20140335 Ver 1_AycockSprings_96312_MY7_2022_20230207

ID#* 20140335
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 02/15/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/7/2023
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
ID#:* 20140335 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
County: Alamance
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: AycockSprings_96312_MY7_2022.pdf 43.49MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Jeremiah Dow
Signature: *
�ur/r af�ox�

YEAR 7 (2022) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRI NGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No. 96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT NO. 5791
NCDWR PROJECT No. 20140335
USACE ACTION ID No. SAW-2014-01711
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030002
Data Collection — January -October 2022
PREPARED FOR:
NC. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
February 2023

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to Monitoring Year 7 (2022) DMS Comments
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS #96312)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 005791
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
Report
1. Appendix C
a. Recommend removing Figure 3 and the old transect data following Figure 3 from report since the same
transect data was not collected in MY7. Please ensure that the Table of Contents and Appendix C Title sheet
are updated as necessary.
Response: Figure 3 and the previous years' transect data were removed from Appendix C.
Please include planted stem average height in the report if this information is available since this project is
subject to the 10 ft. avg. height performance standard.
Response: Two columns were added to Table 7 showing average height. One represents the average height
for all planted stems measured in vegetation plots. The other represents the average height of the 6 tallest
stems per plot, as at least 6 stems per plot are required to meet the 210 stems/acre performance standard.
A footnote was added to the table explaining the purpose of this column.
Appendix D
a. For consistency, the Bankfull MY-00 line (Green line) should be added to XS-2.
Response: The MY-0 bankfull line was added to Travis Creek XS-2.
b. On XS-4, since the Bankfull line based on MYO cross -sectional area (blue -dotted line) is above the elevation
of the JOB, should the BHR be a number <1? Please clarify.
Response: Based on the MYO cross -sectional area, the unrounded Dmax value is 2.94589299999996 and
LBH is 2.80289300000004, making the BHR —0.95, which was rounded to 1 in the cross-section report and
Table 11A. These values have been corrected to "<1".
c. XS-8 needs the Bankfull line based on MYO cross -sectional area (blue -dotted line) added.
Response: The bankfull line was added to the XS-8 report.
d. Check footnotes that are under the cross section graphs (XS-4 for example). Some letters are missing (not
sure if a typo or error when converting or compressing the file).
Response: Thank you for catching this — it appears to have occurred during the file compression process. To
ensure this doesn't occur again, the final electronic copy of the report was not downsized.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Aycock Springs Year 7, 2022 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 7.
• No beaver activity was observed along Travis Creek during Year 7 (2022).
Streams
• Stream monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross -sections compared to as -
built through year 7 monitoring data. Channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed
conditions outlined in the Mitigation Plan. Across the Site, all in -stream structures are intact and
functioning as designed. The remedial repair to replace bed material along UT-1, completed in
2016/2017, remains stable and has naturalized.
• No stream areas of concern were identified during Year 7 (2022) monitoring. During previous
monitoring years, three small areas of bank erosion were observed in the Enhancement (Level II)
reach of Travis Creek. These areas remained during Year 7 (2022) however, herbaceous vegetation
has continued to establish along all three spans, rendering them smaller and more stable than in
past years. Since first identified in 2018, these areas have gradually stabilized, indicating that the
Enhancement (Level II) mitigation treatment is working as proposed; therefore, they are no longer
considered areas of concern.
• One bankfull event was documented during Year 7 (2022) monitoring for 17 total bankfull events
throughout the monitoring period (Table 13, Appendix Q.
• Channel formation was evident in all Site reaches in Year 7 (2022). The stream flow gauge and trail
camera on UT-3 documented 213 consecutive days of stream flow during Year 7 (2022). The
stream -flow gauge location is depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix A); a table containing channel
formation indicators and a stream -flow gauge graph are included in Appendix E.
Wetlands
• All three groundwater gauges met success for the Year 7 (2022) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data is in Appendix D.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria for Year 7 (2022)
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of Monitoring
Year
Documented
Determining Success'
Period
2022 (Year 7)
March 1, 2021**
March 1-October 22
24 days
(236 days)
** Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on Site and observed bud burst.
Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1*
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/58 days
Yes/59 days
Yes/95 days
Yes/47 days
Yes/46 days
1
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
(25.1 percent)
(27 percent)
(41 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(19.5 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/65 days
Yes/66 days
Yes/71 days
Yes/76 days
Yes/70 days
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(28.1 percent)
(30 percent)
(30 percent)
(32.2 percent)
(29.7 percent)
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/46 days
No/14 days
Yes/34 days
Yes/39 days
Yes/42 days
3
(23.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(6.5 percent)
(14.5 percent)
(16.5 percent)
(17.8 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5, 2016; therefore, the growing season for
Year 1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17.

