseline Monitoring Report
--
March 2019
MY1 (2019) Vegetation Data Collection
September 9, 2019
MY1 (2019) Stream Data Collection
September 10, 2019
--
MY1 (2019) Monitoring Report
October 2019
November 2019
Supplemental Planting
--
January 31, 2020
MY 2 (2020) Vegetation Data Collection
October 2020
--
MY 2 (2020) Stream Data Collection
July/October 2020
--
MY 2 (2020) Monitoring Report
October 2020
November 2020
MY 3 (2021) Vegetation Data Collection
October 2021
--
MY 3 (2021) Stream Data Collection
March 2021
MY 3 (2021) Monitoring Report
October 2021
January 2022
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Table 3. Project Contacts Table - Major Hill Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems
Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh, NC 27603
Edenton, NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Mary -Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and
As -built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans
K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA
5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Table 4. Project Attribute Table - Major Hill Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name
Major Hill Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
16.7
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.873206,-79.360906
Planted Area (acres)
8.11
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03030002050050
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
17 to 445
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious
<2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover & Mixed Upland Hardwoods
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
Length of reach (linear feet)
2796
207
2298
Valley Classification & Confinement
Alluvial, moderately confined to confined
Drainage Area (acres)
71.7
17.2
444.7
NCDWR Stream ID Score
20.25 — 33.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent/Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg5
C4/5
C3
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)
C/E 4
C4/5
C3
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
III/IV
III
I
Underlying Mapped Soils
Efland silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Orange silt
loam, Worsham sandy loam, Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class
Well -drained, well -drained, well -drained, poorly drained, well -drained,
poorly drained, respectively
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric, hydric,
respectively
Slope
0.0241
0.0256
0.0130
FEMA Classification
NA
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
45% forest, 35% agricultural land, 20% low density
residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock Reference
Channel)
65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low density
residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendix
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2022

Table 4. Protect Attribute Table - Major Hill Restoration Site (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
0.54 acre drained or impounded & 0.44 acre degraded
Wetland Type
Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham and Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Restoration Method
Hydrologic, vegetative
Enhancement Method
Vegetative
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Tables 5A-5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

O O
Y oN O o
- _ JZpfA Y FZ > o LU
ZZ 1. UO O of
I a J C� -) Q z
o & c�
j( W cmi U n o
Q � O z IL
m01 o co 26 o
a a` Q o o U) a
N \\ `
CY
a°'
t9 U
;off 3a
_ o - ♦` '- Peoa.���WuEi A o
oawo (OCo
�m E
cm
/�
!y a1y r C N 0
JE
�N
N N C N ad+ ad+
��, o ........ r
CL
CL
I
SoU�h F ork Road
I r''-J'� • �_- ehe�
Ok�'•
n

Major Hill
MY-03 (2021) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2021
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Major Hill
MY-03 (2021) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2021
Plot 8
gin' ..
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

(
_
\ \«)
©�)/�
°
kk�
U. >
\f �)
E o
= >
\/k
y
aJm
�
020
0{j
c
c
c
c
c
c
)]2
) 7£
c
c
c
c
c
]R3
)
) \
^
^
^
^
^
a
a
a
a
a
]
k [2
2
a
a
a
a
a
}n
Al
-\
�(
/E
{S
2
:
(
{
)\
-
-
\xm
ml
u
\)
)
OD
tm
u
L
2
u
Al
\
�
\
�
�
�
\�
0
:
7
§))i-
,a
!
3
a
2
\
tk|
\)
2
§
\ \

(
\
km
_
/
�
2°7
) §
2±<
\ \«)
©�)/�
°
kk�
U. >
\f �)
E o
= >
\/k
y
aJm
�
020
0{j
c
c
c
c
c
c
)]2
) 7£
c
c
c
c
c
]R3
))\
m
a
m
m
a
c
c
c
c
c
]
E2[2
m
a
m
m
a
c
c
c
c
c
z }n
tt
Al
-\
�(
/E
{S
2
:
(
{
)\
-
-
\xm
ml
tm
cuOD
\
�
\
� �
�
\�
0
:
7
§))i-
,a
(
!
3
a
q
3
2
\
w
a
}
tk|
\)
2
§
\\

o
0
0
0
0
0
a s
N N
a y
O
O
O
O
O
O
Eu
O
O
O
O
O
O
O a
U
O H
C
`y O
E O
'a
z
�
O
O
U d
�
7
U
Co
O
�
as
It
�
U
U
U
u
N
H
O
C
C
C
C
O
a
�
O
H
H
N
N
Q
N
O
N
i0
VI
❑
C:
O
o
Q
H
a
3
o
d
f0
O
J
H
d
CO
J
a
�J
N
C%jm
vi
o
0
O H
O
O
V
w a
N N
�
N
O
O
O
O
O V
O
O
U a
O H
c
`y
O
�
E O
O
O
'a
z
c
7 O
a
•-
o
0
U N
10 �
O
O
c
� �
H
c
O
�
O
O
o
C
z
C
z
M�
a
ea
C
E
O
U
m
N
O
N
0
U
is
U
c
a
O
>
UE
QJ N C C - C QJ
O O E E U .— N i p
E
0 oU
C C O y U� O N
U O O N p O
aO+ d.- p
Q) p p y
C
O -O
p
c �
N O
oE
N O N N N O L V N O
U O O y j N N N O > IDto -O
N C N 0 � 0
C to
O C E E
E p N C fd C
O O E E j p- O p �_
y 0 >> yp N C N
N E -p Ci O p
� U
0) E O p p `p
N O C LL L p y N
p p .Ya O Ep
O to 0
m O O >> N O 2 y N C1 0
ui
E �
C jE pQ-ppy dO���'O
0 t=
O CP Y oo CP >> C C O
CPO � O U
p O CPy'�E Tip �O
a) Q p v p p Y p 0
O- �.� O p 'N m
3 r p c E>
N U O
O -p I
N�-
O
_ _ C
p ca E O
E y Y O
E Y
N� O
E c a) o p c Y N H E c
C
OU
O 'O to O N d O
Y to
O O Cc) U
O
to p p u Y c p p p 0` p CP U C O o
_ E o
p p T aJ u `N p p p CL
c
o�.��p-E�o`o
p p C U
ca E
O O L O N O w N C C' p E
+�-• O U to > f O X> O +�-• N
N O O U N N O D U
°
W N H W M
u O u p u C, is E ai c x
y � O �i a� C� O O

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation — Major Hill Restoration Site
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak/Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
Strea
mbla
Assemblage
ge
Total
Acres
1.1
5.5
0.01
1.5
8.11
Alnus serrulata
5
20
25
Asimina triloba
200
200
Betula nigra
100
200
300
Carpinus caroliniana
600
600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
5
20
25
Cercis canadensis
500
500
Cornus amomum
95
5
800
900
Diospyros virginiana
450
450
Fraxinus americana
100
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
750
900
Liriodendron tulipifera
75
75
Nyssa sylvatia
600
600
Platanus occidentalis
120
780
900
Quercus nigra
110
790
500
1,400
Quercus phellos
100
700
400
1,200
Salix nigra*
400*
400
Sambucus canadensis
11
14
25
TOTALS
750
3,740
26
4,084
8,600
Stems/Acre
682
680
2600
2722
1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

�I,III,IIIII,IIII
Ili
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIII
II,III,IIIII,IIIIII,I
IIIIIIilllilllllll
ZII
IIIIIIilllilllllll111
II
II........
IIIIIIIII
. . . . . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
...
g � !
p E E
E E Q
o v
E E

Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data — Major Hill Restoration Site
Species
50m x 2m Temporary Plot (Bearing)
T-1 (1760)
T-2 (3250)
T-3 (20)
Betula nigra
1
Carpinus caroliniana
1
Cercis canadensis
1
Cornus amomum
2
Diospyros virginiana
2
1
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5
2
2
Morus rubra
1
Platanus occidentalis
2
Quercus nigra
1
Quercus pagoda
1
Quercus rubra
1
Total Stems
11
8
9
Total Stems/Acre
445
324
364
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals — Major Hill Restoration Site
Plot #
Success Criteria Met?
MY 3 (2021)
Stems/Ac
MY 3 (2021)Planted
All Stems/Ac
1
No
202
324
2
Yes
324
324
3
Yes
405
486
4
No
202
202
5
No
243
283
6
Yes
486
526
7
Yes
445
445
8
Yes
607
647
T-1
Yes
--
445
T-2
Yes
324
T-3
Yes
--
364
Average Planted
Stems/Acre
Yes
364
397
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D. Monitoring Data (Dimensional Morphology Summary & Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross -Section Plots
Substrate Plot
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

o
m m
m m
m
m m
m
m m
m m
m
m
L
A
a
A�
16-��
mm�
o\
�omN00
m�oN�°
c
L
C
A
G
O
O
5o
��o
Mm�o
Noom
Quo
gym-.
�oomID
o�
0
M
o
0
oN
F
A
ri
O
Fm
-.
0
0
0
r.
M
A
00
Ca
d
00
0
'
ov
r,
oy �
o
l
N
T H-
d
c
o
W
m
N m
L
o
R
�
�i
. .
.
. .
O
O
. .
I Hi
I
A
F
❑
0
�
�d �
o ,-:
c.i
N N
,-.
U
o\
S o
h
U
"" o
❑
C;j
k
G
W
L
t+iF
W
U
A
o
.a
�
a
bA
w0.�W'�'
o
20
C
O
�
�
R
A
W
W
F
Q

m
A
s.
3
0
q
o\
c
w
O
dm
O�ovm
OT
m,-.
�ogq"'
-moo
o
�O
r"N
o�ama�
to
°
L
O
.0
d
hill
m
p
0
O
N
.-.
O o\
ITT
No\N--
N,,7
F A
d
0
0
�m
��°ooim
o�O
o
moo\
o\�
m
o
qq
No�,
am.-.
o
0
q
00
W
N
E
q
d
00
Q
So
N
0
d
c
o
N
L
c
R
�
�i
O
O
q
F
❑
o
boo
No,-:
ri
NON
�
d
� O
t o
'" l
0 y
� �
�
�d �
o o
m-
cn
�" �i
N
� e
c
h q
k
��Arr
G
W
L
W
U
A
o
.a
�
a
w
bA
A
77777
77777
w w
�
0.
i
C
O
�
�
R
q
W
W
F
Q

i
illlll■III
IIIIII■III
IIIIII■119
IIIIII■919
IIIIIIIIII
illlll■III
IIIIII■III
111199■119
IIIIII■911
illlll■III
IIIIII■111
Illill■019
lillll■119
191111■111
IIIIII■III
Il1111■III
111191■BI0
F i
�Ilil91�
111
,IIIIII�
III
�1111990
III
�Illllli
III
,111199i
III
,IIIIII�
III
�111191�
III
vevone�
emee
mii
in
,a000n�
o,n
0000m
in
,a00000�
moo
nno
in

illlll■III
Illlil■911
IIIIII■919
IIIIII■119
II�III�III
illlll■III
IIIIII■III
IIIIII■191
1i1911■911
illlll■III
IIIIII■111
IIIIII■119
IIIIII■119
191BII■119
IIIIII■III
Il1111■III
111199■910
IIIIIII�I�
III�III�I
III�III�I
191�199,9
191�191i9
191�199�1
III�III�I
191�101�1
111�901�0
�I�I�I��
�emmm
i�
��lll�
�0
�0�000,
i�
�o,000,
i�
�omoa�,
i�
���n0m
i�
�amoa�,
i�
�o,nom
i�
�emmm
enn
i�ii
i�
,i�iii�
nisi
i�ii
i�
�9�111,
III
It
IIIII
11911
�9�19@�
Im9C
It
'��I��I
�I���
�I��
�0

C
m
14
N
io
-A
M
to
Ln
m
N
O\1
(Yi
O
r4
Ln
N
O
C
14
n
n
n
N
G
Ln
N
�
en
m
a)Ccu
CC
ai
}
I�
N
m
00
-A
N
L
00
Ln
N
lD
r":
N
�vf
dl
dl
N
Ln
Ln
r�
a
Ln
M
M
0)
I�
N
N
N
N
3
O
A
-A
�
n
n
iD
O
O
N
d
E
O
}
m
O
M
-A
lD
lD
N
iD
i
00
00
N
M
Ol
N
lD
lD
N
-A
Ln
Ln
to
a
O
Eaj
rn
L
m
m
N
m
00
Uf
C
N
n
c-I
n
-A
Ln
N
i
lD
O
O
d
E
cu
m
N
N
01
al
Ln
00
I�
N
M
M
Ln
a
.1
M00
N
O
LQ
N
00
00
-A
N
M
N
lD
i
00
N
C
C
lD
lD
—A
to
Ln
00
N
N
i
i
lD
u
lD
lD
01
N
iD
7
N
C
O
v
0)
LnlD
M
iD
I�
i
-A
nj
Ol
O
M
a
C
C
\
.--I
-A
N
(y
-A
-A
lD
m
00
d
L
N
a
\
-A
-A
N
00
iD
O
Ln
n
L
�
�
aj
a
a
E
m
Sao
E
E
Q
7
U
E
CL
Q
=
i
N
N
_0 Ln
ZL
Q v
O
O
Q
M
0"
E
a
M
M
M
U
ti
O O
z �O
N O
O �n
av
O O
v
Cc
G O
o a
Z E
4
O
0
.a
09

F.t
1.
f iti�
4 U
r
3
1.
a
r �
cz
d
V)
N
0
w
o
m q
0
cm
o
0 N
L x O y
o C �Nn
U�cmQ
a� � � � m � Ln � r-- ,� � Ln co � � � ,� m m coo o a�
� co co co co co co co co co Lri Lri Lri Lri Lri
Lri co co co co � co
^,
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
`n
W
r" d "�
N N m 00 Lf� (.D --i M '--' M
•y
Q) N Q)
N
A y
O
O CQ N cn
N
G.D
CQ
y y i
d
v� � >C W A W
co
co
`n
mco
O
d
Q
O
o
d
�
w
C
Z
'C
Q
�
o
N
yQ��
tOd
Pa
Qi
tC
��
�x.�
y
fd
d�
�"
w
v
�
o
�
�Afx
0.
m
cx
^A
A
3�
�oaaoaoaww�a�3woa
0
M
I I I�■
I
1
1 I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
ri
1
1
1
1
�
0
1
1
O
x
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
p
1
1
��
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
(;aa� uoe�nnapg

]i
h
-
�1
cz
N
0
O w
cm q
0
m N '7
0
cD
0 N
L x O y
o � � L?5
C
o C+7 m a) Oo O N N 00 oc0czm r- r- r-- m an oo co co a= oo L` m O
i N m G.D Co m N N N m L- L- L� Lf� tf� G.D CD L- O N m a'
•'
oo L-- L-- L-- L-- L-- L-- L-- CD CD CD Co Co Co
Co Co Co L-- L-
W
r" d "�
N a' m •--i tf� a' L- pp Lq m •--i
(.D CD m (.D CD O L— 00 N
O O •--i •--i N m
N a' Lf� G.D L- 00 •--�
m a' Lf� tf� G.D 00 m •--i a'
--i N N
y y i
m
m
o
NO
O
O�
N
o
•--i
O
d
Q
O
y
'C
tOd
.�
Pa
fd
Qi
d�
tC
zx.�
o
on
c
zAfx
3
d
m
cx
c0
A
A
Voaaoaoaww:a43woa
O
z
b
c
1
1 1
I I I�■
I
� �
I I
1 1
1 1
O
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
a7
1 1
w
1 1
�
1 1
�
1 1
O
x
1 1
1 1
�
1 1
1 1
1
x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
O
(;aafi u0e

