20190158 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220118

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20190158 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/18/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/18/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Lindsay Crocker [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20190158 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Brahma
County: Alamance
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Brahma_100092_MY1_2021.pdf 6.18MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

MY1 FINAL MONITORING REPORT
BRAHMA SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
DMS Project No. 100092
Full Delivery Contract No. 7743
DMS RFP No. 16-007571
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00126
DWR Project No. 20190158
Data Collection: January- October 2021
Submission: January 2022
wlLI
' . •. r v srrr
$r
ffi
err, r.
f-f0211-01i13
_ -
h r
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
Mitigation Services RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.Suite 211
RS
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone] RESTORATION
Response to Monitoring Year 1(2021)DMS Comments SYSrEMS+ttC
Brahma Mitigation Site (DMS#100092)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002,Alamance County
Contract No. 7743
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses(Blue Text)
Report:
1. Table 1.Check UT2A and UT2. It appears that the lengths may have been swapped/typo.
Response:This was a typo and has been corrected.
2. The Mitigation Plan for this project shows a 3/1-10/22 growing season that was approved by the IRT. It was
previously discussed that providers should not change approved performance standards mid-stream.
Please update growing season(substantiated by soil temp)to match Mitigation Plan or provide justification
for changing that will require approval by IRT at credit release or however they deem necessary.
Response: The growing season was updated top reflect the methodology in the approved mitigation plan
(3/1-10/22,with the 3/1 start date substantiated by soil temperature).
Electronic comments:
1. In MYO UT-2 had an as-built length of 1360 ft, but in the MY1 report the length is described as 1392 ft. If
this difference is accurate, please submit an updated set of spatial features, or review and revise table to
match MYO table.
Response: This was a typo in the asset table. The MYO length of UT-2 was 1360 ft and this length did not
change between MYO and MY1.
2. Please update"#Encroachments noted"to 0 in Table 5.
Response:The number of encroachment areas was updated to 0.
3. DMS noticed a substantial number of Quercus sp.and several stems described as"other"in Table 8.If there
are species that should be added to the tool, please feel free to share that information and if not, provide
an explanation of lacking IDs.
Response: Stems described as "other" in table 8 refer to specimens that could not be identified with
confidence. This is typical in MYO and MY1, as some of the stems may not yet have the distinguishing
characteristics for proper identification. Likewise, "Quercus sp." refers to species that could not be
identified to species with confidence.With 6 different Quercus species on the planting list, it may take a bit
of time for some of the stems to grow and develop identifiable features before they can be identified
confidently to species. No species were identified that were not listed in the tool.
1101 Haynes St.,Suite 211 • Raleigh,NC 27604•www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490• Fx 919.755.9492

Brahma Year 1, 2021 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 1 (2021).
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver activated, etc. ) was
observed.
Streams
• Streams remained stable with little to no deviations from MYO even after receiving several high
discharge events.
• All engineered structures were stable and functioning within design parameters; no stream areas
of concern were documented.
Wetlands
• Eight of twelve groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2021) monitoring period.
Gauges 2, 3, 6, and 12 missed the success criteria but had hydroperiods of 8.9%, 7.6%, 10.6%, and
8.9%, respectively (Appendix D). No on-site rainfall was received between March 2 and March 15,
when biological activity began. Additionally, in April and May, virtually no rainfall occurred at the
Site, and June was well below the 30-year WETs average (Figure D1,Appendix D).
Yr. 1 (2021)Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026) (2027)
1 Yes
60 days(25.4%)
2 No
21 days(8.9%)
3 No
18 days(7.6%)
4 Yes
46 days(19.5%)
Yes
5 47 days(19.9%)
6 No
25 days(10.6%)
7 Yes
227 days(96.2%)
8 Yes
46 days(19.5%)
9 Yes
49 days(20.8%)
10 Yes
39 days(16.5%)
11 Yes
46 Days(19.5%)
12 No
21 Days(8.9%)
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Executive Summary
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Vegetation
• Measurements of the 23 vegetation plots (19 permanent and 4 random transects) resulted in an
average of 544 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes. All individual plots met success criteria
except random transects 20 and 22 (Tables 7-8, Appendix B).
Site Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Stream Vegetation
Project Millstones Monitoring Monitoring Wetland Data Analysis Completion
Monitoring Complete or Delivery
Complete Complete
Construction Earthwork -- -- -- -- December 9, 2020
Planting -- -- -- -- January 12, 2021
As-Built Documentation Jan. 11-12, 2021 Jan. 14-15, 2021 -- March 2021 April 2021
Year 1 Monitoring October 19,2021 July 28, 2021 Jan.—Nov.2021 November 2021 January 2022
Site Maintenance Report(2021)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
05/05/2021
09/10/21 Lime, Fertilizer,and Seed;veg plot 1 and
Sweetgum, Privet, Multi Flora Rose surrounding old pond bed,and UT-1 upland slope
below XC-5 to the confluence of UT-1 and UT-7
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Executive Summary
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

MY1 FINAL MONITORING REPORT
BRAHMA SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
DMS Project No. 100092
Full Delivery Contract No. 7743
DMS RFP No. 16-007571
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00126
DWR Project No. 20190158
Data Collection:January-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
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL OUAElTY
Prepared by:
And
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Restoration Systems,LLC Axiom Environmental,Inc.
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact:Worth Creech Contact:Grant Lewis
919-755-9490(phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 3
1.3 Success Criteria 5
2.0 METHODS 5
2.1 Monitoring 5
3.0 REFERENCES 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A.Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 4A-G.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5.Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7.Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table S.Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
Table 11.Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 13 A-E. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
Appendix E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 14. Project Timeline
Table 15. Project Contacts
Appendix F. Other Data
Preconstruction Benthic Results
Preconstruction Benthic Habitat Assessment Data Forms
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Table of Contents
Brahma 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)
Brahma Site (Site).
1.1 Project Background,Components, and Structure
The Brahma Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 22.7 acres of disturbed forest and
livestock pasture along unnamed tributaries to Reedy Branch (warm water streams in the Jordan Lake
watershed). The Site is located approximately 2 miles south of Snow Camp, NC, 5 miles northeast of Silk
Hope, NC, and southwest of Clark Road (SR 2352) in southern Alamance County.
Before construction, land use at the Site was characterized by disturbed forest and livestock pasture.
Riparian zones are primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to
livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land-management activities.
During mitigation plan preparation, two Pilgrim's Pride chicken houses were being constructed on the
property adjacent to the southeast portion of UT 1. The chicken houses were constructed on pads that
have a groundwater drainage network leading to two pipes that discharge adjacent to the easement.The
pipes do not drain effluent from the chicken houses and discharge clean water. Most drainage from the
chicken house facilities drains through a draw that is treated at the easement boundary and then
discharged in wetlands before entering Site tributaries.
Chicken waste management is being managed through a Joint Responsibility — Producer/Third-Party
Applicator agreement in a manner consistent with requirements set forth by the State of North Carolina
in 15A NCAC 02T Section 1400 (Manure Hauler Regulations) and NRCS standard 633 (Waste Utilization).
Documentation of the agreement is available upon request. Under the agreement, the producer
maintains the responsibility for keeping records on the amount of waste generated by the operation and
providing the responsible third party with waste analysis records.The third-party applicator is responsible
for applying materials at agronomic rates, soil testing,field evaluation, etc.
At present, no waste is to be discharged onto the property adjacent to the Site easement. If waste
management changes, a minimum setback of 100 feet from perennial waters is required.
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 3881.066 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 6.655
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) as described in Table 1.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Planting 17.7 acres of the Site with 20,200 stems (planted species are included in Table 6
[Appendix B]).
• Fencing the entire conservation easement.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Page 1
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 1.Brahma(ID-100092)Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio(X:1) Credits Comments
Stream
UT-1A 3034 3121 Warm El 1.50000 2,022.667
UT-1B 192 191 Warm Ell 2.50000 76.800
UT-1C 911 911 Warm P 10.00000 91.100
UT-2 1354 1360 Warm Ell 2.50000 541.600
UT-2A 30 30 Warm Ell 2.50000 12.000
UT-3 239 245 Warm R 1.00000 239.000
UT-4 129 135 Warm Ell 2.50000 51.600
UT-5 626 631 Warm Ell 2.50000 250.400
UT-6 501 511 Warm R 1.00000 501.000
UT-7 47 48 Warm Ell 2.50000 18.800
Total: 3,804.967
Wetland
Wetland Reestablish 4.740 4.736 R REE 1.00000 4.740
Wetland Enhancement 3.709 3.708 R E 2.00000 1.855
Wetland Preservation 0.601 0.601 R P 10.00000 0.060
Total: 1 6.655
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Restoration Level Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 740.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Re-establishment 0.000 4.740 0.000 0.000
Rehabilitation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Enhancement 0.000 1.855 0.000 0.000
Enhancement I 2,022.667 0.000 0.000
Enhancement II 951.200 0.000 0.000
Creation I 0.000 0.000 0.000
Preservation 91.100 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000
Benthics 2% 76.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Totals 3,881.066 0.000 0.000 6.655 0.000 0.000
Total Stream Credit 3,881.066
Total Wetland Credit 6.655

Site design was completed in August 2020. Construction started on August 29, 2020, and ended within a
final walkthrough on December 9, 2020. The Site was planted on January 12, 2021. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 14-15
(Appendix E).
1.2 Project Goals and 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 8.0 tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs - livestock removed from streams resulting in a direct
reduction of 1020.8 pounds of nitrogen, 84.6 pounds of phosphorus per year, and 11.2 x 1011
colonies of fecal coliform; fertilizer application has been eliminated; and marsh treatment areas
were installed);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas (NA).
Site-specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
pre-construction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see table
below).
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Page 3
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 2. Summary:Goals, Performance, and Results
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility with Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows • BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Attenuate flood flow across the Site. and restore jurisdictional wetlands • Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer • Minimize downstream flooding to the • Plant woody riparian buffer • Livestock excluded from the easement
maximum extent possible. • Remove livestock • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Connect streams to functioning wetland • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface(4) Microtopography Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
g
systems. roughness • Conservation Easement recorded
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with appropriate
(3)Stream Stability substrate
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension,and longitudinal profile • Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
(4)Sediment Transport • Increase stream stability within the Site • Remove livestock
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
so that channels are neither aggrading • Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate • ER of 2.2 or greater
nor degrading. • Plant woody riparian buffer < 10%chang
e in BHR and ER in anyye• ar
ear
(4)Stream Geomorphology • Stabilize stream banks • Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration • Install marsh treatment areas
• Plant woody riparian buffer • Livestock excluded from the easement
(2) Indicators of Stressors • Remove direct nutrient and pollutant • •
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
inputs from the Site and reduce • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Aquatic Life Tolerance • Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
(2) q contributions to downstream waters. • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
ripping/plowing.
Wetland Particulate Change • Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic floodplain
elevation.
Wetland Physical Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3)Substrate
• Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
(3) In-Stream Habitat • Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade • Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with appropriate
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows substrate
(2)Stream side Habitat • Improve instream and stream-side • Plant woody riparian buffer • Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream structures.
(3)Stream side Habitat habitat. • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3)Thermoregulation
• Stabilize stream banks • Conservation Easement recorded
• Install in-stream structures
Wetland Physical Structure
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No. 100092) page 4
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2022