Vegetation
• Year 7 (2022) stem count measurements were performed in September 2022 and indicated an
average of 384 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site. Twelve of the
fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone. When
including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus
americana), and hickory (Carya sp.), plots 2 and 13 were above success criteria.
• Year 7 (2022) vegetation data can be found in Appendix C; plot locations are depicted in Figure 2
(Appendix B).
Site Maintenance Report (2022)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
7/26/2022
11/21/2022
Callery Pear, Privet, Multiflora rose, Autumn
30 7-gallon containerized trees were planted
Olive
(see section 3.2 Vegetation)
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Stream Monitoring
Complete
Vegetation
Monitoring
Complete
All Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No.
16-005568 )
--
--
--
October 2013
DMS Contract No. 5791
February 2014
Mitigation Plan
October 2014
May 2015
Construction Plans
--
June 2015
Construction Earthwork
--
--
April 6, 2016
Planting
--
--
April 8, 2016
As -Built Documentation
April 6th, 2016
April 13th, 2016
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 18th,
2016
October 13th, 2016
October 2016
December 2016
Supplemental Planting
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
April 19-20, 2017
July 25th, 2017
October 2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
April 16-17, 2018
July 19th, 2018
October 2018
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
October 2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
March 24th, 2020
July 7th, 2020
November 2020
December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
NA
NA
October 2021
December 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
March 10t", 2022
September 19t", 2022
November 2022
February 2023

YEAR 7 (2022) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRI NGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No. 96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT NO. 5791
NCDWR PROJECT NO. 20140335
USACE ACTION ID NO. SAW-2014-01711
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030002
Data Collection — January -October 2022
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
\D
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
February 2023

Table of Contents
1.0
PROJECT SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................1
2.0
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Streams..................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................7
2.3 Wetland Hydrology................................................................................................................8
2.4 Biotic Community Change......................................................................................................8
3.0
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN...................................................................................................................9
3.1 Stream....................................................................................................................................
9
3.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................9
4.0
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................10
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Site Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Table 10a-10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-11f. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graph
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Figure E1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
APPENDIX E. MISCELLANEOUS
2016-2017 Remediation
2022 Photo Log
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Table of Contents page i
Restoration Systems, LLC

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) encompasses approximately 13 acres located
roughly 1.5 miles north of Elon and Gibsonville in western Alamance County within 14-digit Cataloging Unit
and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030010 of the Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 1, Appendix B and
Table 4, Appendix A). Before construction, the Site consisted of agricultural land used for livestock grazing,
hay production, and timber harvest. Streams were cleared, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and
laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock and timber harvest activities.
Stream impacts in Travis Creek also occurred due to a breached dam that impounded water during storm
events. In addition, streamside wetlands were drained by channel incision, soil compaction, and forest
vegetation loss due to land uses. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project
contacts, and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
Positive aspects supporting mitigation activities at the Site include the following.
• Streams have a Best Usage Classification of WS-V, NSW
• Located in a Targeted Local Watershed and within the NCDMS Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Local
Watershed Planning (LWP) Area
• Travis Creek is listed on the NCDENR 2012 303(d) list for ecological/biological integrity
• Immediately south and abutting the Site is a property identified in the Little Alamance, Travis, &
Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008) as a target property for wetland
restoration and streambank enhancement/conservation
• Immediately west of the Site is a large tract associated with Guilford County open space
Based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Report2009 (NCEEP 2009) and the Little Alamance,
Travis, & Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008), Targeted Local Watershed
03030002030010 is not meeting its designated use of supporting aquatic life. Agricultural land use appears
to be the primary source of stress in the Hydrologic Unit, as well as land clearing and poor riparian
management. This project will meet the eight priority goals of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Local
Watershed Plan (LWP), including the following:
1) Reduce sediment loading
2) Reduce nutrient loading
3) Manage stormwater runoff
4) Reduce toxic inputs
5) Provide and improve instream habitat
6) Provide and improve terrestrial habitat
7) Improve stream stability
8) Improve hydrologic function
The following six goals were identified by the Stakeholder group of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP
Phase I assessment, which addresses the water quality impacts and watershed needs in all of the Little
Alamance, Travis, Tickle watersheds in 2006.
1) Increase local government awareness of the impacts of urban growth on water resources
2) Strengthen watershed protection standards
3) Improve water quality through stormwater management
4) Identify and rank parcels for retrofits, stream repair, preservation, and/or conservation
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 1
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