� I
`f
aYy
3,
!
i
y
N
0 0
0 0
0
m
0
A
0 N
W x O ycz
•� o
U � , cn
C
m 00 L� Ln m N N 00 Co 00 Co Ln Ln 00 00 m m Go 00 00 m Cl m N N
fd O O O O O O O Q) Q) 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) O O O O O
W
U
O
00
'n O m L� m tf� N C)
�+
Ln CcL� t` O O m m
m tLn G.D L� O O N
--i N cQ N N
v) >C 1 A W
N
00
CD
O
d
Q
O
•d
p
�
w
y
'C
tOd
tC
�x.�
.�
fd
d�
o
d
�Afx
m
cx
�oaaoaoaww�a�3woa
q ca
a r~
I I I
� • I
O
N
0
0
M
w
m
X
O
rl
�y
O
it
O
0
N N N
LCi LC� LCi LCj lfJ
(;aa� uoe�nnapg

v
*,
I
�
I
�
y
Ire
i
r,
-
U
I
I
�Iz
N
0
w
o
m q
O
m
0
A
0 N
L x O y
o �Nn
OCo �--i �--i L� oc Co O O 00 m N a' m m m --i m L— Co L� 00 L� Co L� Co Co oc
., O O ,� oc L-- Ln a' m m L-- oc L-- L-- Co CD Ln Ln Co m
m-��000000a)a)a)
N N N N N N N N N�--i------------------i--i
m mmmmmmm00000000
N
NLn
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
Ln Ln
tNn tNn tNn tNn tNn tn
W
Co O 00 G.D a' Co m O m L� N
O -1' oc --i Ln
m o0 N o0 m --i m m O N a'
�+ U
m m a' Ln CD L� 00 00 00 m--i
--i N N N
v��>CW AW
0
N
0
N
°O
Ln
0O
O
N�
L�
o
fd
d
Q�
O
o
d
�
w
Q
•U
W
.�'
x
C
O
Pa
Qi
tC
��
�
°�
�x.�
•y
fd
d�
d
d
o
�Afx
m
cx
�
A
c
�oaaoaoaww�a�3woa
b
q
1
1
iilll��l
1
1
o
1

F�
S
i�
W
J.
cz
d
b
L
N N
0
w
o
m � q
0
m �
0
A
0 N
W x O y
o �Nn
U Q
O N Q) a' N Go 00 O O 'l' N L� O O L� a' Ln m m � --i
+.d N m �--i to Ln Ln N m �--i to �' m m -1' -4 Co Co L-- m m --i
•cz
Ln In m m m m m m m m m
d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
m m m o"' ����
N N N N �����
W
�+
� A i ,�
i Ln Co L� L� L� 00
v) >C W A W
fd
d
Q
O
o
d
�
w
Q
�
o
N
yQ��
y
'C
tOd
tC
��
�x.�
.�
fd
d�
A•'
o
Q
�
�Afx
m
cx
�
A
c
�oaaoaoaww�a�3woa
b
�
q
iilll��l
�
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
�
1
1
O
x
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
p
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
CG � C M
N N N N
(;aa� uoe�nnapg

'
aar•
_
ra
q
H o
0
N
- W
U
L
l ' cz
L�
�
y
O
O
N
0 0
0 0
m
o
o
o
C� N
N
Lo
N N N N
Lo Lo Ln Ln
N
Ln
o o
(1aafi U011DA01a
no U � cn
o O o) co co a' m �--i o) oo N m oo co m Ln Ln cn cn Ln co 0o m o 0
' .
m coLnLnLnLnLnLn���cnN N Nmmmma'a'a'a'a'a'a'LnLnLn
a>i LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn
LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn LNn
W
y d �'
o o0 00 m a� an an co an N oo
,�LnmmooN000m�Lnmm
A i
Ln Co L� 00 00
y I-y i
�
v� 2W A W
N
N
Q)
N
N
fd
d
Q�
O
.�
�x.�
fd
d�
o
d
�Afx
m
cx
�oaaoaoaww�a�3woa
0
r
Y o
0 0
r
r r
1
I
I I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

cc
� \
|
-\\�
•
.
2
i
\ �
ƒ
e
� ^ 2
-
)
) �
�
J
2
° ® (
« _
/\\ c 9
r
r 2 2 r r
/§
R6mAJ
\\\}/\
\eg3>eg>ggg» e3ege3»
/j\jjjj//////jjjjjj\\
w
� §
:
}§\g\±_
//%
2®zzzz_zz-
z«
a
e
e«
t
\
®
@
)
:__
)e
�G\\a:§]==
]�
%=%
%)
_
t
�;±]\�
§2�q
d]a]]cc§2§�]]
2
)
\
2
2
|
|
|
|
|
�
�
|
.
�
|
�
|
|
|
|
|
�
�
`
�

a_
Y� r
�f. fit•
1
r
{ fi `tip W
iI
1
\
d
A.
E�
cz
m
N
0
w
o
m � q
0
m o
0
m
0 N
L x O y
o �Nn
U�4cmQ
Om m Go t2 Go tf) 1, tf) N L-- 00 tf) N m Q) m tf)
+..i N �--i m Go Ln �--i m L-- M m N Go m N N m N a, m
cz0 0 m m m m 00 00 00 00 m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0
d m m N N N N N N N N N N N m m m m m m
W
r" d
m Ln Ln �--i m N N 00 N O m N m �--i a' m �--i m Lf)
y S+ U
d A y
y y z
co
ai
N
co
ai
N
o
Ln
Ln
o
m
O
N
m
oo
Ln
On
m
O
d
Q�
O
o
d
�
w
Q
o
L�
y
'C
tOd
Pa
Qi
tC
z
N
yQ��
zx.�
y
fd
d�
Q'
>>
o
d
zAfx
m
cx
cC
O
A
3
A
c
z
b
uoaaoaoaww:a:3woa
�
ra
I I I�■
I
� 1
�
I I
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1 �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
oC
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
O
x
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
o m o0
M M N N
(paafi uogpnnapg

cz
V)
id
d
Q
o
o
>
w
•tC
tcd
,t,'
Pa
z
t
Q
�>czx�od�
y
y
Q
'`�
y
d
^A
�9z
d
m
cx
c
c
c
A
3�
A
b
c
�oaaoaoawwma413woa
f- O
r r r
r r r
H 111.
1
1
1
O
N
O
O
1
1
1
1
Qw
1
d
X
1
1
�
0
�
1
1
�+
1
1
O
it
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
0 m oo L.-
C m Cl) m
LO LO LO Ln
(;aafi U011DA01g
� NN�m00000LnmNoa� o omLnoo�mm�Nm�m
id m m m m m o0 o0 o0 o0 o0 oo t-- o0 o0 o0 o0 oo m m m m m m m m
> cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm rm
d Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
W
00
C�
a' a' a' 00 00 a' 00 N G.D
O ,� N � � G.D � � � m m

� � � I I I � ■ I
O
it N
Yes „ 1
j a fr
1 �
d 1
� 1
1
1
x
Lr 1
O �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1cz
1
1
1
N � 1
o w ,
1
0 0 0 0
o
A N
N
(;aafi uoi1nnal.�
U � � cn
N N N N N a' O 00 �--i Go L� N m a' Co Co Co O m Go m O O
y N ,--i O O Go Ln Ln Ln tf� 1, m a' m a' G F- O O� O F-
W
r" d Z" ,--i - - m - O - - N - O m m Go Cl Ln ,--i O ,--i N 00 O
O O --i �--i N N m m a' a' Co L� O O
m Ln G.D 00 00 Q) ,--i ,--i N
y y i v)
1
o
��riai��0000�o
a�
co
co
Ln
�
m
m
o0
id
d
Q
o
o
d
�
w
y
'C
C�
tad
'y
tC
��
�
°�
�x.�
fd
d�
d
d
o
d
�Afx
m
cx
�oaaoaoaww�a�3woa