1.3 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives
identified from on-site NC SAM data collection. 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 success criteria. The following
summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Streams
• 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 2.2 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.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions.
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3;a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; 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 in each plot.
• 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.
2.0 METHODS
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 1 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
Visual Assessment X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) page 5
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As built(unless otherwise All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data.
required)
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 Total of 12 cross sections on Graphic and tabular data.
restored channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels plan view figure with a written
Channel Stability assessment and photograph of the area
included in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Stream Hydrology Continuous monitoring surface water Continuous recording through 3 surface water gauges on UT 3,5, Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and/or trail camera monitoring period and 6 period
Continuous monitoring surface water Continuous recording through 3 surface water gauges on UT 3,5, Surface water data for each monitoring
Bankfull Events gauges and/or trail camera monitoring period and 6 period
Continuous through monitoring Visual evidence,photo documentation,
Visual/Physical Evidence 1 crest gauge on UT 1
period and/or rain data.
Pre-construction,Years 3,5,and 7 2 stations(on UT 1 upstream and Results*will be presented on a site-by-
"Qual 4"method described in Standard site basis and will include a list of taxa
Benthic Operating Procedures for Collection and during the"index period" UT 1 downstream);however,the collected,an enumeration of
Macroinvertebrates Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, referenced in Small Streams exact locations will be determined Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera,and
Version 5.0(NCDWR 2016) Biocriteria Development(NCDWQ at the time pre construction Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index
2009) benthics are collected
values.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Years 1,2,3,4,5,6,and 7 Soil temperature at the beginning of
throughout the year with the 10 gauges spread throughout each monitoring period to verify the
Wetland Restoration Groundwater gauges growing season defined as March restored wetlands start of the growing season,
1-October 22 groundwater and rain data for each
monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
Vegetation (100 square meters)in size;CVS-EEP As built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 19 plots spread across the Site Species,height,planted vs.volunteer,
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version stems/acre
establishment and 4.2(Lee et al.2008)
vigor Annual random vegetation plots,0.0247 4 plots randomly selected each
acre(100 square meters)in size As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria;however,the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in-stream habitat
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) page 6
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 1
(2021) monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix C.
Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Monitoring Period Used for 12 Percent of
Year Burst Documented Determining Success Monitoring Period
2021 (Year 1) March 1,2021* March 1-October 22 28 days
(236 days)
*Based on an onsite soil temperature logger reading of 48.75°F on March 1 and staying well above 41°F thereafter.
Eight of twelve groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2021) monitoring period. Gauges
2, 3, 6, and 12 missed the success criteria but had hydroperiods of 8.9%, 7.6%, 10.6%, and 8.9%,
respectively (Appendix D). No on-site rainfall was received between March 2 and March 15, when
biological activity began.Additionally, in April and May,virtually no rainfall occurred at the Site, and June
was well below the 30-year WETs average (Figure D1,Appendix D).
Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 19 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).Year 1 (2021)vegetation measurements occurred on July 28, 2021, and also included four random
transects (50 meter by 2 meter). Measurements of all 23 plots resulted in an average of 544 planted
stems/acre, excluding livestakes. Additionally, all individual plots met success criteria except random
transects 20 and 22 (Tables 7-8,Appendix B).
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Page 7
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 3.Project Attribute Table
-
Project Name Brahma Site
County Alamance County,North Carolina
Project Area(acres) 22.7
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude decimal degrees) 35.8540°N,79.4106°W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3030002050050
DWR Sub-basin 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area(acres) 231
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <2%
Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover&Hardwood Swamps
Reach Summary Information
UT 1 UT 1(downstream of
Parameters (upstream of UT 2 UT 3 UT4 UT5 UT6 UT7
confluence with UT2) Confluence with UT2)
Pre-project length(feet) 1071 3227 1384 239 129 657 501 47
Post-project(feet) 1072 3312 1390 245 135 662 511 48
Valley confinement(Confined,moderately confined,unconfined) Alluvial,confined-moderately confined
Drainage area(acres) 149.3 230.8 57.3 14.6 1.6 26.2 12.3 2.9
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Per Per Int/Per Int Int Int/Per Int Int
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C,NSW
Dominant Stream Classification(existing) G5 Cg 4/5 G4/5 G5 F6 G/F4/5 F5 G5
Dominant Stream Classification(proposed) C/E 4 C/E 4 G4/5 C/E 4 F6 C/F4/5 C/E 4 G5
Dominant Evolutionary class(Simon)if applicable III/IV Ililly III III V IV III/IV IV
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Pre-project(acres) 5.157 acres drained&4.427 acres degraded
Post-project(acres) 4.736 acres restored&4.309 acres enhanced/preserved
Wetland Type(non-riparian,riparian) Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Wehadkee
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Regulatory Considerations M.
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes 401 Permit
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes 404 Certification
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes CE Document
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes CE Document
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) NA NA NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat NA NA NA

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 Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online).Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%205ciences/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). 2008. Lumber River Basin Restoration
Priorities(online).Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Lumber_River_Basin/Lu
mber_RBRP_2008_FINAL.pdf(January 9, 2018).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual.Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Pub1.167.
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Page 9
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. Web Soil Survey (online).Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm [May 7, 2018]. United States
Department of Agriculture.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center.AgACIS Climate Data. Burlington Alamance Regional Airport WETS
Station (online). Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Page 10
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 4A-G. Stream Visual Stability Assessment
Table 5.Visual Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

R • _ 5. 34~ -_ -�,.._ _ --`fi ~.' .- r�..}�� �' r "a'' '{'
•
x
•
—1%tlilk- Ik'w. . .
4A ii '*'._.,. .-..1,,,4•41 1 4-...-•.•:1-.e.%.04-•-"•-0...—4_-.".1-.--I
p ti r k v _ rw.. .4' Prepared for:
6.44-se5•-
-'.,-.-.,.;1.- ' '_`--.'-':•---.•-'•'•'
.,._-"_..,..-r.,4•i?',--'...,k-,rseG•v.,.„P.•.t•,.1',-;:r-'7.„..'-..-.---.,t
ir... .
• .iI,i.r„.iec•,.
,.o5P..1,‘.'"_...1;"'13
.-•..IP r..
r _ 0 * j
-114,•,"0--".h r.'.-„,-:.
'-..I"l1-k-i-.•e„.-:..i4_r_r-t_...,,k..•r.)-..•4L;-w.l..-,t.i-o•--e.l-;.r:l-.i;t,,s..r,'-.•.,..f.--.'.t e-,:.'c.•..5:.,,'t.,-.-..i-..k-.
o-7•P t--',;.--r.,..-I..'r•g.i-•.-,'•,i',.-.4`"7•_'-.
I'l'-i,,
lI
l.
ir
t . : ' -
&2 . ..'� +r : v (4 . le"' J RESTORAT]ON
#:. { *' „y°P SYSTEMS Ll-C:
^' i •-1 x5 r s ... ! s Project:
r `���, ?F :_ vie:re- ... ;'
• r�rz , '' `f;9'`s _ V - "'� 11 *-.„f - -,-4-...„-,
�- B RAH MA
. 2 =. M10 s SITE
.' , - • ---- - - . —
y ';"' X_„n : }sue ;'s+ yA 12'
' - --r.-_,44.-41-,......--,':,....._ . _ --..'19'
1 Teti - _ _ `.s :. fN '' ,9 4
7 rs�� .. '� Alamance County, NC
•';' -.11V ._ . its....T. lijilimd. . . . .1%., it • i 4. )rs�0 8 �* �k� Gj� �+ Title:
1 4 i r X Y� '�X� _ L f L .; I sraC - W. Y-
iC � �N �ar..� -. •s 6 �5 ,:J '} ... 31117 4.' 18 - �# —_
2 '-- CURRENT
• .:,,,s# ?-'t'• . r �5 •Y l CONDITIONS
.. : ,,�°" " .B UT=� 'f Go - - AlliSiiii a 1` =�' ,,• _. .11, ;z .a PLAN VIEW
- ' • • • • ` Cif
- • mil •-- r Legend
'� .-r s" .r °61 `_ *. — + , • j Q Brahma Easement=22.7 ac
- `� , '1fi • ; `�'±'''.' r-' re"!? 40-.T ,. < ..._ —Stream Restoration Drawn by:
_ �r fklh c, ;� " s f_ :c • ,I(, - , Stream Enhancement(Level I) KRJ
i• - •,.-Y. - - . + ,. Stream Enhancement(Level II)
i:'+ F •
�`` i� ' - ' = ^ =•PA,', Stream Preservation Date:
y ,� •. + .�,. • • APR 2021
'rr• 40 +4 Stream Generating No Credit
,�� ` Wetland Reestablishment Scale:
uFl(r. '! h' • Wetland Enhancement 1:3100
�L _mai
- P =Wetland Preservation Project No.:
�! 'ter, Permanent Vegetation Plots 19-006
•„- a� * Vegetation Plot Origins
,.. ,, JrIII .�+ - Cross-Sections
■. ,# iiMY1 Temporary Vegetation Transects Not Meeting Success Criteria
•�• '�,r' MY1 Temporary Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria
it. * - - . t- -rviegs.
FIGURE
_ ,� _ ,.i . • Groundwater Gauges •
- off`• ssjn �iw ,�Mi1e>ya: F Fr" ,�'-... _ ♦ Stream Flow/Crest Gauges
!, '
1 jis; r , �� �-� - ' s`�' Rain Gauge/Soil Temperature Logger
• Benthic Sampling Stations 1
' > ' r- e A, 0 250 500 1,000
'`,.'+ -- .--sr..- ":.'. . � f. �""= Feet

Table 4A. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 1
Assessed Stream Length 3312
Assessed Bank Length 6624
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 33 33 100%
the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 33 33 100%
guidance document)

Table 4B. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 2
Assessed Stream Length 1390
Assessed Bank Length 2780
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 8 8 100%
the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 8 8 100%
guidance document)

Table 4C. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 3
Assessed Stream Length 245
Assessed Bank Length 490
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 6 6 100%
the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 6 6 100%
guidance document)

Table 4D. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 4
Assessed Stream Length 135
Assessed Bank Length 270
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 0 0 100%
the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 0 0 100%
guidance document)

Table 4E. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 5
Assessed Stream Length 662
Assessed Bank Length 1324
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 0 0 100%
the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 0 0 100%
guidance document)

Table 4F. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 6
Assessed Stream Length 511
Assessed Bank Length 1022
Number
Stable, Amount of %Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Toe Erosion Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 19 19 100%
the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%.(See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 19 19 100%
guidance document)

Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage 17.7
Mapping Combined %of Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Acreage Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria. 0.10acres 0.00 0.0%
Total 0.00 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard. 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage 22.7
Mapping Combined %of Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Acreage Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated
against the total easement acreage.-Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native,
Invasive Areas of Concern 0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
young,woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing communities. Species
included in summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line,or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of
Easement Encroachment Areas restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing,cattle access, none 0
vehicular access.Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
area.