5) Assess aquatic health to identify stressors that are the most likely causes of poor biological
conditions
6) Meet requirements of outside funding sources for implementation of projects
The following table summarizes the project goals/objectives and proposed functional uplift based on
restoration activities and observations of two reference areas located in the vicinity of the Site. Goals and
objectives target functional uplift identified in the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP, and based on
stream/wetland functional assessments developed by the regulatory agencies.
Proiect Goals and Obiectives
Project Goal/Objective
How Goal/Objective will be Accomplished
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Restore Stream Stability
Providing proper channel width and depth, stabilizing channel banks,
providing gravel/cobble substrate, planting a woody riparian buffer, and
removing cattle
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
Dominated Streams
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation restoring
overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying compacted soils, and
planting woody vegetation
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Raising the stream bed elevation and rip compacted soils
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Increase Thermoregulation
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, planting
with woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
retention, and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
Increase Energy Dissipation of
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, and planting
with woody vegetation
Restore Habitat
Restore In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
Restore Streamside Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Project construction was completed on April 6, 2016, and planting was completed on April 8, 2016. Site
activities included the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels, enhancement (Level 11) of
a perennial stream channel, and re-establishment of riparian wetlands. Priority I restoration of intermittent
channels at the Site is imperative to provide significant functional uplift to Site hydrology, water quality,
and habitat and to restore adjacent streamside riparian wetlands. A total of 3581.1 Stream Mitigation Units
(SMUs) and 0.5 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) are being provided, as depicted in the following
table.
Stream
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Stream Mitigation Type
Ratio
Mitigation
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
Units
Restoration
3147
90
1:1
3237.000
Restoration (See Notes below)**
122
1:5:1
81.333
Enhancement (Level II)°
657
2.5:1
262.800
TOTAL
3804
212
3581.133
Riparian Wetland
Wetland Mitigation Type
Acreage
Ratio
Mitigation Units
Riparian Re-establishment
0.5
1:1
0.5
Riparian Enhancement
1.5*
--
TOTAL
2.0
0.5
* Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568
requirements.
** Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for the unauthorized discharge of fill material into
Waters of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening
the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to the stream channel on
jurisdictional wetlands. Before restoration activities, the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact
permit to resolve Section 301 violations of the Clean Water Act (Action ID: SAW-2014-00665). Stream reaches
and wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
Further, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to the clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of
UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio (1.5:1). Onsite visits conducted with USACE representatives determined that the
functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
" The upper 20 linear feet of Travis Creek are within a powerline easement and is not credit generating (a reduction
of 8.0 SMUs).
Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration relate to project goals and objectives. From a
mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following table summarizes stream success criteria related
to goals and objectives.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Stream Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Stream Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Cross -sections, monitored annually, will be compared to
Restore Stream Stability
as -built measurements to determine channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Convert stream channels from unstable G- and F-type
channels to stable E- and C- type stream channels
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Two overbank events will be documented, in separate
years, during the monitoring period and documentation of
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
an elevated groundwater table (within 12 inches of the soil
surface) for greater than 10 percent of the growing season
during average climatic conditions
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
from pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post -
Dominated Streams
restoration conditions of gravel and cobble
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
(Sections 2.3 and 2.2)
Increase Thermoregulation
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period, and
encroachment within the easement eliminated
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
in separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Documentation of two overbank events in separate
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
monitoring years and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
(Section 2.2)
Restore Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material
Restore In -stream Habitat
from pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post -
restoration conditions of gravel and cobble and attaining
Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Restore Streamside Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring years.
Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems per acre in year
5, and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot
at year 7 since this Site is located in the Piedmont. Volunteer stems may be considered on a case -by -case
basis in determining overall vegetation success; however, volunteer stems should be counted separately
from planted stems.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 4
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Wetland Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for wetland re-establishment should relate to project goals and objectives.
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated
by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered
successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes wetland success criteria
related to goals and objectives.
Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Wetland Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events
in separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation
Success Criteria
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Documentation of two overbank events in separate
monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore Habitat
Restore Streamside Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
According to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, the growing season for Alamance County is from April 17
— October 22 (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the Piedmont
region; therefore, for this project, hydrologic wetland success will be determined using data from February
1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity. This will be confirmed annually
by soil temperatures and/or bud burst. The growing season will be initiated each year on the documented
date of biological activity. Photographic evidence of bud burst and field logs of date and temperature will
be included in the annual monitoring reports.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored period
(February 1-October 22) during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of
reference). These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are
marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be
performed.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 5
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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