GG
GT
9
,GX
�h
G�
nello
GG
r
TT
S
9f,
ry
■
JS
&1 T
N
I
�T
Gj
U
U
QI
U
QI
U
. �
r
zi
�T a
<JT
"
■
tyN�
■
I
a�'
�S
SSG
S
TG
I
Z
9GJ
e
e
a
a
a s
a a
s
a o J
o 0
0 o
a a
a
a o 0
0
;aaaiad
;aaaiad
—13
le°P?
T-I
0
�
0
�O
M
0
7
�
0
00
0
00
0
�O
0
O
�
0
oo
�
0
N
�
0
7
�
0
N
0
N
0
�O
0
�O
0
�O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
U
�
7
0
M
0
7
0
0o
0
M
0
7
0
�O
0
Vi
0
�O
0
01
0
�O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
F
E�
Ni
�
O
O
O
O
h
O
M
O
M
0
Vi
7
0
0o
O
�O
N
Ni
N
7
N
0�1
7
aui
�
'C
t� r. O
R
A
,�
�tltl
�
�tl
�tl
SOD
SOD
SOD
SOD
>
>
O
O
O
O
p
O
O
�
O
3
w
O
0
R
�

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure E1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence — Maior Hill Restoration Site
UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Year 1(2019)
Year 2 (2020)
Year 3 (2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow
99
158
136
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
Yes
Yes
Yes
otherwise)
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
Yes
Yes
Yes
transport
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the
Yes
Yes
Yes
banks
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species
adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
Yes
Yes
Yes
including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody
Yes
Yes
Yes
debris piles, or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path
No
Yes
Yes
of flow
Other:
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

LL M
ELI
1�
(ui) s;unowv lle;uiea
O in o Un o Lq o
co N N -1 c-I O O
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
o 6/30/21
m 6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/1/21
V N O w to V N O w l0 N O fV V l0 w O
N N N c-I ci ci ci ci ci
(ui) lanai aa;eM

Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence — Major Hill Restoration Site
Year 3 (2021)
UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1(2019)
Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow
52
236
285
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the
banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species
adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
Yes
Yes
Yes
including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody
Yes
Yes
Yes
debris piles, or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path
of flow
No
Yes
Yes
Other:
Bankfull event
documented.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

1�
(ui) s;unowv lle;uiea
O in o Un O in O
co N N -i ci O O
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
72!ni 1/ 1/21
V N O 00 l0 V N O 00 lD � N O N � lD 00 O
N N N c-I ci ci ci ci ci
(ui) lanai aa;eM

Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Photo
Date of Data
Date of
Method
(if
Collection
Occurrence
available)
March 19,
January 13,
A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 1.10 inches of
2019
2019
rain was documented on January 13, 2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
1
March 19,
February 23,
A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 2.74 inches of
rain was documented between February 22-23, 2019 at an onsite
2
2019
2019
rain gauge.
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 4.11
June 27, 2019
April 13, 2019
inches of rain was documented between April 12-13, 2019 at an
onsite rain gauge.
September 9,
July 24, 2019
A bankfull event likely occurred after 3.02 inches of rain was
2019
documented between July 23-24, 2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
September 9,
August 1,
A bankfull event likely occurred after 1.96 inches of rain was
2019
2019
documented on August 1, 2019 at an onsite rain gauge.
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
April 13, 2020
April 13, 2020
approximately 2.31 inches of rain was recorded at an onsite rain
3
gauge
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
January 31,
January 31,
approximately 1.19 inches of rain was recorded at an onsite rain
4
2021
2021
gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed along the top of
March 11,
February 15,
bank and floodplain of UT-1 indicating a bankfull event occurred
2021
2021
after 2.93 inches of rain was documented between February 11
5
and 15, 2021.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

2 9,8 2 inflg t 1 39
2 9. 7 9 inHg f 8 - 4 7 1 5 5
Z -
02 23 120 1 9 02 3 5 PM M H D S
lk
I.
01 1 3 1201 9 07 :1 5AM MH D S

` t
0
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

VP
k

Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data — Major Hill Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1(2019)
Year 2(2020)
Year 3(2021)
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
No/14 days*
Yes/136 days
Yes/74 days
1
6.0 percent
57.9 percent
31.4 percent
No/19 days*
No/19 days
No/21 days
2
8.1 percent
8.0 percent
8.9 percent
Yes/25 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/226 days
3
10.6 percent
100 percent
95.8 percent
Yes/34 days
Yes/72 days
Yes/60 days
4
14.5 percent
30.5 percent
25.4 percent
Yes/119 days
Yes/135 days
Yes/53 days
5
50.6 percent
57.4 percent
22.5 percent
Yes/77 days
Yes/44 days
Yes/80 days
6
32.8 percent
18.7 percent
33.9 percent
* These gauges did not meet success criteria due to a data shuttle failure that resulted in the loss of data. Based on
rainfall and hydrology data that was not lost, all gauges would have likely met success criteria had the loss of data not
occurred.
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

m
°° n � � Lnn °Ln a a nrl)
jo ducal poS
12/27/21
12/17/21
12/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/s/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/s/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
s/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21 ai
7/10/21 p
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/1/21

2
(ul) s;unowV lle}ulea
0 1n o Lq o 1n o
M N N c-I ci O O
12/27/21
12/17/21
12/7/21
11/27/21
11/17/21
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/1/21
N O 00 lD T N O N e w 00 O N d' l0 00 O N�t l0 00 O N l0 00 O
a--1 r-I .-I .-I .-I .-I .-I N N N N N m m m m M
(ul) lana3aa;empunoag
W
S
s
NEW
�III
Ion
Mmw

OR
(ul) s;unowv Ile;ulea
O in o Un O Ln o
co N N c-I ri O O
12/27/21
O
N
v
v N -0
-0 w c
o c w
u
O 0
12/17/21
12/7/21
11/27/21
11/17/21
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
0
5/11/21
o�
5/ 1/21
4/21/21
T
p
4/11/21
N
Je
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
c
0
u w
co c N
2 0
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/ 1/21
N O 00 l0 � fV O fV � lD 00 O N � lD 00 O N V lD 00 O N V lD 00 O
.—I .—I ri ri ri ri ri rV rV rV rV rV M M M M M IT
(ul) lanai aa;empunoaE)

m
2
(ui) s;unowv pe;uiea
O in O Ln O in O
co N fV -i ri O O
0
N
N
M
c�
N
N
N
o
o
0
c
0
[6
N
N
by
c
3
0
C7
-0
c
w
0
00
rn
T
0
N
N
ME
c
C
,--j M
3
0
N O w lD lqr N O fV zT l0 w O fV zT to w O N V to w O N V to w O
.-I .-I ri ri ri ri ri rV rV rV rV rV M M M M M 17
(ui) lanai aa;empunoaE)
12/27/21
12/17/21
12/7/21
11/27/21
11/17/21
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/1/21

u
m
G
(ui) s;unowv pe;uiea
O in O Un O in O
co N fV -i ri O O
N O 00 lD N O N l0 00 O N l0 00 O N V l0 00 O N l0 00 O
.—I .—I c-I ci ci ci ci N N N N N M M M M M
(ui) [analaa;empunoag
12/27/21
12/17/21
12/7/21
11/27/21
11/17/21
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/1/21

r
(ui) s;unowv pe;uiem
O Un o Ln o Un o
co N N c 1 ci O O
RUNS
lNow
oss
mm
12/27/21
12/17/21
12/7/21
11/27/21
11/17/21
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/1/21
N O 00 tD N O N lD 00 O N V lD W O N V lD W O N V W W O
a-i a --I ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N M M M M M V
(ui) JanaI aajeMpunoag