Brahma Site
MY1 (2021)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs(taken July 2021)
Plot 1 * --r•;. "' .N - ,:.• s Plot 2
, §. S::Ye�aYs:4:1}[ tit: ;a *Photo taken November 2021
�
Plot 3 _'r / - - - Plot I
1.
. - 4.1 --
.. so-
1 ', 64•
f- f f • S ]
•
K ..
— -r.,siik,.. a.,. @ •'L'c v'; L' b << `z.,- --a: 'to
G3 _ "•ii.: ll?,TVA - •y,K:nr- f
A Plot 5 • •• ;r •
.t'if x Plot 6
• . •= _•Y -
FTfi-ram , " �_ .� ,. '
�� a __ i
vim'' f.., f 'L Y .�.,.
•
fib"- 7 _ '[ t_.
J. ie.,,�R: Y'�'�� 11' t.I- ;^,t _ s� 'S+IY..�J•�.j -d..iII.P J •'x'` -•:? .,:
--ccam� •• T. �'.': 4 �.�loe
;;� F `iz lF•f,, 1---
�' ti s
^ ,,4 � i, - - - et ' x r! Plot 8 Plot 7 - • r- .,.•4 :.' y
:. - '_ ..ri. _ ;;vFi;.
7- „$
-- -
Brahma Site Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data
MY1 Monitoring Report—2021

Brahma Site
MY1 (2021)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs(taken July 2021)
Plot 9 Plot 10
- I.
'
'.
1
Plot 11 Plot 12
,a•
.• _ .an.`:f' 1. _ `.}.: - _ate.
Plot 13 +'? ,F • y" ' Plot 14
'Ire,. i' . . ..c.4 kr . _-,4.:7, "r, `,. , ,..
•
Plot 15 Plot 16
• r
'i r "ice�` ors y• . . - .....
h ,-
Brahma Site Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data
MY1 Monitoring Report-2021

Brahma Site
MY1 (2021)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs(taken July 2021)
Plot 17 Plot 18
} ' ..- :tss - 4f " P46 _- l.
571-1 Plot 19Ilik
s
Brahma Site Appendix A.Visual Assessment Data
MY1 Monitoring Report-2021

Appendix B
Vegetation Data
Table 6. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7.Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8.Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Brahma Site
Species Total
Acres 17.7
Asimina triloba 200
Betula nigra 1500
Celtis occidentalis 500
Cephalanthus occidentalis 600
Corn us amomum 2700
Diospyros virginiana 500
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 900
Liriodendron tulipifera 1000
Morus rubra 600
Nyssa sylvatica 1000
Platanus occidentalis 2700
Quercus alba 1000
Quercus lyrata 500
Quercus nigra 2000
Quercus pagoda 1000
Quercus phellos 2000
Quercus shumardii 1000
Ulmus americana 500
TOTALS 20,200
Average Stems/Acre 1141
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Brahma Site
Plot# Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met?
1 931 Yes
2 567 Yes
3 526 Yes
4 486 Yes
5 567 Yes
6 648 Yes
7 648 Yes
8 526 Yes
9 567 Yes
10 445 Yes
11 486 Yes
12 486 Yes
13 810 Yes
14 486 Yes
15 769 Yes
16 526 Yes
17 729 Yes
18 445 Yes
19 688 Yes
R-20 283 No
R-21 364 Yes
R-22 202 No
R-23 324 Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre 544 Yes
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Planted Acreage 17.7
Date of Initial Plant 2021-01-01
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) #N/A
Date(s)Mowing #N/A
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-15
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/S Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F
Scientific Name Common Name hrub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 1 1 3 3 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 4 4 4 4 1 1
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU 4 4 2 2
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 7 7
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 5 5 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 3 3
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 5 5 2 2
Species Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1
Included in Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1
Approved other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mitigation
Plan Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 3 3
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1 2 2 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree_ FACW 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 2 2
Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak Tree FAC 1 1
Quercus sp. 4 4 4 4 3 3 6 6 10 10 5 5 7 7 3 3 4 4 7 7 4 4
Ulmus americans American elm Tree FACW 1 1 3 1 1 3 3
Sum Performance Standard 23 23 14 14 13 13 12 12 14 14 16 16 16 16 13 13 14 14 11 11 12 12 12 12
,Current Year Stem Count 23 14 13 12 14 16 16 13 14 11 12 12
Mitigation Stems/Acre 931 567 526 486 567 648 648 526 567 445 486
Plan Species Count 7 5 7 5 6 6 6 5 6 4 5 6
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 30 36 31 25 43 62 31 54 43 36 58 33
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 23 14 13 12 14 16 16 13 14 11 12 12
Post Stems/Acre 931 567 526 486 567 648 648 526 445 486 486
Mitigation Species Count 7 5 4 5 6
Plan
� 8
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 30 36 3 5 33
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1
%Invasives
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum(regular font),and
species that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes data from mitigation plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

Planted Acreage 17.7
Date of Initial Plant 2021-01-01
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) #N/A
Date(s)Mowing #N/A
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-15
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
—
Indicator Veg Plot 20 Veg Plot 21 Veg Plot 22 Veg Plot 23
Tree/Shrub Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 F Veg Plot 17 F Veg Plot 18 F Veg Plot 19 F
Scientific Name Common Name Status R R R R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1 1
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 4 4
Species Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Included in Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC
Approved other 5 5 1 1 3 3
Mitigation
Plan Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 6 6 3 3 2 2 5 6 2 2
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 2 2
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 2 2 1 1 _ 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 4 4 5 5 4
Quercus shumardii Shumard's oak Tree FAC _
Quercus sp. 9 9 5 5 13 13 3 3 6 6 3 3 3 3 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW
Sum Performance Standard 20 20 12 12 19 19 13 13 18 18 11 11 17 17 7 9 5 8
Current Year Stem Count 20 12 19 13 18 11 17 7 9 5 I 8
Mitigation Stems/Acre 810 486 769 526 729 445 688 283 364 202 324
Plan Species Count 6 8 3 5 _ 6 7 7 3 4 4 4
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 45 42 68 46 33 27 29 71 67 40 50
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
Current Year Stem Count 20 12 19 13 18 11 17 7 9 5 8
Post Stems/Acre 810 486 769 526 729 445 688 283 364 202 324
Mitigation Species Count 6 8 3 5 7 3 4 4 4
Plan � ,
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 45 I 47 68 46 29 71 67 40 50
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
%Invasives
1).Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year,italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum(regular font),and species
that are not approved(italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"includes data from mitigation plan approved,post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.

Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 9A-B. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-1,Pool
Feature Pool „,
Date: 10/19/2021 , •
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis
�Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ` • •
0.0 597.3 Bankfull Elevation: 597.1 ''x'.::
1.7 597.1 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.02
3.1 597.0 Thalweg Elevation: 595.4 ._-- "'
4.4 596.8 LTOB Elevation: 597.1 r �
5.3 596.3 LTOB Max Depth: 1.6 ._ ..,0
6.2 595.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 9.0 .7 - -. 4d.;.r` - F;
6.9 595.5 f.
h i
7.8 595.4
8.5 595.4 - - s
9.3 595.6
10.1 595.7
11.0 596.3
11.8 596.8 Stream Type il E/C 5
12.4 597.1
13.5 597.2
14.1 597.4 Brahma,UT 1,XS-1,Pool
14.8 597.6
15.6 597.8
16.4 597.9
17.4 597.7
t
597 596 __
---BanNWI
MY-0012/16/20
MY-0110/19/2021
595 ! I '
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-2,Riffle
.-r Feature Pool . � ._ +_• -
Date: 10/19/2021 `i;a;+
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis r• ti I 4 ,, - 4
, , _
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 597.6 Bankfull Elevation: 597.4
1.2 597.5 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.05
2.9 597.5 Thalweg Elevation: 596.5
3.8 597.4 LTOB Elevation: 597.5 r
5.0 597.0 LTOB Max Depth: 1.0 '' .
5.7 596.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 6.5 :,,
41 's
6.4 596.8 t
7.3 596.6 •'.;
7.9 596.5 -
8.9 596.5
10.0 596.6
10.8 596.6
11.9 596.7 Stream Type E/C 5
12.2 596.9
12.9 597.1
13.5 597.3 Brahma,UT 1,XS-2,Riffle
13.9 597.5
14.9 597.8
16.0 598.1
17.0 598.1
18.3 598.24
19.8 598.2
598 -
O1
5
z
0
1
W 597iII2O2l
596 1 I I -
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-3,Riffle � s`
Feature Riffle Fs.. = '7: .=' ° ,aj, •
Date: 10/19/2021 _."\ <•.:4`,, .t. 'R
y- t
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis ...,co.. e: :1"'"'''''"
;, .�. ? 7. 4''`-.. .sh
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA.0
? =r
0.0 599.8 Bankfull Elevation: 599.3 ti 0
1.6 599.8 Bank Hieght Ratio: 0.99 ,' '
2.8 599.5 Thalweg Elevation: 598.0 __ 1
3.9 599.3 LTOB Elevation: 599.3 `
5.1 598.7 LTOB Max Depth: 1.3
6.4 598.5 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 10.3
7.4 598.3 Y.
8.5 598.1
9.2 598.0
10.2 598.1
11.1 598.0
12.0 598.2
12.8 598.5 Stream Type E/C 5
13.6 598.6
15.0 598.8
16.2 599.2 Brahma,UT 1,XS-3,Riffle
17.3 599.2
18.2 599.3 600
19.5 599.3
20.7 599.3
599
t
t
z
•0
TO
d
W 598
MY-0012/I6/20
MY-0110/19/2021
597 -1 I I
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-4,Pool
Feature Pool a
Date: 10/19/2021
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis '',
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 601.0 Bankfull Elevation: 600.4 :9.
1.3 600.7 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.04
3.1 600.8 Thalweg Elevation: 598.1
4.4 600.5 LTOB Elevation: 600.5
4.9 599.9 LTOB Max Depth: 2.4 - ..
5.9 598.6 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 15.5 , r;=,
6.7 598.5
7.6 598.1 r ;�'J 'Fy
8.7 598.2 ,, r �: _
9.4 598.2
10.3 598.2
11.0 598.5
11.4 598.6 Stream Type E/C 5
11.9 599.4
12.7 599.9
13.5 600.2 Brahma,UT 1,XS-4,Pool
14.3 600.4
15.3 600.6 601
17.2 600.5
18.4 600.7
19.9 600.82
600 - `t i
5
J599
NIL j
W `
' i -598 MY-0012/16/20
MY-0110/19/2021
597 -1 I I
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-5,Riffle ^ ,.
Feature Riffle
Date: 10/19/2021 1. '"
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis . ' 4
V ,
L Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
16.6 606.5 Bankfull Elevation: 606.5 �'
14.4 606.3 Bank Hieght Ratio: 0.99
13.0 606.2 Thalweg Elevation: 604.9 • ' -
r=; t
12.0 605.6 LTOB Elevation: 606.5 .�=r
10.9 605.1 LTOB Max Depth: 1.6 •;per
10.1 604.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 10.5
7.8 605.0 1�`
6.9 605.2 hi.. -
6.3 605.2
5.6 605.4
5.1 606.0
4.1 606.3 Stream Type E/C 5
3.0 606.5
1.5 606.6
0.0 606.6 Brahma,UT 1,XS-5,Riffle
607
:::
i
-----s� �
MY-0012/1620
MY-01 10/192021
604 -1 I 1
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-6,Pool . Y,. • -"
:
Feature Pool =tie•-- Q *' e+
Date: 10/19/2021 `'' °
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis . ark •ex•' ';
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA w • •` ,*_' • _'_ •
• ,fir • f'•.,
0.0 606.8 Bankfull Elevation: 606.7 a- its-. h . . •A
1.2 606.8 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.01 fe,',:"G, ', s'
2.6 606.7 Thalweg Elevation: 603.1 0;{ '. w. '
3.8 606.5 LTOB Elevation: 606.7 t-�.;C�:.•`- 4.::•"
4.7 606.2 LTOB Max Depth: 3.6 .
5.6 605.9 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 18.7 `
6.7 605.4 w .,
8.0 605.3
9.0 604.8
9.8 604.3
10.4 603.6
11.1 603.1
11.5 603.1 Stream Type E/C 5
12.3 603.2
13.3 606.2
15.4 606.6 Brahma,UT 1,XS-6,Pool
16.8 606.7
18.0 606.7 607
606
5
0 605
W
604 MY-0012/16/20
MY-01 10/19/2021
603 I '
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-7,Riffle
Feature Riffle 4 �' •
Date: 10/19/2021 • -'`...-.
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ,, - �y,: ,r'e".- -
• a r t•_ ::.: - .. •
-0.4 611.8 Bankfull Elevation: 611.7 a-; t.- _: !'"`::. "s:4. '
0.9 611.8 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.07 . }'"
2.9 611.8 Thalweg Elevation: 610.1 '.
3.8 611.3 LTOB Elevation: 611.8
4.9 610.9 LTOB Max Depth: 1.7 •
5.6 610.5 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 12.1 F---- - -
_ 6.5 610.4
7.4 610.2
8.0 610.2 �_
8.8 610.2
9.5 610.1
10.2 610.2
11.3 610.3 Stream Type E/C 5
12.0 610.6
12.8 611.4
13.7 611.7 Brahma,UT 1,XS-7,Riffle
15.0 611.8
15.8 611.9
16.9 611.9
i
612 611 --BaNfull
1\1".44144140......1.1.0.1- ..
MY-0012/16/20
MY-01 10/19/2021
609 - I
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma S
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT1,XS-8,Riffle ..r „
Feature Riffle -`` ;. . E;• '
Date: 10/19/2021 r ' - "
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis f • • .:F 1A}• `Ve - ,-..
z.
LStation Elevation SUMMARY DATA •-•• r
-2.0 611.9 Bankfull Elevation: 611.7 ` .
-0.3 612.2 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.03 ,. • • ...
1.2 612.1 Thalweg Elevation: 609.1 I.'
2.8 611.9 LTOB Elevation: 611.7 <•- _
4.1 611.6 LTOB Max Depth: 2.6
5.1 611.2 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 13.9 s:v~ '
5.9 611.1 h 1,%
6.6 610.1 r } ., .az" I
7.4 609.6
8.4 609.4
8.9 609.2
9.7 609.1
10.2 609.1 Stream Type E/C 5
10.9 609.4
11.5 610.0
12.4 611.5 Brahma,UT 1,XS-8,Riffle
12.9 611.7
13.8 611.8 613 I
14.9 612.1
15.9 612.1
17.9 612.26 -� �..-----
612 - - - -
5
1 611
ti
W \
609
MY-0012116/20
_ t MY-01 10/19/2021
608 ! I '
0 10 20
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT3,XS-9,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 10/19/2021 -- 601 ` it
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 602.1 Bankfull Elevation: 602.0
1.0 602.2 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.02
2.4 602.2 Thalweg Elevation: 601.4
3.3 602.1 LTOB Elevation: 602.0
4.0 601.9 LTOB Max Depth: 0.6
4.7 601.5 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 1.8
5.1 601.4 f' 1
6.1 601.5
6.8 601.7
7.5 601.9
8.2 601.9
9.3 601.9
10.3 602.0 Stream Type E/C 5
11.2 602.1
Brahma,UT 3,XS-9,Riffle
603 -
."11166.11/ \1/41i..... :3010."1:10000
5
0 601 -
MY-0012/16/20
MY-01 10/19/2021
600 -
0 10
Station(feet)