of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than December 31 of each monitoring
year data is collected.
2.1 Streams
Annual monitoring of streams will include the development of channel cross -sections and substrate on
riffles and pools. Data to be presented in graphic and tabular format will include 1) cross -sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth ratio, 6) bank height ratio, and 7)
entrenchment ratio. Longitudinal profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring demonstrates
channel bank or bed instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along
reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.
Visual assessment of in -stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of
the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. In addition, visual assessments
of the entire channel will be conducted in years 1-3, 5, and 7 of monitoring as outlined in NCDMS Monitoring
Requirements and Reporting Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Areas of concern will be
depicted on a plan view figure identifying the location of concern along with a written assessment and
photograph of the area.
Year 7 (2022) stream measurements were performed on February 10 and March 10, 2022. As a whole,
monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross -sections compared to as -built data.
Before construction, ground cover was fully established, multiple heavy rain events (2+ inches) caused some
sedimentation in the streambed. This aggradation can be seen in several Year 1 (2016) cross -sections, and
it appears to have reduced and stabilized during Years 2-6 (2017-2021).
The year 1 (2016) measurements for cross -sections 9 and 10 on UT-1 showed stream bed erosion compared
with as -built data. Stream bed erosion was noted shortly after as -built measurements were taken and were
the result of the above mentioned rain events. It was evident bed material used during construction in this
area was finer than it should have been. Two riffles showed bed erosion, totaling approximately 50 feet in
length (approximately 1 percent of the project length). RS created and implemented a remedial action plan
during the winter of 2016/2017 (see Section 3.0 and Appendix Q. The repairs were stable during Year 7
(2022) monitoring, and future instability in this area is not anticipated.
Across the Site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No stream areas of concern
were identified during Year 7 (2022) monitoring; however, during previous monitoring years, three small
areas of bank erosion were observed in the Enhancement (Level II) reach of Travis Creek. These areas
remained during Year 7 (2022), however herbaceous vegetation has continued to establish along all three
spans, rendering them smaller and more stable than past years. Since first identified in 2018, these areas
have gradually stabilized, indicating that the Enhancement (level II) mitigation treatment is working as
proposed; therefore, they are no longer considered areas of concern. Tables for annual quantitative
assessments are included in Appendix C and photos are included in the site photo log (Appendix F).
2.2 Vegetation
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008).
In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented
by photograph.
After planting was completed on April 8, 2016, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting
methods and determine initial species composition and density. At this time, RS decided it was necessary
to implement a supplemental planting. Working with Carolina Silvics, RS planted 1030 containerized trees
consisting of 755 1-gallon pots and 275 3-gallon pots during the week of December 20, 2016, which included
the following species: Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occidentalis, Quercus falcata, Quercus
nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra. A remedial planting plan report detailing the
location of planting and density is provided in Appendix E.
Year 7 (2022) stem count measurements were performed in September 2022 and indicated an average of
384 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site. Twelve of the fourteen individual
vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone. When including naturally recruited
stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and hickory (Carya sp.),
Plots 2 and 13 are both above success criteria. Year 7 (2022) vegetation data can be found in Appendix C;
plot locations are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
2.3 Wetland Hydrology
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed to take measurements after hydrological
modifications were performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing
season at intervals necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, a
surface water gauge was installed in Tributary 3 to monitor the flow regime of the tributary. Approximate
locations of gauges are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix A).
Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy
jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, an onsite rain gauge will document
rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions, and floodplain
crest gauges will confirm overbank flooding events.
All three groundwater gauges met success for the Year 7 (2022) monitoring period. Wetland hydrology
data is in Appendix D.
2.4 Biotic Community Change
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored. In -stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during the monitoring period.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ protocols found in the Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroin vertebrates (NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macroin vertebrate
Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (NCDWQ 2001). Biological sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates will be used to compare pre -construction baseline data with post -construction restored
conditions.
Two benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations were established within restoration reaches. Post -
restoration collections will occur in the approximate location of the pre -restoration sampling. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using the Qual-4 collection method.
Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs, and visual
searches. Pre -project biological sampling occurred on June 26, 2014; post -project monitoring occurred in
June of monitoring years 2-5. Benthic macroinvertebrate data was included in those monitoring reports.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan was developed to address stream and vegetation problem areas observed during
Year 1 (2016) monitoring. The completed remedial action report can be found in Appendix G.
3.1 Stream
The degradation observed during Year 1 (2016) in and adjacent to cross -sections 9 and 10 on UT-1
encompasses approximately 12 linear feet and 15 linear feet of stream, respectively (<1 percent of the
project length). All bed material used during construction was harvested onsite. The material used along
this stream reach was too fine and washed from the riffles during heavy rainfall events, resulting in minor
bed scour, and a small, less than 6-inch head cut at the top of the riffle. Suitable sized channel bed material
was installed on February 23, 2017, at the proper elevation in the two riffles within UT-1. Bed material was
installed to provide bank toe protection, and planting with willow stakes occurred. Bank toe protection