(ui) s;unowv pe;uiea
O in o Un o Lq o
m N f4 -1 O O
c
0
N N
N d
N
-0 to c
0 c w
O o
L
C7
0
rn
c
0
m
U N t
L to M
5m �_ N
0
L
l7
N O w lD lqr N O fV ZT l0 w O N K* to w O N V to w O N V to w O
rti .-I ri ri ri ri ri rV rV rV rV rV M M M M M Ki
(ui) lanai aalempunoag
12/27/21
12/17/21
12/7/21
11/27/21
11/17/21
11/7/21
10/28/21
10/18/21
10/8/21
9/28/21
9/18/21
9/8/21
8/29/21
8/19/21
8/9/21
7/30/21
7/20/21
7/10/21
6/30/21
6/20/21
6/10/21
5/31/21
5/21/21
5/11/21
5/1/21
4/21/21
4/11/21
4/1/21
3/22/21
3/12/21
3/2/21
2/20/21
2/10/21
1/31/21
1/21/21
1/11/21
1/1/21

Appendix F.
Benthic Data
Benthic Results
Habitat Datasheets
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

PAI ID NO
54832
54833
STATION
Major Hill
Uptream
Major Hill
Downstream
DATE
5/19/2021
5/19/2021
SPECIES
Tolerance
Value
Functional
Feeding Group
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria
P
Tricladida
P
Planariidae
O
Phagocata sp.
1
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
FC
Pisidium sp.
6.6
FC
2
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Lymnaeidae
SC
Pseudosuccinea columella
7.7
CG
Physidae
Physella sp.
8.7
CG
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
CG
Tubificida
Naididae
CG
Naidinae
CG
3
Dero sp.
9.8
CG
1
Tubifcinae w.h.c.
CG
1
Tubifcinae w.o.h.c.
CG
5
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
CG
Lumbriculus sp.
CG
Hirudinea
8
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
3
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Ostracoda
Isopoda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea sp.
8.4
CG
1
11
Amphipoda
CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
7.2
CG
17
3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
CG
Baetis intercalaris
5
CG
Baetis pluto
3.4
Baetis tricaudatus
1.5
CG

STATION
Major Hill
Uptream
Major Hill
Downstream
DATE
5/19/2021
5/19/2021
SPECIES
Tolerance
Value
Functional
Feeding Group
Callibaetis fluctuans
9.2
CG
Callibaetis sp.
9.2
CG
2
Diphetor hageni
1.1
CG
Labiobaetis frondalis
4.6
Labiobaetis propinquus
5.8
Baetiscidae
CG
Baetisca carolina
4.2
Ephemerellidae
SC
Dannella provonshai
SC
Ephemerella invaria gp.
2.6
CG
Heptageniidae
SC
Epeorus dispar
1
CG
Maccaffertium carlsoni
2.1
SC
Maccaffertium modestum
5.7
SC
5
Maccaffertium sp.
SC
Stenacron interpunctatum
6.4
SC
2
Isonychiidae
FC
Isonychia sp.
3.6
FC
Leptophlebiidae
CG
Habrophlebiodes brunneipennis
Habrophlebiodes sp.
Odonata
Aeshnidae
P
1
Boyeria vinosa
5.8
P
Calopterygidae
P
Calopteryx sp.
7.5
P
Coenagrionidae
P
Argia sp.
8.3
P
Ischnura sp.
9.5
1
Cordulegastridae
P
Cordulegaster maculata
5.7
Gomphidae
P
Lanthus sp.
1.6
P
Ophiogomphus sp.
5.9
P
Stylogomphus albistylus
5
P
Libellulidae
P
Libellula sp.
9.4
P
Pachydiplax longipennis
9.6
1
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
SH
Leuctra sp.
1.5
SH
Paraleuctra sara
Nemouridae
SH
Amphinemura nigritta
3.8
SH
Perlidae
P
Acroneuria cf filicis
P

STATION
Major Hill
Uptream
Major Hill
Downstream
DATE
5/19/2021
5/19/2021
SPECIES
Tolerance
Value
Functional
Feeding Group
Eccoptura xanthenes
4.7
P
Perlesta frisoni
2.9
P
Perlesta sp.
2.9
P
26
Perlodidae
P
Isoperla holochlora
0.7
P
Remensus bilobatus
0.9
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.
9.5
P
7
Corixidae
PI
9
2
Veliidae
P
Microvelia sp.
P
Megaloptera
Sialidae
P
Sialis sp.
7
P
1
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.
6.6
FC
25
Diplectrona modesta
2.3
FC
Hydropsyche depravata gp.
7.9
FC
Philopotamidae
FC
Chimarra sp.
3.3
FC
10
Dolophilodes distinctus
1
FC
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus basalis
0.5
SC
Helichus fastigiatus
4.1
SC
Dytiscidae
P
Laccophilus sp.
9.8
P
Neoporus sp.
5
2
Elmidae
CG
Stenelmis sp.
5.6
SC
2
Haliplidae
Peltodytes muticus
8.4
SH
2
Hydrophilidae
P
Helophorus lineatus
Tropisternus sp.
9.3
P
3
Psephenidae
SC
Psephenus herricki
2.3
SC
Staphylinidae
P
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomus sp.
9.3
CG
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
1
4
Cricotopus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
6.4
P
1

STATION
Major Hill
Uptream
Major Hill
Downstream
DATE
5/19/2021
5/19/2021
SPECIES
Tolerance
Value
Functional
Feeding Group
Dicrotendipes neomodestus
7.9
CG
2
Microtendipes pedellus gp.
3.9
CG
6
Odontomesa fulva
4.9
Paracladopelma undine
4.5
2
Parametriocnemus sp.
3.9
CG
1
Paratendipes albimanus/duplicatus
5.6
2
2
Polypedilum aviceps
3.6
SH
5
Polypedilum illinoense gp.
8.7
SH
2
Procladius sp.
8.8
P
2
Psectrocladius dyari
10
15
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gp.
6.5
FC
Stictochironomus devinctus
5.4
CG
1
Tanytarsus sp.
6.6
FC
Zavrelia sp.
6.1
CG
1
Culicidae
FC
1
Anopheles sp.
8.6
FC
1
Culex sp.
FC
Dixidae
CG
Dixa sp.
2.5
CG
Dixella sp.
4.9
CG
2
Ephydridae
PI
Psychodidae
CG
Pericoma sp.
CG
Sciomyzidae
Sciaridae
Tipulidae
SH
Dicranota sp.
0
P
Limnophila sp.
P
Pseudolimnophila sp.
6.2
P
Tipula sp.
7.5
SH
2
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
133088
133124
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
26
27
EPT TAXA
3
7
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES
8.47
5.63

3/06 Revision 6 (A A.)VIL i C (- POW
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams _
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream �VI ct) a,� H ( t4fij Jd--i.,Location/road:
Date Z1. 0S � I
(Road Name )County 4146+1 aw
CC# O 1 d i 000.- Basin CJRe t.Qf_
Subbasin
Observer(s) + to K Type of Study: ❑ Fish lenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude3W3al3 Longitude 1�t3 0< Ecoregion: ❑ MT ❑ P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature 1; ,5 °C DO S, . Mmg/l Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH 7. 22
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream _Channel (at top of bank) g Stream Depth: (m) Avg�Max
❑ Widthvariable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) 2
Bank Angle: — ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Crreen tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ❑N ❑Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High ]Normal ❑Low
Turbidity: X16lear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑ YES ENO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions:_ - _ � S Photos: bq ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks:
39