Site !Brahma Site
Watershed: I Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT3,XS-10,Pool ��,
Feature Pool ` l •_ r
5'
Date: 10/19/2021 `;1,
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA -
0.0 602.5 Bankfull Elevation: 602.5 ,
r
1.5 602.6 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.12 �: '•'- '
3.4 602.6 Thalweg Elevation: 601.7 4 : O`'"
4.3 602.5 LTOB Elevation: 602.6 ��.-'J,.;
5.1 601.7 LTOB Max Depth: 0.9 <
5.8 601.8 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 2.1
6.5 602.0
7.4 602.5 3
8.1 602.6 - _.'; ` ...,
9.3 602.7
10.5 602.7
11.7 602.8
12.7 602.7 Stream Type E/C 5
Brahma,UT 3,XS-10,Pool
604 -
I
MY-0012/16/20
MY-01 10/19/2021
601 - I
0 10
Station(feet)

Site Brahma Site
Watershed: Cape Fear River Basin,03030002
XS ID UT6,XS-11,Pool •
Feature Pool } c
Date: 10/19/2021 lit '
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis x
-1 r ..
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA v...
0.1 94.1 Bankfull Elevation: 605.9 •,r;s--'w mg -
1.8 94.2 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.00 r.
3.0 94.2 Thalweg Elevation: 604.8 W y
3.8 94.4 LTOB Elevation: 605.8 _t a 5"�Il
xS, *. . -r
4.3 94.7 LTOB Max Depth: 1.0 ,
11*
4.9 95.2 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 3.3 1
5.4 95.2 r•
6.2 95.1
7.1 94.8 • • -
_ 7.6 94.7
8.6 94.3
9.1 94.3
10.2 94.2 Stream Type E/C 5
11.3 94.2
12.5 94.3
Brahma,UT 6,XS-11,Pool
607 -
606
z
0
TO
d
W 605
.Bankfull
MY-0012/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
604 -1 I
0 10
Station(feet)

Site !Brahma Site
Watershed: I Cape Fear River Basin,03030002 '
XS ID UT6,XS-12,Riffle F ': _ ' .1,
Feature Riffle '` {•' .,• k r
Date: 10/19/2021 _','3 yet
Field Crew: Perkinson,D.Lewis I.
- "
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA :::�-
:*:41.,*'.
0.1 606.4 Bankfull Elevation: 605.9 It:, . •
0.9 606.3 Bank Hieght Ratio: 1.01 a :..:-'
...R ;
1.9 606.0 Thalweg Elevation: 605.2
.. g.. :...
11
2.6 605.9 LTOB Elevation: 605.9 r ; �. '
3.2 605.9 LTOB Max Depth: 0.7 .
_ r
4.1 605.6 LTOB Cross Sectional Area: 1.8 4 s1i '
4.5 605.5 ,.
5.2 605.2
5.8 605.3
6.4 605.3
6.8 605.4
7.6 605.8
8.4 605.8 Stream Type E/C 5
9.2 606.0
10.1 606.3
11.4 606.0 Brahma, UT 6,XS-12,Riffle
12.1 606.0
607
e
t
lb-
.F:, 606
W
\ MY-001]/16n0
i
MY-0110/19n1
605 I
0 10
Station(feet)

Table 9A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma-UT 1(Upstream)
Monitoring Baseline
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition(applicaple) Design (MYO) Monitoring Year 1(MY1)
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.8 8 16 9.4 10.8 9.8 12.9 3 10.3 14.1 3
Floodprone Width(ft) 6 8 14 40 100 100 100 3 100 100 3
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.0 3 0.6 0.8 3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.6 3 0.9 1.6 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.2 10.7 3 6.0 10.7 3
Width/Depth Ratio 4.5 9.1 32 12 16 11.3 15.8 3 16.0 18.9 3
Entrenchment Ratio 0.9 1 1 4.3 9.3 7.8 10.2 3 7.1 9.7 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.5 1.9 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 3
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification G5 E/C 4 E/C 4 E/C 4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 28.2 28.2 28.2 28.2
Sinuosity(ft) 1.1 1.12 1.12 1.12
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0076 0.0075 0.0073 0.0073
Other
Table 9B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma-UT 1(Downstream)
,Monitoring Baseline
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition(applicaple) Design (MYO) Monitoring Year 1(MY1)
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.4 8.2 16.9 10.2 11.8 9.6 9.6 1 10.5 10.5 3
Floodprone Width(ft) 14 19 100 50 150 75.0 75.0 1 75 75 3
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 1.1 3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.8 1.6 2.7 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1 1.6 1.6 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 1 11.0 11.0 3
Width/Depth Ratio 3.4 7• .8 33.8 12 16 8.4 8.4 1 9.9 9.9 3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 2• .4 13.3 4.9 12.7 7.8 7.8 1 7.2 7.2 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 2• .1 2.9 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 3
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull _
Rosgen Classification Gg 4/5 E/C 4 E 4 E/C 4 -
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) - 34.4 - 34.4 34.4 28.2 -
Sinuosity(ft) -
1.33 1.33 1.33 1.12 _
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) _ 0.0052 0.0052 0.0064 0.0073 -
Other

Table 9C. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma-UT 3
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition(applicaple) Design Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Baseline
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.1 3.8 ' 5.9 ' 4.1 ' 4.7 ' 4.9 ' 4.9 1 6.6 6.6 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 3 5 8 25 75 50.0 50.0 1 50.0 50.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1 0.3 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft') 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.2 9.5 19.7 12 16 14.3 ' 14.3 ' 1 25.6 25.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 0.8 1.4 1.6 6.1 15.8 10.2 ' 10.2 ' 1 7.6 7.6 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.3 3.2 4 1 1.3 1.0 ' 1.0 ' 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification G 5 E/C 4 E/C 4 E/C 4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
Sinuosity(ft) 1.08 1.12 1.12 1.12 )
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.017 0.0173 0.0195 0.0195
Other
Table 9D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma-UT 6
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition(applicaple) Design Monitoring Baseline Monitoring Baseline
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 3.3 6.5 16.3 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 1 5.4 5.4 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 5 13 23 25 75 50.0 50.0 1 50.0 50.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1 0.3 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 1 0.7 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 1 1.8 1.8 1
_ Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 32.5 163 ' 12 16 9.6 9.6 1 16.0 16.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1.5 2.7 6.1 15.8 12.1 12.1 1 9.2 9.2 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 3.1 5 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull _ _
Rosgen Classification F 5 E/C 4 E 4 E 4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
Sinuosity(ft) 1.02 1.12 1.12 1.12
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0203 0.0173 0.0297 0.0297
Other