designates that channel bed material will extend up the lower one-third of the bank. This area has been
monitored by cross -sections 9 and 10, which have shown that the riffles have stabilized since the repair.
No beaver activity was observed along Travis Creek during Year 7 (2022).
3.2 Vegetation
Multiple factors were contributing to poor vegetative success in Year 1 (2016), including a later than desired
initial bare -root planting, heavy herbaceous competition primarily from fescue (Site was previously a cattle
pasture), and sporadic rain events, which left upland areas of the Site dry for extended periods of the
growing season. Greater survival of planted species was observed within riparian areas.
The remedial action plan supplemented the bare -root planting over 5.44 acres with 1030 additional trees
(755 1-gallon pots and 275 3-gallon pots). The remedial action plan figure (Appendix G) details the areas
that received remedial planting along with density and number of species being placed into vegetation
plots. Working with Carolina Silvics, IRS acquired and re -planted the identified areas during the week of
December 20, 2016. Species planted included Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occidentalis,
Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra.
Treatment of invasive plant species has occurred each year of monitoring throughout the Site. IRS will
continue to treat and monitor the Site for invasive species as needed throughout the monitoring period.
Previous treatments on the small patch of cattails at the confluence of UT-1 and UT-2 were successful.
However, in the Spring of 2019, cattail regeneration was noted within the area of concern. Treatment was
conducted in July 2019, and the area continues to be monitored. Additional dense herbaceous vegetation
within UT-2, was noted during the spring of 2019. The vegetation appeared to be impeding the natural
hydrology of the stream. Treatment was conducted in July 2019.
During Year 5 (2020), it was observed that several upland areas around UT-1 and UT-2 had sparse
herbaceous vegetation. Four target areas were identified, totaling approximately 0.8 acres. Restoration
Systems applied 500 pounds lime, 200 pounds fertilizer, and 14 pounds seed mix across these areas. Year 7
(2022) observations indicate that the establishment of herbaceous vegetation in these areas was successful.
A vigorous population of herbaceous vegetation has established in the previously sparse areas, and no
further seeding will be necessary. The seed mix species are listed in the following table, and the target areas
are depicted in Figure 2 (Appendix B).
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2020 Seed Mix Species List
Blackeyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata)
Blue Vervain (Verbena hastata)
Plains Coreopsis (Coreopsis tinctoria)
Cosmos (Cosmos spp.)
Purple Conef lower (Echinacea purpurea)
Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera)
Purple Top (Tridens flavus)
Crimsoneyed Rosemallow (Hibiscus moscheutos)
Red Top (Agrostis gigantea)
Deertongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum)
Roundhead lespedeza (Lespedeza capitata)
Korean Lespedeza (Kummerowia striata)
Sensitive Pea (Chamaecrista nictitans)
Lanceleaf Coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata)
Showy Ticktrefoil (Desmodium canadense)
Marsh Blazing Star (Liatris spicata)
Slender lespedeza (Lespedeza virginica)
Narrowleaf Sunflower (Helianthus angustifolius)
Virginia Wildrye (Elymus virginicus)
Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)
Winter Bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis)
Oxeye Sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides)
In November 2022, Restoration Systems planted 30 7-gallon containerized trees along UT-1 and UT-2 within
the Site's Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest Vegetation Association — graphically shown in Figure 2 (Appendix
B). All species planted were listed in the approved mitigation plan and summarized in the following table.
Species
Number of Containerized
Trees Planted
Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
6
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
8
White Oak (Quercus alba)
8
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
8
Total
30
4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-
1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Engineer
Research and Development Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, SD. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 10
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS 2009). Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009 (online). Available: http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-
725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center. AgACIS Climate Data. Burlington Regional Airport WETS Station
(online). Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification (MiST).
EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative, NCSU,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 11
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX A
PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Directions to the Site from Interstates 40/85 in Burlington/Eton, NC:
,,--------,----,- ; �- ! . - Exit onto University Drive 140/85 Exit 140 and travel north toward Elon
z +- y - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
0 D - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
U zz - Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) Axiom rnvimnmenla7. Inc.
m - Travel north for 0.7 mile and Site is on the right
Prepared for:
CL
.use: ] - {`J• « - • :
_ y ,. , - r
S' f ;pyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, it ¢ -�, �,ry �, O
i ubed =+_ w ,
Project:
-------I Mountain Sedmae>:: r ----- + :r" f -- �J •, ;} r j
Aycock Springs
Stream and
Aitamahaw
AlWetland
87
Lekevlew ��,ry �: + ;1 _ �: I c ;: _ 1� _ Mitigation
---..-.. �l S;..f-. �� n - Site
Morgantown�Fk�
LtOn
.�B.urh- g`a'n h., Aycock Srin s ��• � .. .ss� V �' i < <x_•- -.- ;
_
Stream and Wetland
■ �c `• i 4 i Alamance County, NC
Mitigation Sites = �� r. ✓, �'' �" ''.
lxl�aanai `�� �, __ , I ��'�[-,� t� -'j i ': f`:r,-� �. •�._ �- �. ?` �-- ,� ,�_� i ,f � �- � � . . ���: ,�.. - Title:
- J swepsan: ale 1. �—I J 1
"- .•J I _ 36.127271 N
(5* !-79.525214 W _ ;
A - - a`' _ U Project
MOLR#b 8' •`_=d:td�.a 18W a. C -i y- L
� I - � , �• r � � ' + air
Location
_ ` • �fr is �'.�I;i -'!., 4_
f ��• r
----I Snaw Camp:. , •. "' ram: _ f .r� �, ` � ' ` :'..
87/
• r, m:J f { Ir u 1• _ . \; �. _ Notes:
—_—_—_—_—_
Copyright:©2014 DeLorme _ - GIBSONVILLE 1 - Background Imagery sources
`t, �• l f"
- �' L (provided by ESRI Data and
Maps):
•��yi � • 4 �. � rJ'
1. Physical Map of the United
States (2009) created by the
U.S. Park Service (upper inset).
2. Delorme World Basemap
-�'=, � ,� � =� I --' -- ' •! � digital mapping (2010, lower
Af='i��"+� BURL'INGT.ON7. inset).
r ` 3. Burlington, NC (1980),
,x1..•, •�- -_ _ -�� 7' iC+ c � •�' - - f +.•. Q } .',� , �", -�1 � Lake Burlington, NC (1969),
_ _ ,�;.•�:c � � � � ,� :�� L Gibsonville, NC (1970), and
%
•
minute topographic
ELON;f quadrangles provided by the
Ossipee, NC (1970) 7.5-
U.S. Geological Survey.
VO
- WHITSETT� � �• - -6 r - ` : - _ 41 ,
_70.ratAuc,ic=ri,� 'r -� -16 1 • _
Drawn b SG D
Date: May 2016
Legend Scale: As Shown
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site �b - s, :,+ i �r a Project No.: 14-006
_ __ I �•�:r -:-�-. •S• -' - fir: - •
County lines r= — } �.�
FIGURE
1 0.5 0 1 2 3 �_ :•.';: �� ./ - ° �`; ,i: ` s :::.
Miles _ 'y� - - - •.E � • - � -
Copyright:© 2013 N:a.ti4kri .e.ogr-aphirc=S•ociety~i=ctiWdy