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

ct
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
ore Scone
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16, 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 1 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0 II r
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal l
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable I
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7 )
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
Remarks
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10 l
B. Stream with full canopy -breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... �8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0
Subtotal 1 a
VIH. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FA�E UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: OTrees ❑ Shrubs '12 +Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc)
Score
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
J4
(5)
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
4
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
Remarks
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
41
3 3
2 2
1 1 0 Total 010
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams %
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ ITOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
rr ( y+-t�} 1 on .
Stream UJp- '1=�t �r��I] Location/road: ��`•!/`(Road Name )County 4JGwt4,tA'
Date Zl O S I Ci CC#036' 5Xoo - Basin C-gge ter{ Subbasin 03` 06 ` rl L
Observer(s) mA t ft- Type of Study: ❑ Fish IBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 7p
3 O Longitude `_ :11 ( Ecoregion: ❑ MT ❑ P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature `13.2'F °C DO �r,.�mg/l Conductivity (corr.) 1 SL pS/cm pH 7 2�
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use:%Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ❑Forest" 04culture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank)_ Stream Depth: (m) Avg 2 Max /p
❑
I 0 Width variable Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: =-J or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ❑N ❑Y: ❑Rip- , cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: Offigh ❑Normal Drow
Turbidity: ❑Clear Mlightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑ YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................
❑
D. Root mats out of water...................................................................................................................
❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools .....................................................
❑
Weather Conditions: Sy�,ys'� S —Photos; ❑N ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks: �-P f P u I
39

�k_9 Ut- ( q0
I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ d_
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks kts4PrV?A Subtotal
H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >701/o of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
beguntodecay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant..
/Rocks Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logsUndercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
16
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2-types present .........................
(M
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
f �/
L
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
_
Subtotal
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40%..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness>80%..............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
11
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
6
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly. all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
1 (}
Remarks
Subtotal �J
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
Pools absent..................................................................................... 0
.................................................... ...
Subtotal
/Pool'bottorn boulder-cobble=hard ❑ Bottom sandv-sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
40
Page Total L�

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank
Rt. Bank
Score
Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion..
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6
6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5
5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3
3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high now.. 2
2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0
0
Total
Remarks i
VH. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ....................................
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading................................................................................ ........................ 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
floodplain).
Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: rees IL9 irubs U4rasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc)
Score
Score
A. Riparian zone tact (no breaks)
>
1. width 18 meters...................................................................................
f�
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
4
4
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
Remarks
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream
41
Total[D
Page Total_
TOTAL SCORE Q
Vg

Appendix G.
Riparian Buffer Year 3 (2021) Monitoring Report
MY3 (2021) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

FINAL RIPARIAN BUFFER MY3 (2021) MONITORING REPORT
MAJOR HILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin — Haw River Arm
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
November 2021
This project with conforms with the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A NCAC 02B
0295, effective November 1, 2015 and the Jordon Lake Buffer Protection Rule (15A NCAC 02B. 0267 &
15A NCAC 02B .0268)

Table of Contents
1.0
MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY............................................................................................1
2.0
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS..............................................................................................2
3.0
RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN..........................................2
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities........................................................................................
2
3.1.1 Site Preparation..........................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Planting.......................................................................................................................4
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities..................................................4
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities....................................................................................
5
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area............................................................................................................
5
4.0
ANNUAL MONITORING............................................................................................................5
4.1 Monitoring...............................................................................................................................5
4.2 Performance Standards...........................................................................................................6
4.3 Results and Discussion.............................................................................................................
6
4.4 Maintenance and Management..............................................................................................8
5.0
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................10
Tables
Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes............................................................................................................
Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets.................................................................................................
Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation.......................................................................................
Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring........................................................................................................
Table 5. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals..............................................................................................
Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species.................................................................................................
Attachments
Attachment 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Year 3 (2021) Planted Stem Height Data
1
3
4
6
8
9
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F. Table of Contents
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line. Project attributes are included in the following table.
Table 1. Buffer Proiect Attributes
Project Name
Major Hill
Hydrologic Unit Code
3030002050050
River Basin
Cape Fear
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35.873206,-79.360906
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
(2789, 896), (2514, 756), (3143, 270), (3150, 920)
Total Credits (BMU)
402,837
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation
Mitigation Plan Date
Apr-18
Initial Planting Date
Dec 2018-Jan 2019
Baseline Report Date
Mar-19
MY1 Report Date
Nov-19
MY2 Report Date
Jan-21
MY3 Report Date
Jan-22
MY4 Report Date
MY5 Report Date
The Site drainage area is primarily composed of pasture, forest, agriculture land, and sparse residential
property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream land surface.
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of pasture, hayfields, disturbed forest, and agricultural land
used for livestock grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, and
stream banks were eroded vertically and laterally and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs.
Riparian zones in the upper reaches of UT 1 were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that was
sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land -management activities. The
downstream reaches of UT 1 and all of UT 3 were primarily wooded with livestock disturbance to stream
channels. UT 2 was the lone tributary not subject to continuous, unrestricted livestock access. Riparian
areas immediately adjacent to UT 2 were forested with a fence to protect this area from livestock access.
The riparian areas were restored in concurrence with the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
(NC DMS Project ID 10015, SAW-2017-01472) and involved restoring riparian buffers adjacent to restored
streams to help reduce non -point source contaminant discharges to downstream waters in the Haw River
sub -watershed of Jordan Lake. All riparian areas were assessed by DWR (Katie Merritt and Sue
Homewood) during an onsite visit February 20t", 2018 to determine viability for buffer mitigation.
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

The Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Riparian restoration, enhancement, and
preservation area widths adjacent to restored streams extend out to a maximum of 200 feet from the top
of stream banks with a minimum width of 50 from the top of banks. Riparian buffer enhancement and
preservation credits generated on this Site are allowed pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o). No riparian
restoration areas that are less than 20 feet wide from Top of Banks are used to generate riparian buffer
credit.
Riparian buffer mitigation credit was not generated in areas that are generating wetland mitigation credit.
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Credit determination for this Site follows the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 0213.0295, effective November 1, 2015 (see Table 2 on the following page and Figure A,
Attachment 1).
3.0 RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN
This Site was also proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation project; therefore, restoration of riparian
areas was accomplished through the goals and methods outlined by the Major Hill Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan. All applicable federal, state, and local documentation, permits, and/or authorizations
were acquired as part of implementing the above -mentioned mitigation plan.
Primary goals focused on 1) improving water quality, 2) enhancing flood attenuation and hydrology, 3)
improving aquatic resources, and 4) restoring riparian habitat. Completed mitigation provides floodplain
connectivity, floodplain resistance, stream stability, sediment transport, surface and subsurface storage
and retention, in -stream habitat, riparian habitat and structure, thermal regulation, floodplain
biogeochemical processing, and pollutant filtration as well as remove sources of pollutants. The riparian
area will be restored through the revegetation of native plant communities.
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities
3.1.1 Site Preparation
Soil grading occurred during stream restoration activities. Topsoils were stockpiled during construction
activities and spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade was established. The replaced topsoil will
serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival
of planted species.
Farm Pond Removal
To complete the stream and wetland restoration activities and subsequent riparian buffer restoration, the
removal of a small farm pond, —0.58 acres occurred. Stream, wetland and riparian area restoration within
the abandoned pond included 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the dam to the elevation of
the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4)
backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5)
excavation of the design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and
7) installation of structures.
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: Page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

k
CL
\ _
)
o
§
= cu
}
§
z
z0
\
a m
/k
a
/
7
e
'
!.._
o
CU
) r
/
o
C
§
u
_
o
j
-
-1
�
a m
cu
Mo
= a / aj
/ z
0 lu
22_
/
Ch
c�'A_
2e=
§
f
k
00
§
/
/
R
�
\
Q
G
m
_
_
o
\
o
ƒUM
0
7
\
/
/
\
} \
0'
J
/
57/�
JCU
J33-
-
Ch
k /
§
Q0
rn
w
§ ƒ
ƒ
\
k
u
Q
k
jr4\
0
2
\
]
6
6
§
Ln
{
�
e [
1-1r
§
u
�f7
®
2
�
i � ca
)
\
m
00
§
jUM
\
/
)k
/
*
rn
# v
3
r
]§/�
fUMX
m
S
\
m/
}
u <
3
�
/
§
§
Ln
k
\
k
0
)
0
0
L
Ln
{
�
o
m
e [
m
=
u<
= §
u
§
2
2
C:
§
2
2
\ [
%
%
(
m [
0
)
)
u
0
)
ƒ
ƒ
\
)
}
}
k k
4\
4\
k k
e e
e e
k
k
\Ln
k
k
0
z z
7 z
7
z
z
)
)
0
0
j
j
7
\
{