Table 10A. Monitoring Data-Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Brahma/DMS:100092) UT 1
UT 1-Cross Section 1(Pool) UT 1-Cross Section 2(Riffle) UT 1-Cross Section 3(Riffle) UT 1-Cross Section 4(Pool) UT 1-Cross Section 5(Riffle)
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MOO MY5 MY7 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankful(Area 597.11 597.07 597.43 597.41 599.24 599.30 600.54 600.41 606.49 606.47
Bank Height Ratio_Based on Al Bankfull Area 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.05 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 595.50 595.42 596.4 596.49 597.83 598.00 598.02 598.06 604.9 604.89
LTOB'Elevation 597.11 597.09 597.4 597.45 599.24 599.29 600.54 600.50 606.5 606.46
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 1.61 1.67 1.04 0.96 1.41 1.28 2.52 2.44 1.60 1.56
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft) 8.7 9.01 6.0 6.51 10.5 10.35 14.6 15.47 10.7 10.55
UT I-Cross Section 6(Pool) UT 1-Cross Section 7(Riffle) UT 1-Cross Section 8(Riffle)
MOO MY1 MY2 M03 MOO M07 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 M07 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation Ill)-Based on AB-Bankful(Area 606.58 606.65 611.70 611.65 611.59 611.68
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull Area 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.03
Thalweg Elevation 602.89 603.09 610.1 610.08 609.02 609.10
LTOB'Elevation 606.58 606.70 611.7 611.76 611.59 611.74
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) 3.69 3.61 1.61 1.68 2.57 2.64
LT0132 Cross Sectional Area(ft) 18.0 18.67 11.0 12.13 13.3 13.94
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.The outcome
resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward.They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull
area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank.These are calculated as follows:
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankful Area 1-Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2,then the MY1 bankfull
Bank Height Ratio Based on AB BankfuIR Area elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MOD cross section survey=10 ft2.The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank(LTOB)
_
elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MOD in the numerator with the difference between the MOD bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.This same process is
Thalweg Elevation
then carried out in each successive year.
LTOB'Elevation 2-LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used
LTOB'Max Depth(ft) and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area He)
Note:The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection,therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement(as a percentage)is by default magnified as channel size decereases.Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is duet°the large amount of depositional sediments observed.
Table 10B. Monitoring Data-Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Brahma/DMS:100092) UT 3 and UT 6
UT 3-Cross Section 9(Riffle) UT 3-Cross Section 10(Pool) UT 6-Cross Section 11(Pool) UT 6-Cross Section 12(Riffle)
MOO MAD MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY* MOO MAD MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MOO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation)ft).Based on AB-BankfulE Area 602.04 602.02 602.55 602.53 605.79 605.85 605.90 605.89
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfd Area 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01
Thalweg Elevation 601.40 601.43 601.7 601.72 604.69 604.83 605.26 605.25
LTOB'Elevation 602.04 602.03 602.6 602.64 605.79 605.85 605.90 605.90
LT013'Max Depth(k) 0.64 0.60 0.83 0.91 1.10 1.02 0.64 0.65
LTOB'Cross Sectional Area(ft') 1.7 1.77 1.6 2.06 3.4 3.34 1.6 1.83
Bankfull Elevation(ft).Based on AB-Bankful)Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB BankfuIR Area
Thalweg Elevation
LT013'Elevation
LT013'Max Depth(Hi
LT013'Cross Sectional Area(ft)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of EMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners.The outcome
resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward.They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull
area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank.These are calculated as follows:
Banking Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-BankfulF Area 1-Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2,then the MY1 bankfull
Bank Height Ratio Based on AB BankfulF Area elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MOD cross section survey=10 ft2.The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank(LTOB)
_
elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator.This same process is
Thalweg Elevation
then carded out in each successive year.
LT013'Elevation 2-LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used
LT013'Max Depth(ft) and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
LT0132 Cross Sectional Area(ft)
Rote:The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements areto their limit of reliable detection,therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement las a percentage)is by default magnified as channel size decereases.Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data
Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 13 A-E. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 11.Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Date of Photo
Collection Occurrence Method (if available)
December 24, December 24, Trail cameras and crest gauges documented a bankfull
2020 2020 event on UT1 and UT2 after 1"of rain was captured by an 1,2
on-site rain gauge on December 24.
Trail cameras and crest gauges documented a bankfull
January 31,2021 January 31, 2021 event on tributaries 1,2,3,and 4 after 2.25"of rain was 3,4,5,6
captured by an on-site gauge between January 25—31.
+'t4 ,r!' �,t,,+qIP Photo 1: UT1 during a bankfull event. )
+ 1 rl if/ �} 1 e.�. i ' r'1�; + f 't r
yY�� i
j I. 1 li q�i rl r II c- ���1 f 1 •r 4
rk• d Sit 4 f,'' °' v.fti' } , ' 9 r �}: O ,; i- t
R'e pig • (Y A f 'Ili- it>1pi r � '�`�t r+Tz r C i �, , I.
J' I I fro�it 11, ' t r{ I f�' i.r 1� lr �'.�,,, 1k'4.R,:',, ,. '{�1�' .,,:, ..Y.i 3 r r
ll l 4G fiN to k ,— I .i y i.' ,7Ff ri f r k.rn' ,1 ' t:'`'% I_ •
' i - _
''I I!
I �� � q[Mu. rS J � !1 !�( �� p hi�:,\ f� Y ��,I. Y - MI J _.
Pt''Ill 1 :,, "! ": I} y .erw..�(� ri- '' ' y �dwSyx�YY'' h . ',,.� • '4 14= .' Ykr �!
j i n � �. � �I� ! '� � rH. �r r �, � ti
,,'I r `s�tiii�` . �":i y 4,,..
I,� ,a .fib, r,,y. _,L r•.:.f�'.� ;.. - t ' ,1 '
�r S,,(X1/ ;� G��f rl a `r art :'' , Ke
;�}� fs� !Y � -I r '� 1 (� I �' -.-
f,,I 01,0 �i{ yA '17 I �' ^,, 5! '�. i lr 4. t, t�� r �. ! .. T
lYl 4 f� I,a f�'r:- ,/i 1? f�a - , �i; , '1✓ �£ i. ! J ' ? r l a
IAI f� �!Y f `+, g �\ :;-::2:,...3::::::7..„1,,:,i_•• > M'i r' k � sz.,..y r -1 4•• �l•i .- -i- � -�r •=II;.,,, yJrP r -YL' e S R '\ J ' - h tFr^ ' _ , 1 i11 � 7t i r f" os I,a k , ` „- V� ti.,"3` I < t
1++ld++i"n i fl ff ICII rJ 'a i t'��yq(C'.''','i`fie -I ' Yri rr. • 71�}�t -_ 1 �� �'"a▪' RI�t,�y� +
f P 1 4.] tl .,' '±:. 14,6� ,.; y, -''''- K 4 .G';�54 9y �.)11V„,. i;.,,,,N 9 5i4.
,�1! V �{.� ' +a]`�t....,,, - , Ii:..+ray< h, .1 ,,�, �', + �f t �t41 /'yyy. ti A /_,_ r , .n.- irr .� _ �` r`Qr 'a4,IOW ��,t �,44
., . ^ -. l'!, I 1‘1' ! II 1 1I'I. i•�F �y r `::iVti, h,1� c i 10
:Jr ,,J ! rP �� ! t Y�' i 3 �-1 ` i T' j� ,y 1� �j„i � ��
-• f ICI r. , !I ,4.4 i... !',7 � f. . `hn _.. L'vit.,'i i2,,,..� r�,C_r" y▪ am;.,
.. ��„"hh1111 1 -0. r '! � l •R
1 ,.f.
.,.,-........4,..,„.-,::S ,. .. -.A.---,,,,, 'may. 'i !i � 1 J ' �uc
t J. : r� ▪ � ICY;
� r fi rs`- 4". t 4r fiill. r _ t -ib d 4
vt..plc .f� 4 4 -p i - � 1• ^1'4 � �`
� ? 1r h��1 � ,. Lf 2 ....,;,,,,,...N.,.a c� G _ ..r d.•s,. PI',lAt..,..
' . :""r"yam .ike'�ie:A .; ,�'Y'4.'%rti' - y. ,..'",11: .
.3;�.'-" - -s,- �^o-r. �e-
-60 F BRA UT1 •12/24/2020 12.56PM
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

p 1 Photo 2 UT2 during a bankfull event. ,' R \:,, -- *:
`�, fv R3 k a7 �'T,� ,k 1\ 'alF'-01 G .w,rlM rjal„+�' k,
Ni 4 t ' ,✓S i I 6 1 L1} on 1 l - s
1� �Ul 6�n��'L�S � w. � '� S't' � s N a g ' ;�0" ���-q A' ��'`�� ,,'7 ,�a
. syK_ f r g` 1 ' pE•'F�F 1 j `.P a" tJ�. ¢•�
t t , i1 � > a u FJr�
�S- z d b,^ 44�,- \ • r h- , �,� t �a- _ sxaF riyWj�A''7'C�� i r- }
shy�y � 1 ��s k �Y— � t� y11 �� .�' -s.�` Y4,}y �,.
- _ \ `5�r , d d d i,,1 i Fx,, hri�4, .i va. 1 t s ' �` ¢ ,,:
.ram-- 4. r R i r =
s J 1 ! /',. _ /� _
rf •- --_.•-,„...,--F _ 1-
I.
M.. .-� l 1 , - .
_ _
wry'
T x . 7 tip ]�•': _ _ .- .
VAI,
,r \
.� n F F,,I: d _ •
1- , ,- -g59F o 1�F UT1 CAM ,\ 1d_'r'! •12/2412020 0120PM
T,,, lr Photo 3: UT1 during a bankfull event.
ifi.
�rl}# �, 'J ,t a 1
13. q,e,i , Y� f+n a' -1 y
p
- r iF
.4
•
i.,, .
a
• r
/- r ! _
d 32 F BRA UT1 •01,31,'2021 08:260M
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.1OOO92)
January 2022
Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

° 347 Photo 4 UT2 during a bankfull event.
�1 a
P,r• `-'}�.'* d3,g� d^ A'i e r?•
L.• r ry'`£ c 1,' ,,4�4` 3 • stys. 4r°r a '�§I
� 'i 1 -,plc �T,,^' a wA_ *"' x ,� _.
-� 9". '�4 (fir -�vs ; - -,'� ., �ly'"ti4
a
rA+„, _ _
y
_ 't,/rr fir4 i- l 5'�1s'.jr-� .=ice,- - -
f'
•� _- - _ Mom L'•
1.33F UT2 CAM ill 011311202111:37AM
- Photo 5: UT3 during a bankfull event.
w ,,_ ! y 1
S tc .1 -- _..eye-. JI � ./ �-� �tiM - ��d'• � ; 6..
l -- Ii, � -_ !'fnF � f k �..._gip a,w-.� .4.1"\ i.
aa ,A ±,,Ar?q�Fyi'y II '�'v '" LrtYI,'[+'y•"! I .,y kj
r-. • T r �rr .,y. k,
1M1F ��a. 1 `4?.JJG ' I A rl Y ,� �`F. -.- Ifs
..,.,_sy ya k Y ,y `iyy,, -T �'� �'�
r Sir. -7�� '• 1 d�.� .r+"� 'a -'
tc,
g=t-,7,--',.,.' .1C'' "." ,,',:Nritif,,r,,,,"'"tV '.11,,,,'. . -41‘0,,,-.-,- , ..-- ..,--.,'."..-_,-j4;i‘- - *_-,--•'-4-= ' .
;,S7-54.7.-.....'.."..''_`C-Z.-f-4.-'-`,1:-41•--;
Zti ;�+�y P.e
V` \v� - p.
k.
s •
. F kP' py Vi �nai r �� y'
, __] ' err/1. 1 �"�S f �L T R,A---.-'-4.-.,'.'-.-_--,
..
i 33 F BRA UT3 i 01/3112021 0942AM
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.1OOO92)
January 2022
Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina

Photo 6: UT5 receding from a bankfull event. ,,, ,,,,, - ;/�,, ��r,�.
�,,: Y Tr,l f r a�iy1 �f ti k mJ r[� 4 �_» 2,.,
N.
: G`i1`'" y yl t r 7a��
j .,. 0►«1y4 fy! , r �/� ,"/
Imo ``~. 064
- - , , ( . r •_ ,f.t / - J . - i "f�..
.el
_ -- 1.. '.y+ . N `do- 'e":._-
_♦ �, \ „ter� t
iiir
-- '' 0 i .ram j \ % ,. jy yI...T'4'',"; , •.
Jl ,='.
1 S y,
/.ems •' -f. ^
1\ / fJ` ' • t GIs
iL 33 F BRA UT5 101/31/2021 09:17AM
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.1OOO92) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 ' Year 6 Year 7
(2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026) (2027)
1 Yes
60 days(25.4%)
•
2 No
21 days(8.9%)
3 No
18 days(7.6%)
•
4 Yes
46 days(19.5%)
5 Yes
47 days(19.9%)
•
6 No
25 days(10.6%)
7 Yes
227 days(96.2%)
8 Yes
46 days(19.5%)
9 Yes
49 days(20.8%)
10 Yes
39 days(16.5%)
11 Yes
46 Days(19.5%)
12 No
21 Days(8.9%)
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Brahma Groundwater Gauge 1
March 1 Growing Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 Season Start October 22 2.5
8.00 I 60 Days-25.4% Growing Season End
6.00 )14Vprly I
4.00
2.0
2.00
c
' 0.00
2.00
4.00 I \I__ IT \i_
• 1.5
-6.00 — 51 Days-21.2% 73
2-8.00 1
0 i cc
-10.00
- 1.0
-12.00
-14.00 \ \ \I \I\
-16.00 1
- 0.5
-18.00
-:: . .
1 i \J
II i.___I
I.1 I. 1I I I I I_ 0.0
1— 1— 1— I- NJ NJ w w w . . . Ul U'1 Ul Ul 01 01 01 J J J 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- 1-�
1--� I--� N W I--� N N I--� N I--� I--� N I--� 1--� N W I--� N W I--� N W l\O I--� f J 0000 I-' NJ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I- I- I- 0 0 \ NJ NJ \ I- I- \ 1- 1- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 00 I- NJ J I- NJ J I- NJNJ \ \ \ \ - N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ J J \ J J
1- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
1-- 1- 1-- I- I- I- I- I- I- 1- 1- I- I- 1- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- 1- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I- I- I- I- I- I-

Brahma Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2021 Data)
March 1 Growing
10.00 Season Start October 22 I 2.5
8.00 Growing Season End
I
6.00 11\trN\ � -
4.00
2.0
2.00
c 21 Days-8.9%
0.00 c
al
▪ -2.00 4/ c
41 3
3 -4.00 1.5 0
c -6.00 4-
3
0• -8.00 cc
-10.00
0.5
1.0
-12.00 -
-14.00
i \ \‘\4&
-16.00
-18.00
-20.00
-22.00 ,� � iii
it
I l
I i �kj\ J l
-24.00 0.0
I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ W W W . . . UP UP UP UP Ol Ol Ol "..I v v CO CO CO l0 LID l0 I- I-, I- I- I- I- I- I- I-
I--, I--, NJ W I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ I--, I--, NJ I--, I--, NJ W I--, NJ W I--, NJ W LID I--, NJ CO I- NJ 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- I- 0 0 - NJ NJ I- I- - I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 - l0 l0 00 CO CO I- NJ J I-s NJ J I-s NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co Co - v J \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,

Brahma Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 — March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
8.00 Season Start Growing Season End
6.00
4.00
-
2.00
c 2.0
_
`" 0.00
> ' 18 Days-7.6% r
-2.00 c
3
its' -4.00 1.5 E
3
c -6.00
3
w -8.00
-10.00
1.0
-12.00 - -
-14.00 l
-16.00
-18.00 - 0.5
-20.00
111
22.00 �,� I-24.00 ' I\'04"/ PAAALAPAftmioVioLow0alm"'"""'
I I, ] 0.0
F-, F-, F-, F-, NJ NJ W W W A A A l rl Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 -,..I v v Co Co Co l0 l0 l0 I--, I--, I--, I-‘ I--, I-‘ I--, I-‘ I-‘
I--, I-, NJ N W I--, N N I--, N I--, I--, N I--, I--, N W I--, N W I--, N W LC) I--, N CO I--, N 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \
I--, I- I--, 0 0 — NJ NJ I- I- - I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 — l0 l0 — CO CO CO I- NJ v I- NJ v Ns NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co Co \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ
I--, I-, I--, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I--‘

Brahma Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
Season Start
8.00 - Growing Season End
6.00
4.00 ► `
I NO
2.0
1 I i
2.00 I
�_ 0.00 f \ 46 Days-19.5%
Ti -2.00 I =
a -4.00 1 1.5 E
ct
3 -6.00
\V Ta-
c -8.00
CI
2
w-10.00 1.0
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00 `
-18.00 i 1 0.5
-20.00 I
-22.00 �,� lilid
II _ I i.-24.00 i 0.0
I- I- I- I—, NJ NJ W W W . . . lrl Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 -,..I v v CO CO CO l0 l0 l0 I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—,
I--, I--, NJ W I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ I--, I--, NJ I--, I--, NJ W I--, NJ W I--, NJ W l0 I--, NJ CO I--, NJ 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \
I— I— I— 0 0 — NJ NJ I— I— - I— I— I— 0 0 0 0 0 0 — l0 l0 CO CO CO I— NJ v I— NJ V I— NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co CO — V V \ V V
I—, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ
I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ
I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—,

i
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
8.00 Season Start 47 Days-19.9% Growing Season End
6.00 i ` i
4.00
F 2.0
2.00
0.00 c
IA
a -2.00 i
a`, -4.001 - 1.5
cc
-a -6.00 w
o' -8.00 I
ce
-10.00
1.0
-12.00
-14.00 r
-16.00 VI
-18.00 I -- 0.5
-20.00 I
-22.00
22.00 _ 1I ILLS I I+ I I\ i I _ .
24.00 i 0.0
F-, F-, F-, F-, N N W W W A. A. A. In In In In Ql Ql Ql V V V CO CO CO l0 l0 l0 I- I- I- I- I- I- I-, I-, I-,
I-, I-, N W I-, NJ NJ I- NJ I- I- NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ W l0 I- NJ CO I- NJ 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I-, I-, I-, 0 0 \ NJ NJ \ I-, I-, \ I-, I-, I-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 00 I-, NJ V I-, NJ V I-, NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co Co \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I-, I- I-, I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
I- I- I- I- I- I-,

i
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
8.00 Season Start Growing Season End
6.00 -
4.00 - k
- 2.0
2.00
` 25 Days-10.6%
70.00
—
N
.-2.00 3
m-4.00 1.5
3 I a
c 6.00
3 C
w-8.00 z
10.00 1
1.0
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00
-18.00 ' ‘Vi0.5
-20.00
i
I II ill J J
22.00 JLJ I I 1 i i. I
-24.00 0.0
I— I— I— I—, NJ NJ W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul 0'1 Dl Dl V V V CO CO CO lD lD lD I-- I-- I-- I— I— I— I— I— I—
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O i— i— i— NJ NJ NJ
I—, I—, NJ W I—, NJ NJ I—, NJ I--, I—, NJ I—, I—, NJ W I—, NJ W I--, NJ W lD I--, NJ CO I--, NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I--+ I—+ I—+ O O \ NJ N \ I--+ I--+ \ I--+ I--+ I--+ O O O O O O \ lD LC) \ CO CO CO I-- NJ V I—, NJ V I—, N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co Co \ V V \ V V
I—, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I--, NJ N I—, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ
I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I—,

1
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 7
March 1 Growing Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 Season Start October 22 2.5
8.00 - i Growing Season End
6.00
4.00 227 Days-96.2% I - 2.0
1
2.00 I
c
(7, 0.00 -
.-2.00 c
3
ill 3-4.00 V 'wow - 1.5 E
c-6.00 m
3 C
0-8.00 z
-10.00
- 1.0
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00 -
- 0.5
-18.00
-20.00
I I22.00JJJ lid. I I I 1 .�.-24.00 0.0
I— I— I— I— NJ NJ W W W A A A Ui Ui Ui Ui Q1 Ol Ol V V V CO CO CO l0 l0 l0 I-- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- 1-
......, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O F-, „ N N N
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I-, I-, NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I-, NJ W l0 1- N Co I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ 1-, I-, I-, O O \ NJ NJ \ I-, I-, \ I-, I-+ I-+ O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ Co Co Co I-+ NJ V I-, NJ V I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ co co \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,

i
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 1 (2021 Data)
March 1 Growing
10.00 October 22 - 2.5
Season Start
8.00 Growing Season End
6.00 A 1 r 1' L. •al`•.` ► 1 46 Days-19.5%
4.00 ,
- 2.0
2.00 -
c _
., 0.00 - c
N
cu
2.00 c
ill 3
'Pis'-4.00 1.5 E
3 a
c-6.00 ra
3 C
8.00 z
-10.00 I
- 1.0
-12.00 -
-14.00 LLL ;
-16.00
-18.00 0.5
U A -
-20.00 I IIli _+ I
-22.004 J 1J iii d Ir
-24.00 0.0
I-- I- I-- I-- NJ NJ W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul cr., cr., al V V V CO CO CO lO lO lO I- I-- I- I- I- I- I- I- I-
I--, 1—, NJ N W I-, NJ N N I-, NJ N I-, I-,I\-, N I-, I-,I\-, N W I-, NJ N W I-, NJ N W l\O I-, NJ N CO00 I-' NJ N \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ NJ \
\ N I--, I-, O O \ N N \ I--+ I--+ \ I--+ I--+ I--+ O O O O O O \ lO lO \ CO CO CO I--+ NJ V I-- N V I-- N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ CO CO \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I--, I-, I--, I-, I--, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,

i
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
Season Start
Growing Season End
8.00 I 49 Days-20.8%
6.00
4.001 I
4\Y‘K\ I
2.00I4\
- 2.0
L 0.00 1
u Vf
ai -2.00 -� c
J 7
°= -4.00 1.5 E
m a
Cc 6.00 I Ira
3 C
c -8.00 ca
cc
-10.00
- 1.0
-12.00 I I
-14.00
I \1
-16.00 1
- 0.5
-18.00
-20.00 Al-
-2 .00 LI I I I. i i I i I. I .
24.00 1 _ 0.0
I— I- I— I— NJ NJ W W W A A A Ul Ui Ui Ui Ql Dl Dl V V V CO CO CO lD lD lD I--, I--, I—, I—, I--, I—, I—, I--, I—,
I—, I—,I\-, N W I—, NJ N N I—, NJ N I—, I—,I\-, N I—, I—,I\-, N W I—, NJ N W I—, NJ N W LID I—,I\-, N CO I—, NJ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I—+ I—+ I—+ O O \ N N \ I-- I-a \ I--+ I--+ I--+ O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ CO CO CO I-- NJ V I--, N V I--, N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co Co \ V V \ V V
I—, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I—, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I--, N N I--, NJ NJ NJ \ \ N \ \ N \ \
I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, I—, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I--, N NJ
I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I—,