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Nonriparian Wetland
Restoration
Enhancement
Re-establishment
Re-establishment
3318.333
262.800
0.5
--
Projects Components
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Station Range
Footage/
Priority
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Mitigation
Mitigation
Comment
Approach
Ratio
Credits
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
24 If of UT 1 is located outside of
UT 1 Station 10+04 to 23+21
1173
PI
Restoration
1:1
1293
1293
easement and is not credit generating
UT 2 Station 10+00 to 16+75
723
PI
Restoration
675
1:1
675
*** The upper 122 linear feet of
channel is in a violation area and is
UT 3 Station 10+00 to 11+22
147
PI
Restoration
122
1.5:1
81.3
generating credit at a reduced ratio of
1.5:1
UT 3 Station 11+22 to 12+12
16
PI
Restoration
90
1:1
90
****The upper 107 linear feet of
413-107=
UT 4 Station 10+00 to 14+13
448
PI
Restoration
1:1
306
channel is in a violation area and is
306
not credit generating
The upper 20 linear feet of Travis
Travis Creek
578-20=
578
Ell
2.5:1
223.2
Creek are within a powerline
Station 10+00 to 15+78
558
easement and is not credit generating
Travis Creek
274
PHRestoration
209
1:1
209
Station 15+78 to 17+87
Travis Creek
99
Ell
99
2.5:1
39.6
Station 17+87 to 18+86
Travis Creek
936
PI
Restoration
664
1:1
664
Station 23+71 to 30+35
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Nonriparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
3237
0.5
--
Restoration***
122
--
Enhancement (Level II)
657
--
Enhancement
--
1.5**
Totals
4016
--
--
Mitigation Units
3581.133 SMUs
0.5 Riparian WMUs
0.00 Nonriparian WMUs
**Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
*** Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to the clearing of trees adjacent to streams draining to
Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1. Onsite visits
conducted with USACE representatives determined that the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at
this ratio.
**** Before Site selection, the landowner received a violation for the unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States. Fill resulted
from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent
to the stream channel on jurisdictional wetlands. Before restoration activities, the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve
the violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID: SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches and wetland areas associated with the
violation area have been removed from credit generation — UT 4 begins credit generation at Station 11+07).
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Stream Monitoring
Complete
Vegetation
Monitoring
Complete
All Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No.
16-005568)
--
--
--
October 2013
DMS Contract No. 5791
--
--
--
February 2014
Mitigation Plan
--
--
October 2014
May 2015
Construction Plans
--
--
--
June 2015
Construction Earthwork
--
--
--
April 6, 2016
Planting
--
--
--
April 8, 2016
As -Built Documentation
April 6th, 2016
April 13th, 2016
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 18th,2016
October 13th, 2016
October 2016
December 2016
Supplemental Planting
--
--
--
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
April 19-20, 2017
July 25th, 2017
October 2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
April 16-17, 2018
July 19th, 2018
October 2018
October 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
October 2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
March 24th, 2020
July 7th, 2020
November 2020
December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
N/A
N/A
October 2021
November 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
March 10t", 2022
September 19t", 2022
November 2022
February 2023
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Full Delivery Provider
Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems
Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh, NC 27603
Edenton, NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Mary -Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and Erosion
As -built Surveyor
Control Plans
K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA
5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Project Information
Project Name
Aycock Springs Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
15
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
36.1272712N, 79.5252142W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03030002030010
NCDEQ Sub -basin for Project
03-06-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
26-3008
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<2%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Travis Cr
UT 1/UT2
UT 3
UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
1550
1966
212
413
Valley Classification
alluvial
Drainage Area (acres)
3008
68
26
119
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
--
30.75/25.5
26.75
27.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg 5/6-, Eg 5-, and Fc 5-type
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
IV
IV
III
III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Cecil, Helena, Mixed Alluvial Land, Severely Gullied
Land, Worsham
Drainage Class
Well -drained, moderately well -drained, poorly
drained, variable, poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric and Hydric
Slope
0.0023
0.0249
1 0.0153
0.0093
FEMA Classification
AE
Special Hazard Flood Area
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
42% forest, 53% agricultural land, <5% low density
residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock Reference
Channel)
65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low density
residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
< 5%
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetlands
Wetland acreage
1.6
Wetland Type
Riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham and Mixed Alluvial Land
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment
Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Resolved
404 Permit
Waters of the United States -Section 404
Yes
Resolved
401 Certification
Endangered Species Act
No
--
CE Doc.
Historic Preservation Act
No
--
CE Doc.
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
--
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Resolved
CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
--
NA
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Tables 5A-5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Legend
OConservation Easement - 132 ac
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration (@1.5:1)
Stream Restoration (No Credit)
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
In -stream Structures
' Wetland Restoration Area
Wetland Enhancement Area "
Cross Sections
CVS Plots meeting success criteria during MY-07 (2022)
- CVS Plots not meeting success criteria during MY-07 (2022)
• Groundwater Gauges
• Stream Gauge
77Constructed Crossings
--Previously Observed Stream Bank Erosion Areas
Invasive Species Management Areas
® 2022 Replant Area (3-5 gal containerized)
300 150 0 300
ys.,a
600
Feet
o
.ARinm Enorommnlai, ino.
Prepared for:
Project:
Aycock Springs
Stream and
Wetland
Mitigation
Site
Alamance County, NC
Title:
Current Conditions
Plan View
Notes
1. Background Imagery source:
2014 aerial photography
provided by the NC One Map
Program (online, supported by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council).
Drawn by:
KRJ/CLF
Date:
NOV 2022
Scale:
1:2400
Project No.:
14-006
FIGURE
2