3.1.2 Planting
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forests will be planted at a
density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the stream -side assemblage and
Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas were planted at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4-
foot centers. The following table summarizes planted bare root stems within the Site.
Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woodv Vegetation
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak/Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
Strea
mbla
Assemblage
ge
Total
Acres
1.1
5.5
0.01
1.5
8.11
Alnus serrulata
5
20
25
Asimina triloba
200
200
Betula nigra
100
200
300
Carpinus caroliniana
600
600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
5
20
25
Cercis canadensis
500
500
Corpus amomum
95
5
800
900
Diospyros virginiana
450
450
Fraxinus americana
100
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
750
900
Liriodendron tulipifera
75
75
Nyssa sylvatia
600
600
Platanus occidentalis
120
780
900
Quercus nigra
110
790
500
1,400
Quercus phellos
100
700
400
1,200
Salix nigra*
400*
400
Sambucus canadensis
11
14
25
TOTALS
750
3,740
26
4,084
8,600
Stems/Acre
682
680
2600
2722
1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities
Riparian buffer enhancement included permanently protecting existing riparian buffer from livestock via
exclusionary fencing, cutting, clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the
functionality of the riparian buffer. These areas are defined primarily as disturbed mixed hardwoods.
Buffer credits sought in the enhancement area are allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). The
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

enhancement area extends a maximum of 200 feet from the top of the bank with a minimum width of 20
from top of banks.
A small portion of UT-3 is generating riparian buffer enhancement credit from only one side of the stream.
Prior to construction, cattle had access to the entire area; however, the only access point was from the
pasture on the northern side of the stream, the Parcel owned by Mr. Lamm. Once fencing was installed
to prevent cattle access from Mr. Lamm's parcel to the stream, cattle will no longer be able to access the
south side of the stream. This action will result in compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6), which
states that the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock must be done such that the livestock are fenced
out of the stream and its adjacent buffer. The southern parcel, which is not apart of the conservation
easement, is owned by the Caviness family and is a single-family home. Cattle will not be grazing within
their parcel post construction.
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities
Riparian buffer preservation includes permanently protecting existing riparian buffers from cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the functionality of the riparian buffer.
Areas specified for Preservation at the Site, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295, are defined primarily
as mixed hardwoods, with the number of high -value species above 200 per acre. They are areas where
livestock were fenced out prior to construction with little or no historical livestock access.
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area
A marsh treatment area was constructed to intercept surface waters draining through agricultural areas
before discharging into UT1. The marsh treatment area is excluded from credit calculations.
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING
4.1 Monitoring
Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the Site as per guidelines
established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008); this covers 3.4%
of the area generating riparian buffer restoration credit. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the
fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves for a period of five monitoring years
following planting. Parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by
photograph. In addition, inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout
the course of the monitoring period.
The following table outlines riparian buffer monitoring for this project; monitoring parameter descriptions
follow.
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring
Required
Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
Eight (8) plots
Vegetation will be monitored for five years or until
Yes
Vegetation
located across all
Annual
performance standards are met. Visual monitoring of the
restored buffer
site will be done all five years. Analysis of vegetation will
zones.
be recorded using level 2 CVS Monitoring protocol.
Yes
Project
NA
Annual
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
Boundary
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
4.2 Performance Standards
Performance standards were established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development and the maintenance of diffuse flow through the riparian
buffer in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC
0213.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers).
Performance standards are dependent upon the density and growth of at least four native hardwood tree
species where no one species is greater than 50% of the stems. After five years of monitoring, an average
density of 260 woody stems per acre, including planted shrubs (silky dogwood and blueberry), must be
surviving, and diffuse flow maintained. 15A NCAC 02b .0295 (2)(E) dictates that monitoring for planted
stems would also include the health of planted stems. Level 2 CVS monitoring protocol requires the vigor,
a determinant of health, of a monitored stem be recorded. If requested, RS will make available during the
monitoring years, planted stem health, e.g. vigor.
4.3 Results and Discussion
In early January 2020, a winter -time visual assessment of the site was performed, and it was determined
that although Year 1 (2019) vegetation data, including random transects, showed a high density of trees,
a light supplemental planting would help ensure the long-term success in several areas. On January 31,
2020, three areas that visually exhibited low stem density and/or poor vigor were supplementally planted.
During the supplemental planting effort approximately 370 stems were planted across 1.20 acres
(approximately 300 stems per acre). As the planting was designated for visual purposes and was not an
effort to increase stem density data, no stems were planted within permanent vegetation plots. The
following table lists species included in the supplemental planting list. Preparation included the
application of 100 Ibs of lime, 50 Ibs of fertilizer, and 3 Ibs of seed to stabilize bare areas (see Figure A for
planting areas).
Supplemental Planting Species List
Species
Number of Stems
Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata)
20
Chinkapin (Castanea pumila)
20
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
50
Hawthorn (Crataegus marshallh)
20
Crab Apple (Malus angustifolia)
50
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra)
100
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
50
Shumard Oak (Quercusshumardii)
50
Total
370
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 397 hardwood tree stems
per acre (excluding livestakes, shrubs, pines, and vines) at year 3 (2021). In addition, all but three
permanent plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone. Plots 1 and 5 meet success criteria
when including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), and red oak (Quercus rubra). Additionally, three temporary vegetation transects also met success
criteria. The following Table 5 summarizes riparian buffer success criteria and Table 6 summarizes all
permanent vegetation plot data by species, plot, and year. Vegetation plot photographs are included in
Appendix B of the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Year 3 (2021) Annual Monitoring Report.
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F. page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Table 5. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Plot #
Success Criteria Met?
MY 3 (2021)
Planted Stems/Ac
MY 3 (2021)
All Stems/Ac
1
Yes
202
324
2
Yes
324
324
3
Yes
405
486
4
No
202
202
5
Yes
243
283
6
Yes
486
526
7
Yes
445
445
8
Yes
607
647
T-1
Yes
--
445
T-2
Yes
--
324
T-3
Yes
--
364
Average Planted
Stems/Acre
Yes
364
397
4.4 2022 Maintenance and Management
Restoration Systems continues to monitor fescue onsite and is planning an additional treatment in April
of 2022. Based on permanent and random vegetation monitoring plots and visual observations, planted
stems are establishing within areas where fescue was a concern. At this time, no additional planting is
proposed.
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

�I,III,IIIII,IIII
Ili
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIII
II,III,IIIII,IIIIII,I
IIIIIIilllilllllll
ZII
IIIIIIilllilllllll111
IIN
I
II........
IIIIIIIII
. . . . . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
...
g � !
p E E
E E Q
o v
E E

5.0 REFERENCES
Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0267, 15A NCAC 02B .0268, and 15A
NCAC 02B .0295
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Version 4.2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F: page 10
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamonce County, North Carolina January 2022

ATTACHMENT 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Year 3 (2021) Planted Stem Height Data
MY3 (2021) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F. Page 11
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