Brahma Groundwater Gauge 10
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
8.00 Season Start Growing Season End
6.00 i
4.00 1 J lialkillil A II 39 Days-16.5%
2.0
2.00I
I
c _
v 0.00 c
-2.00
3
o-4.00 1.5 E
3 a
c 6.00 I I
3
o
-8.00 z
-10.00
- 1.0
-12.00 -
-14.00 I I
-16.00 �
-18.00 0.5
\I\\\
-20.00 I I I
-22.00 I J LI ui4 �� \\11 J_-24.00 0.0
i-+ i-+ N i- NJ NJ W W W A A A In In In In Ol Ol CT V V V 00 00 00 LO LO LO I--, I--, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-% F-% F-% N N N
I- I-, NJ W I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ NJ W NJ W NJ W l0 I-, NJ 00 I-, NJ
N N N 0 0 N N \ N N \ N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO LO 00 00 00 I-, NJ V I-, NJ V I-, NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ .. \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co 00 \ V V \ V V
1- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ F- NJ NJ F- NJ NJ F- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, F- F- F- 1- I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
F-U I--, 14 14 14 I-4

i
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 11
Year 1 (2021 Data)
March 1 Growing
10.00 Season Start - October 22 2.5
8.00 Growing Season End
6.00 A I
46 Days-19.5%
4.00
- 2.0
2.00
c
.7 0.00
ii -2.00I 3
o
-m -4.00 1.5 Q
3
-° -6.00 m
c C
ill 1
3 C
2 -8.00 co
ce
10.00 1
1.0
-12.00
-14.00 I
-16.00
) 0 \\
- 0.5
-18.00
I i
1(
-20.00LI
Iliri-24.00 II it 1 . i I J
-24.00 0.0
I- I- I- I- NJ NJ W W W A A A Ui Ui Ui Ui Ql Dl Dl V V V CO CO CO lD lD lD I-- I-- I-- F- F- F- I-- F- F-�
I--, I--, N W I--, N N I--, N I--, I--, N I--, I--, N W I--, N W I-, NJ N W LID I-,F\-, N CO I--, N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I-, I-, I-, O O \ NJ NJ \ I-+ i-a \ i-a I-+ I-+ O O O O O O \ LC) LC) \ co co co 1— NJ V I-, NJ V I-, NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ Co Co \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ N N N N NJ I-, N N I-, N NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ N \ \
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, N NJ
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,

i
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 12
Year 1 (2021 Data)
10.00 March 1 Growing October 22 2.5
8.00 Season Start Growing Season End
6.00
4.00 14\1
_ 2.00 2.0
`- 1\11( 21 Days 8.9%
0.00
N
-2.00 3
illo
m -4.00 1.5
3 a
-° -6.00 m
c ..-
3 !_
2 -8.00 aC
-10.00 I
I - 1.0
-12.00 •
-14.00
\ r
-16.00
- 0.5
-18.00
-20.00 I I
-22.00 i JIJ II I it _ i.
-24.00 0.0
I- I- I- I- NJ NJ W W W A A A Ui Ui Ui Ui Ol Ol Ol V V V CO CO CO LC, LC, LC, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--,
I-, I-,I\-, N W I-, NJ N N I-, NJ N I-, I-,I\-, N I-, I-,I\-, N W I-, NJ N W I-, NJ N W l\D I-, NJ N CO I-' NJ N \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ NJ \
\ I--+ I-+ I-+ O O \ NJ N \ I--+ I--+ \ I--+ I--+ I--+ O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ CO CO CO I-- NJ V I-, NJ V I-- N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ CO CO \ V V \ V V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ I--, NJ NJ
I--, I--, I--, I--, I--, I--,

Table 13A UT-1 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 83
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural Yes
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
Table 13B UT-2 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 78
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural Yes
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 13C UT-3 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 266
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
Table 13D UT-5 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 50
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural Yes
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 13E UT-6 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 73
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No
Other:
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT-1
Year 1 (2021 Data)
- 2.5
23.0 —
21.0
19.0 r j..6i
2.0
17.0
15.0 83 Days
w
Jar 1 .0 . - 1.5 c
+C, 11.0
m Q
3 73
c 9.0 si........t.i .ju . c
3 f6
%0 7.0l. oC
- 1.0
5.0 / /4r
3.0 Logger Failure �i
1.0 -- - 0.5
1.0
-3.0 --A\L
I5.0 I d, .. L I. ii, -_,. - 0.0
I- I- I- I- N N W W W A A A Ui Ui Ui Ui Cl CO Ol V V V CO 00 00 lD lD lD I- I- I--' I--' I--' I--' I--' Fs Fs
V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V \ V V V V V V V V V 0 0 0 I- 1--' -• NJ NJ NJ
I-' I-' NJ W I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ I--' I-' NJ I--' I--' NJ W I--' NJ W I--' NJ W lD I--' NJ CO I--' NJ V V V V V V V V V
V F+ F+ I-, 0 0 V NJ NJ V I--' I--' V I--' I-' I-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 V ID ID V CO CO CO - NJ V I-' NJ V I-, NJ
NJ I--' N N V.
N N FN+ N N NJ I--' N N NJ I- N N N N N N N N N NJ I--' N N NJ I--' N N N CO CO N \ \ N \ \
I-' I-' I--' I--' I-' F-' F-' I--' I--' I-L I-L I-• I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I--' I--' I--' NJ NJ I--' NJ NJ I--' NJ NJ
I--' I--' I--' I--' F-' I--'

Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT-2
Year 1 (2021 Data)
- 2.5
23.0
21.0
19.0
- 2.0
17.0
15.0 78 Days N
v
J 3 13.0 - 1.5
E
if)3
11.0 • Q
m
c 9.0 )11,,,iii. c
2
Ira
LD 7.0 Ali:
1.0
5.0 I I
3.0 I Vid6"_ 1ll
1.0 r
,,. 0.5
1.0Logger Failure
I
3.0J I u� I- �_ 1I� 1 I _ II I _�.
-5.0 0.0
I" I- I- I-. NJ NJ W W W 43. 43. 43. U41 In In V1 01 01 01 V V V 00 CO 00 lO lO lO I•+ - I-. I- I-. I-. I-. I-. I-.
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N N I--` N N N
I-, I- NJ W I--, NJ NJ I•. NJ F+ F+ NJ I••. I-, NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ W l0 I••, NJ 00 I-. NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I- I- I- 0 0 \ NJ NJ \ I-+ I--. \ I-, I-. I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ lD LID \ 00 CO CO I- NJ V I-, NJ V I- NJ
NJ I•. N N N N N NJ I- N N NJ I- N N NJ I-` N N N N N N N N N IN-, N N IN-, N N N N \ \ N \ \
I-. I- I-` I-, I-, I- I-, I- I-, NJ I--, I-, I--, I--, NJ Ns I--J I-. I••. F+ I••. I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I•. I•. I-. I-. I-+ I-.

Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT-3
Year 1 (2021 Data)
- 2.5
23 - —
21 - —
19
- 2.0
17 —
c
v 15
13 266 Days — c
I11 - z
7
1ik1iTiH4L
- 1.0
IN 5
3 ,..............L%*"41"."".6%
1
- 0.5
-1
3 u� L I. I I 1
-5 0.0
," ," ," ," N N W W W A A A In .-. Li, 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 kJ) VI I-. I-+ I-+ I-, I-, I--. I-, I-, I-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I•+ I--, I-, N.) N.) N.)I-, I-, I NJ I- I-. NJ NJ I-, NJ F+ I-. NJ I-, I--, NJ I- I--, NJ W I•+ NJ W lO I--+ NJ CO I-% NJI-- --, I--, 0 0 \ NJ NJ -\ I--+ I-+ \ I NJ - I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ lO lO \ CO CO 00 I-. NJ V I-. NJ V I-. NJ
I-+NJ N N N N N I•+NJ N N I--,NJ N N I-, N N N N N N N N N I-NJ N N I-NJ N N N CO Co N \ \ N \ \
I-. I-. I-. I-. I-. I-. I-, I-. I-+ I--, I-, I-, I-, I-+ I-+ I-+ I-+ I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I-+ NJ NJ I-. NJ NJ
I-, I-. I-. F-` I-. I-,

Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT-5
Year 1 (2021 Data)
- 2.5
23.00
21.00
19.00 50 Days IA
I 2.0
17.00
-15.00 i
i13.001.5 311.00
0 9.00b)1V1/CU
I' I o
z
co
7.00
- 1.0
I
5.00
3.00
1.00 h
I. i �I - 0.5
-1.00 -• NJ
-3.00
-5.00 IJJ II u. ii .1._ I. 1 1 _ 1 1 I i i .. J
F-• I� I- I- NJ NJ W W W A A A V1 In (n In 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-. I-•• I-, I--• I- I-, I--• I-, I--•
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I-+ I-+ I-• NJ NJ NJ
I- I- NJ W I-. NJ NJ I-. NJ I-• I-• NJ I- I-• NJ W I-, NJ W I-, NJ W l0 I-, NJ CO I-, NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I-, I--, I- 0 0 \ N NJ \ I- F.. \ I-. I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ l0 t0 \ CO CO 00 I- NJ V I- NJ V F+ NJ
NJ I-+ N N N N N NJ I--• N N I--•NJ N N I--•NJ N N N N N N N N N I-• N N I-•NJ N N N \ \ N \ \ N \
I--• I-• FA I-A I-A I-• I-• I-. I-• I-+ I-• I-• I-• I-• I-• I-• I--• I--• I--• I-• I-+ I-• I-• N NJ I--• NJ NJ F-• NJ N
I--• I--• FA F-• I--• I--•

Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT-6
Year 1 (2021 Data)
- 2.5
23.0 -
21.0 — —
19.0 — - - - 2.0
17.0 —
c
cu 15.0 73 Days
J 1 C
:1-, 13.0 0
- 1.5 E
as
3 11.0 a
o —
c U
0 9.0 Logger Failure
Ws
l7 z
7.0 1 I - 1.0
5.0 ) 1
3.0 -
1.0 - 16121:1\1111,11 _
4,,,,,o,\,,,,,-,,,L,
I 0.5
-1.0 -
I
I i
5.0 11,E �. ..1.. I. I II I - 1 � 0.0
. I- I- I-- N N W W W A A A VI VI VI Vl al Ol Ol V N N CO CO 00 LID lD lD I-I I--` I--` 1-s 1-s I--` I--` Fs Fs
I- I--, N W F--, N N F--, N I--` I--` N I--` I--` N W I--' N W I-. IN N - l\D I--� N CO00 I--� N 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \
\ I-. 1- 1- 0 0 \ N N \ I F+ \ F, I-, I-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ LC/ lD \ 00 00 00 I- N NII-I N NJI-` N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ---.. N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V V
I--` N N N N N I-. N N I-- N N I--` N N N N N N N N N I-, N N I-, N N N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
1--, I-I I-I 1--, 1--, F-, I- I--` I--` I--` I--` I--` I--` I--` I--` 1-s I--` I--` I--` I--, I- I- I- N N F-, N N I-, N N
I--, I--, F-, F-+ F-, I--,

Figure Dl: Brahma
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30-70th percentile data from WETS Station: Burlington Alamance Regional Airport
6
L)
5
2021
2022
4
ma 2023
3 2024
2025
2 1 \ —30th Percentile
70th Percentile
1
0
�e4�e Oc ��4e, ��,e,