Table 5A
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs - Travis Creek
1550
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
1 As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
9
9
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
9
9
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
F
9
9
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%
9
9
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
9
9
°
100/o

Table 513
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT1
1317
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
45
45
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
44
44
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
44
44
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
44
44
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
44
44
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
100%

Table 5C
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT2
675
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
25
25
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
24
24
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
24
24
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
24
24
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
24
24
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
6
6
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
6
6
100%

Table 5D
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT3
212
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
8
8
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
$
$
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
8
8
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
100%

Table 5E
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Aycock Springs UT4
413
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
I As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
I Vegetation
I Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
8
8
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
$
$
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
8
8
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
5
5
100%

Table 6
Planted Acreage'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Aycock Springs
11.9
Vegetation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% Of
Planted
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
1550
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage
13.3
% Of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polvaons
Acrea a
Acrea e
Management of Chinese privet and multiflora rose has been ongoing along Travis Creek MY1-7. There has
a
also been ongoing treatment for cattail along UT1 and UT2. In 2022, callery pear, autumn olive, Chinese
4. Ongoing Invasive Species Management Areas
privet, and multiflora rose were treated along the upper reach of UT-2. All invasive teatments have been
1000 SF
Yellow Hatch
4
3.18
o
23.9/o
successful, and vegetation condition has improved in all treatment areas.
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings
or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if
in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by
DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat
level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one
that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature
can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Plot 5
Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken September 2022
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (continued)
Taken September 2022
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation
Survival
Threshold
Met?
MY 7 (2022)
Planted
Stems/Acre
MY 7 (2022)
All
Stems/Acre
Average Height (ft) -
All Planted Stems
Average Height (ft) -
Tallest 6 Stems per
Plot**
Tract Mean
1
Yes
728
931
7.26
11.46
2
No*
202
364
9.02
9.02
3
Yes
283
283
9.50
9.91
4
Yes
405
1214
8.58
10.09
5
Yes
405
1133
4.87
7.09
6
Yes
607
1012
9.81
12.13
7
Yes
567
567
7.04
8.45
8
Yes
364
607
9.44
11.24
85.7
9
Yes
243
283
11.46
11.46
10
Yes
364
486
10.12
11.64
11
Yes
364
769
7.23
8.24
12
Yes
364
526
9.89
13.07
13
No*
121
567
5.12
5.12
14
Yes
364
648
12.35
14.93
Total =
385
671
8.69
10.27
*These plots did not meet success criteria based on planted stems only; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and hickory (Carya sp.), these plots
were above success criteria.
** Stem height was tracked for planted stems only. To achieve the 210 stems/acre performance standard, each plot
requires at least six stems; this column represents an average height of the tallest 6 stems per plot.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
9/26/2022 13:16
database name
RS-Aycock_2022.mdb
database location
\\ae-file\share\Business\Projects\14\14-006 Aycock Springs Detailed\2022 YEAR-07\CVS
computer name
BRITTNIE-PC
file size
56627200
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN
THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
14-006
project Name
Aycock Springs
Description
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
14
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0001
14.006-01-0002
14.006-01-0003
14.006-01-0004
14.006-01-0005
14.006-01-0006
14.006-01-0007
14.006-01-0008
14.006-01-0009
14.006-01-0010
14.006-01-0011
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
5
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
Celtis
hackberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
9
91
9
31
31
3
31
3
3
31
3
31
3
31
3
101
101
10
51
5
5
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Corpus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
4
1
1
16
1
1
14
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
41
2
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1 1
11
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
21
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
21
1
1
1
31
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
51
5
5
1
1
1
11
1
11
1 1
11
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
5
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
11
2
Ulmus
Jelm
ITree
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
ITree
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
ITree
1
2
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
18
23
5
5
9
7
7
7
10
10
30
10
10
28
15
151
25
14
14
14
9
9
15
6
61
9
9
12
9
9
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
4
4
6
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
9
3
3
6
7
7
7
6
6
8
6
6
7
5
5
5
6
6
9
728.4
728.4
930.8
202.3
202.3
364.2
283.3
283.3
283.3
404.7
404.7
1214
404.7
404.7
1133
607
607
1012
566.6
566.6
566.6
364.2
364.2
607
242.8
242.8
283.3
364.2
364.2
485.6
364 21
364.21
768.9
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0012
14.006-01-0013
14.006-01-0014
MY7 (2022)
MY5 (2020)
MY4 (2019)
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
7
2
14
9
2
9
5
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
8
4
2
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
7
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
71
7
7
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
Celtis
hackberry
Tree
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
4
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
11
11
1
1
471
47
471
45
451
45
481
481
49
461
46
46
49
491
49
521
521
52
57
57
57
Corpus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
21
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
5
1
3
3
6
12
12
59
12
12
117
13
13
80
13
13
36
10
10
31
5
5
13
3
3
5
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1 6
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
61
6
6
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
19
7
7
9
7
7
16
7
7
10
7
7
9
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1 5
5
5
41
4
4
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1 2
2
21
2
21
2
21
2
3
11
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
7
7
5
5
5
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
11
11
1
11
111
13
9
9
16
9
9
10
9
9
91
9
9
9
61
6
6
18
18
18
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
11
1
1
1
11
11
11
14
141
14
161
16
17
14
14
16
12
121
12
11
11
11
13
13
13
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
1
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
5
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
2
6
3
3
3
7
7
7
11
11
11
62
62
62
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
2
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
2
9
4
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
13
3
3
14
9
9
16
133
133
232
130
130
284
134
134
229
128
128
158
131
131
171
115
115
141
2051
205
216
1
1
1
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
6
6
8
3
3
7
4
4
6
18
18
25
18
18
23
16
16
20
15
15
16
17
17
23
15
15
20
14
14
16
364.2
364.2
526.1
121.4
121.4
566.6
364.21
364.21
647.51
384.51
384.51
670.61
375.81
375.81
820.91387.31
387 31
662
3701
3701
456 71
378.71
378.71
494.3
332.41
332.41
407.61
592.61
592.61
624.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross -Section Plots
Table 10a-10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-11f. Monitoring Data
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Site
cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
vis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
7TRiffle
Feature
Date:
0/2022
Field Crew:
ams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.4
595.18
5.6
595.16
8.9
595.02
10.3
594.60
11.5
594.18
12.4
593.30
13.4
592.06
14.8
591.96
16.1
591.89
17.3
591.85
18.5
591.91
19.4
591.89
20.4
592.47
23.4
592.77
25.3
593.42
29.6
593.31
34.7
593.66
40.7
594.60
46.4
595.20
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
41.3
Bankfull Width:
29.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Low Bank Height:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
21.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
598
597
____________________________________________________________________
596
m
595
0
__---- _----------------------------------
__
sualr-oo
594
-----sou
a
�
� � � � -Flood Prone Area
W
593
MY-004/6/I6
MY-01 ]0/H/16
592
MY-024/20/17
�-03 a16/18
M -05 3/=O
591
z-07M0/2022
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 v zos-07
Station (feet)