Legend
OEasement
�`_
_
N
--'New Fenc rg lns[alletlfor Cattle ExclusOn
_ _ _
r�1
\
--- Ex song Fenc ng Left nPmce for Cattle Exclusion
v
------ Fencing Remo dRe ,ketl for Cattle Exclusion
Stream AsbuiltTOB-TOB
1
I "\
\`
Marsh Treatment Area
`.,•
1; \)
I.
i�,.
�
{T Plot Onghs
1
1
q �; 2•�
CVS PI.. M-fing Success Crte i. MV3
CVSPIO Not Meetng Success Cr-i.MV3
( 1 )
1 `I
\. :.
Vegetatbn Transects Meetng Success Crmria MV3
® Supplemental Planing Area
- Wetlantl RestOm[on
(
I' '1 1 (
`,1
\ 6 1
- Wetlantl Enhancement
1 6\
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Type
,A
�M r
�TOB-100ft Resmra[On (1: 1) - 213,290 sgft
^kk
■ 101 ft. - 200 ft. Restora00n (1:1 but 33%cretlit per Rule) - 40,975 sq ft
TOB - 100 ft EnhancemeM (21 Cattle Ex. per Rule) - 341,433 sq ft
11^ \ `• \
\ \
\ \ ' 4 +
TOB-100ft Pres—i..(Nan-Subject Stream5.1)-25,514 sqR
101 ft. - 200 ft Pre —ri.n (N..-Subject Stream 5:1 antl 33% Cmdit per Rule) - 2,814 sq ft
Ilk , \ '� �.
'i� \
�{{
'\ - � �.y1��.• \
Nan Cretli[Genera[ ng (Less ttian 20 R)
TOB m 50 fee[
---I \
5 �\
4
--- 100fb ine
zaa Pootlme
1 V
Vl C:
'
r� * r
No credit is being
generated within the �" /� �2
Marsh Treatment Area.El
Y I I I 1 I I
i p
I +�L.�1Y
G 1 1
fl
_ V I 1 A I •I
>V V _ ---- -- A
This area is located
outside of the
easement and is j
not generating credit.
I
UT=3 �
0 70 140 280 420 560
Feet 1, ]
Dwn. By: FIGURE
Axiom Environmental Riparian Buffer Asset Map Date: CLF
Raleigh,
'
eigh,C 27607 � 9 Snow Ave Major Hill Mitigation Site Jan 2021 A
RalN
[phone] Alamance County, North Carolina Project: /'1
wmm eMA.�,mmt hc. 17-009

Plot
Scientific Name
X
Y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
Vigor
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
7.3
1.3
105
4
1
Carpinus caroliniana
9.2
4.1
131
4
1
Quercus
6.6
4.7
63
4
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1.6
1 3.8
73
4
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
6.7
9.7
90
4
2
Quercus phellos
2.9
0.5
190
1
4
2
Carpinus caroliniana
4.8
3.4
88
4
2
Carpinus caroliniana
7.1
6.5
31
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
10.0
7.1
100
3
2
Platanus occidentalis
4.5
10.0
0
Missing
2
Nyssa sylvatica
4.5
8.0
23
3
2
Quercus phellos
1.6
5.9
148
0.5
3
2
Diospyros virginiana
7.8
2.6
82
4
2
Carpinus caroliniana
7.5
4.6
64
4
3
Carpinus caroliniana
2.4
1.4
123
3
3
Quercus phellos
5.3
1.4
123
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
8.1
1.3
52
2
3
Carpinus caroliniana
6.8
2.7
94
4
3
Quercus phellos
10.0
3.0
43
4
3
Quercus nigra
9.0
7.0
0
Missing
3
Carpinus caroliniana
7.2
8.4
0
Missing
3
Carpinus caroliniana
6.2
6.4
0
Missing
3
Carpinus caroliniana
6.3
5.3
37
4
3
Cercis canadensis
4.2
10.0
10
3
3
Cercis canadensis
1.3
10.0
30
4
3
Diospyros virginiana
1.3
8.1
200
0.8
4
3
Nyssa sylvatica
1.7
5.3
92
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7.6
0.9
52
4
4
Quercus nigra
9.6
0.0
0
0
4
Quercus nigra
9.7
3.0
0
Missing
4
Betula nigra
7.6
3.3
50
4
4
Quercus nigra
9.8
7.1
0
Missing
4
Asimina triloba
8.3
8.2
24
1
4
Quercus nigra
6.2
8.0
18
3
4
Quercus nigra
4.8
6.3
0
Missing
4
Diospyros virginiana
2.4
7.2
100
4
4
Cercis canadensis
3.7
8.7
0
Missing
5
Quercus nigra
0.3
1.0
110
4
5
Platanus occidentalis
2.8
0.1
245
3
4
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2.1
3.7
88
4
5
Diospyros virginiana
5.1
4.3
0
Missing
5
Quercus nigra
5.5
1.2
61
4
5
Nyssa sylvatica
8.4
3.4
0
Missing
5
Quercus nigra
7.5
1 8.0
43
2
5
Quercus nigra
5.0
7.2
0
0
5
Quercus nigra
0.2
1 6.5
124
4

Plot
Scientific Name
X
Y
Height (cm)
DBH (cm)
Vigor
5
Betula nigra
2.5
7.2
0
Missing
6
Quercus nigra
2.2
0.3
73
4
6
Carpinus caroliniana
3.0
2.7
52
4
6
Diospyros virginiana
0.9
3.4
111
4
6
Cercis canadensis
5.9
2.1
0
Missing
6
Quercus phellos
6.5
0.8
83
4
6
Carpinus caroliniana
8.4
2.4
95
4
6
Quercus nigra
9.8
3.9
92
4
6
Platanus occidentalis
7.6
4.8
200
0.8
4
6
Quercus nigra
5.5
4.7
0
Missing
6
Fraxinus americana
9.0
7.0
170
0.2
4
6
Fraxinus americana
6.8
7.2
190
0.3
4
6
Fraxinus americana
4.6
8.0
200
0.4
4
6
Quercus nigra
0.5
8.1
87
4
6
Platanus occidentalis
2.2
6.7
175
0.5
4
7
Platanus occidentalis
2.6
2.5
0
Missing
7
Cornus amomum
2.4
4.7
0
Missing
7
Quercus phellos
4.8
0.9
118
4
7
Quercus phellos
5.3
3.0
170
0.3
4
7
Betula nigra
5.7
4.9
95
4
7
Quercus nigra
7.6
3.5
38
4
7
Quercus phellos
8.8
1.2
118
4
7
Asimina triloba
8.5
6.1
272
2
4
7
Quercus phellos
6.3
7.1
160
0.2
4
7
Quercus nigra
8.8
8.5
200
1
4
7
Quercus nigra
1.2
6.9
74
4
7
Quercus phellos
1.7
5.1
84
4
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3.6
8.2
290
3
4
8
Diospyros virginiana
3.3
1.1
0
Missing
8
Diospyros virginiana
4.3
1.5
85
4
8
Fraxinus
4.8
3.2
110
3
8
Quercus phellos
1.3
3.7
0
Missing
8
Diospyros virginiana
1.3
4.6
105
4
8
Cercis canadensis
7.3
0.4
50
4
8
Fraxinus americana
9.9
2.9
104
4
8
Betula nigra
7.3
2.8
65
2
8
Quercus nigra
5.1
5.0
112
4
8
Carpinus caroliniana
7.5
5.7
43
4
8
Cercis canadensis
9.8
6.0
44
2
8
Quercus phellos
7.4
6.2
144
0.2
4
8
Diospyros virginiana
7.2
7.6
150
0.2
4
8
Quercus phellos
8.4
8.7
95
4
8
Fraxinus americana
5.0
8.5
112
4
8
ICercis canadensis
1.5
7.4
0
0
8
1Diospyros virginiana
3.0
7.1
110
4
8
IQuercus phellos
1.7
1 9.2
82
4