Brahma Soil Temperature
Year 1 (2021 Data)
90.00
88.00
86.00
84.00
82.00
80.00
78.00
76.00
74.00
72.00
70.00
68.00
66.00
64.00
62.00
LL
a 60.00
E 58.00
1- 56.00 March 1:
N 54.00 48.75°F
52.00
50.00
48.00
46.00 • A
44.00 Lowest temp.
42.00 after March 1:
40.00 45.74°F
38.00
36.00 -
34.00 - -
F-� I-° I-, NJ NJ W W . . Lii Ul C Ql •••4 V 00 CO lD lD I--,
N N NJ I-° NJ I-° N lD NJ V NJ . N NJ I-` W I-, N F-° NJ \ \ \
\ U'7 lD N Gl NJQl \ W 00 \ Ol O W •-.I O -P CO NJ U'I I-�
N \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ lD
NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I--° NJ I--° N I--° N I--° NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ N \ N \
NJ I-° NJ
I--
Date

Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 14. Project Timeline
Table 15. Project Contacts
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

Table 14. Project Timeline
Data Collection Task Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Deliverable Submission
Project Instituted NA Dec-18
Mitigation Plan Approved NA 8-Jul-20
Construction (Grading) Completed NA 9-Dec-21
Planting Completed NA 12-Jan-21
As-built Survey Completed 15-Jan-20 Feb-21
MY-0 Baseline Report Jan-21 Apr-21
Year 1 Monitoring Report Nov-21 Jan-22 I
Remediation Items(e.g. beaver removal,supplements, repairs etc.)
Encroachment
Table 15. Project Contacts
Brahma Site/100092
Provider Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mitigation Provider POC Worth Creech
919-755-9490
Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
Primary project design POC Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Construction Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Charles Hill
919-639-6132

Appendix F
Other Data
Preconstruction Benthic Results
Preconstruction Benthic Habitat Assessment Data Forms
MY1 Monitoring Report(Project No.100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2022

AXIOM, BRAHMA, ALAMANCE CO., NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 7/1/2019.
PAI ID NO 52714 52715
STATION UT-1-US UT-1-DS
DATE 7/1/2019 7/1/2019
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G.
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.7 CG 2 1
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Hirudinea P
Rhynchobdellida
Batrachobdella phalera P 2
Helobdella triserialis 9.3 P 1
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Lirceus sp. 7.4 CG 1
Insecta
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Aeshna sp. P 1
Coenagrionidae P
Ischnura sp. 9.5 1 3
Hemiptera
Corixidae PI 1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Chauliodes pectinicornis 2
Coleoptera
Scirtidae SC
Scirtes sp. 8
Diptera
Chironomidae
Psectrotanypus dyari 10 P 3 1
Culicidae FC
Anopheles sp. 8.6 FC 1
Culex sp. FC 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 21 8
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 9 6
EPT TAXA 0 0
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES 9.27 9.30
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 1 Axiom Brahma 2019c1

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
12114610^ci Mountain/Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit,DWQ TOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream,preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream.To complete the form,select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A fmal habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream b41 Ili/ W/9 Location/road:r7.dd rJnr�Jr'G
(a, (Road Name Gl' .-_/-"C' 4;� e}County 17 u -
Date 62701 CC# 01)000a— Basin Cap Ca"' _ _Subbasin CR-06"O9
Observer(s)1 •n C— Type of Study: ❑,Fiisth El enthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study(Describe)
Latitude- ��o�(�Cj Longitude !?. �v_ ( ( Ecoregion: ❑MT ❑P gSlate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/I Conductivity(corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location-include what
you estimate driving thru``ttlhe watershed in watershed land use.
'g°Visible Land Use: �V %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture %Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Other-Describe:
Watershed land use: ❑Forest,EAgriculture❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
—
Width:(meters) Stream _ Channel(at top of bank) Stream Depth:(m) Avg .l Max
0 Width variable 0 Large river>25m wide
Bank Height(from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on):(m)
Bank Angle: t� ° or ❑NA (Vertical is 90°,horizontal is 0°.Angles>90°indicate slope is towards mid-channel,<90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton owth El Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: N ❑Y: ❑Rip-rap,cement,gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High ormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear ❑Slighfly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic , 1 silky ❑Colored(from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? AYES 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 ,t�l
B.Water fills>75%of available channel,or<25%of channel substrate is exposed 0
C.Water fills 25-75%of available channel,many logs/snags exposed ❑
D.Root mats out of water 0
E.Very little water f�in channel,mostly present as standing pools 0
Weather Conditions: 14tH: . C9( f. Photos: ON lAY ❑Digital 035mm
Remarks: P"/ e if rcc (,.i li,mot) (�-�7141%.104 r' Gc._ Irk t se c c 7 A-
U ✓,'S-lrl S-t 41 4 CC9S; 'd 4)-1-; ,-Q f'c rl _.
39

Ilya
I.Channel Modification Score
A.channel natural,frequent bends 5
B.channel natural,infrequent bends(channelization could be old)
C.some channelization present
D.more extensive channelization,>40%of stream disrupted 2
E.no bends,completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned,etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream iliPanks of uniform shape/height z
Remarks Subtotal
II.Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70%of the
reach is rocks, 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 x Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score _ Score_ __ _Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 15 11 7
2 types present 18 14 1 6
1 type present 17 13' 9 5
No types present 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks _ Subtotal
III.Bottom Substrate(silt,sand,detritus,gravel,cobble,boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring,but only look at riffle
for embeddedness,and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for"mud line"or difficulty extracting rocks.
A.substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1.embeddedness<20%(very little sand,usually only behind large boulders) 15
2.embeddedness 20-40% 12
3.embeddedness 40-80% 8
4.embeddedness>80% 3
B.substrate gravel and cobble
1.embeddedness<20% 14
2.embeddedness 20-40% 11
3.embeddedness 40-80% 6
4.embeddedness>80% 2
C.substrate mostly gravel
1.embeddedness<50%
2.embeddedness>50%
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 Kr r r �, .�c' r 5 4 j. Cr Ge/ __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
Subtotal 0
❑Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑Bottom sandy-sink as you walk Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40

Pku11044-LIT I--(15
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 16 12
B.riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14
C.riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D.riffles absent 0
Channel Slope:Yi Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal 3
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.. 7 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 QS 05
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 �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
A.Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B.Stream with full canopy-breaks for light penetration absent 8
C.Stream with partial canopy-sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7®
D.Stream with minimal canopy-full sun in all but a few areas 2
E.No canopy and no shading 0
Remarks Subtotal 7
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Defmition:Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream(can go beyond floodplain).Defmition: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: kI Trees )0 Shrubs Pk Grasses 0 Weeds/old field ❑Exotics(kudzu,etc) Score Score
A.Riparian zone intact(no breaks)
1.width> 18 meters 5 5
2.width 12-18 meters CP
3. width 6-12 meters 3 3
4.width<6 meters 2 2
B.Riparian zone not intact(breaks)
1.breaks rare
a.width> 18 meters 4 4
b.width 12-18 meters 3 3
c.width 6-12 meters 2 2
d.width<6 meters 1 1
2.breaks common
a.width> 18 meters 3 3
b.width 12-18 meters 2 2
c.width 6-12 meters 1 1
d.width<6 meters 0 0
Remarks W11 jP) 5G�L �/c1 d r r r. r • --"J • 'vf r:Fe . Total
Page Total
0 Disclaimer-form filled out,but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE c-3
41

ifil(dhlitt Uri—03
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit,DWQ TOTAL SCORE 1
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 by1 adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream_()Ttt(4+'�y 472( CiJ Location/road: ()IJd W AMP J1 `-(Road Name C/4rk )County 4-l c cwt (.Q
Date /l ' 10( CC#0 J 0,'0©a- Basin Can4 4, _ _Subbasin 0 ?—d_L
Observer(s)AP O.t`_ Type of Study: 0 Fish( VBenthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study(Describe)
U.
Latitude 35, Sr1 d1tLongitude if Li/i V v-.Ecoregion: 0 MT 0 P 0 Slate Belt ii Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO mg/1 Conductivity(corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location-include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: a() %Forest %Residential (9 %Active Pasture %Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Other-Describe:
Watershed land use: OForest ❑Agriculture❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width:(meters) Stream Channel(at top of bank) & Stream Depth:(m) Avg , t Max .3
0 Width variable 0 Large river>25m wide
Bank Height(from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on):(m) 1. ..
Bank Angle: qa ° or 0 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 OBar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 0 Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: R. ❑Y: ❑Rip-rap,cement,gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High Normal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear 0 Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑TannicMilky ❑Colored(from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? pa YtS 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 0
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 0
E.Very little water in channel,mostly present as standing pools 0
Weather Conditions: d Photos: ON 11.Y l Digital 035mm
Remarks: t/VI yck tri 1;t4( .e P4 i!Ow a con: f ' sP,,. r'p 94-40
39

tivolviAR 14114 D5
I.Channel Modification Score
A.channel natural,frequent bends 5
B.channel natural,infrequent bends(channelization could be old)
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
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagg' goo large woody debris in stream Hanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Uv.1 c✓.a-.[ f -,.4 k/u.e --__-- Subtotal
II.Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70%of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present,circle the score of 17.Defmition: 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 x Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 15 7
2 types present 18 14 1 j 6
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal '
III.Bottom Substrate(silt,sand,detritus,gravel,cobble,boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring,but only look at riffle
for embeddedness,and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for"mud line"or difficulty extracting rocks.
A.substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1.embeddedness<20%(very little sand,usually only behind large boulders) 15
2.embeddedness 20-40% 12
3.embeddedness 40-80% 8
4.embeddedness>80% 3
B.substrate gravel and cobble
1.embeddedness<20% �14
2.embeddedness 20-40% 11
3.embeddedness 40-80%
4.embeddedness>80% 2
C.substrate mostly gravel
1.embeddedness<50% 8
2.embeddedness>50% 4
D.substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock 3
2. substrate nearly all sand 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus 2
4. substrate nearly 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 pi-
Subtotal
❑Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard,Bottom sandy-sink as you walk d Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks j Lf
Page Total l 1`
40

ile%thflt (-r- a2$
V.Riffle Habitats
Defmition: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 1 12
B.riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 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 l6
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.. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy with good root systems 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 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 I(/
Remarks
VII.Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains,but not use to score this metric.
Score
A.Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B.Stream with full canopy-breaks for light penetration absent
C.Stream with partial canopy-sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D.Stream with minimal canopy-full sun in all but a few areas 2
E.No canopy and no shading 0
Remarks Subtotal O
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Defmition:Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream(can go beyond floodplain).Definition:A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream,such as paths
down to stream,storm drains,uprooted trees,otter slides,etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft.Bank Rt.Bank
Dominant vegetation: 0 Trees 0 Shrubs 0 Grasses 0 Weeds/old field ❑Exotics(kudzu,etc) Score Score
A.Riparian zone intact(no breaks)
1.width>18 meters
2.width 12-18 meters 4 4
3.width 6-12 meters 3 3
4.width<6 meters 2 2
B.Riparian zone not intact(breaks)
1.breaks rare
a.width> 18 meters 4 4
b.width 12-18 meters 3 3
c.width 6-12 meters 2 2
d.width<6 meters 1 1
2.breaks common
a.width> 18 meters 3 3
b.width 12-18 meters 2 2
c.width 6-12 meters 1 1
d.width<6 meters 0 0
Remarks _ Total
Page Total 41(9\
❑ Disclaimer-form filled out,but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE__ •
41