Site
cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
vis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
7TRiffle
Feature
Date:
0/2022
Field Crew:
ams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.10
4.0
594.70
6.4
593.62
6.4
593.60
8.2
593.27
9.6
592.49
11.7
592.19
13.5
592.03
15.6
592.21
17.6
592.42
19.7
592.53
22.4
592.67
23.6
592.82
25.5
594.38
27.8
594.86
30.4
594.93
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
47.5
Bankfull Width:
29.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.9
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Low Bank Height:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.91
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
599
598
________________________________________________________________
597
596
0
595
594
sou-oo
593
-----rl..d }tee Area
MY-00 Mblm
M -01 10/18/16
592
..17
M-0341&18
591
z -05 3220
0 5 10 15 20 25
- MY-o7 11-
n MB i -07
Station (feet)

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
7
i ay
(�
a r141
z
n'
y
Vsf
r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
--------------------------------------------------------
595
sou t�n-ao
----- a�u
594
----- Flood Prove Area
MY-004/b/Ib
O
MY-01 10/IB/Ib
593
m
z� 24rzo/17
WMY-03
4/Ib/18
592
�
n
Mr-0s s uno
Mr-0� vwnz
z B i
591
-V
0 5 10
15
20 25 30 35
40
45 50
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-1.7
595.2
3.4
595.1
9.0
594.9
14.9
594.4
17.4
594.0
18.7
593.1
21.5
592.8
24.2
592.3
26.7
592.3
28.9
591.9
30.4
591.4
31.3
591.6
31.9
593.5
34.4
594.8
43.0
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
58.7
Bankfull Width:
43.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BankfulL•
4.0
Low Bank Height:
3.5
Mean Depth at BankfulL•
1.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
cock Springs
Watershed:
e Fear, 0303002
XS ID
vis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
nRi
Feature
fle
Date:
0/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.02
3.4
594.98
4.8
594.60
5.9
593.23
8.2
592.73
10.7
592.85
13.5
592.65
15.9
592.86
17.1
592.98
18.0
594.34
20.0
594.36
25.2
594.59
27.5
595.12
30.1
595.45
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
47.2
Bankfull Width:
28.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.5
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Low Bank Height:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
17.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
599
_________________ ___________-------------------------------
598
597
m
596
o-----
-----------------------------------------------
595
sou-oo
m-----a-kfu
W-
- - - - Flood Prove Area
594
t�n-oo a6/16
MY I10/18/16
593
�24/20/17
Mr-os a16/1s
592
os 3r24n0
0 5 10 15 20 25
30 "-092/10/22
a MB i -07
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment deposition appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
4.6
595.3
5.8
595.0
7.4
594.6
8.3
594.3
9.8
593.6
11.3
592.3
13.8
591.5
15.8
591.9
17.7
592.2
21.8
592.3
26.3
593.6
28.0
594.6
32.7
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
61.4
Bankfull Width:
32.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.0
Low Bank Height:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
596
595
594
O
593
m
W
592
591 +
0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
------------------------------------------------ =Z
a-kf.0 i -W
-----a-kfu
- Flood Prone Area
MY-Od G76/16
MY-01 lo/1-
ivn-0z azon7
MY-03 4 I'n
MY-05 3YL1Yz0
MY 7110/22
A MB i -o7
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
f a
d
s M Vie';
r_
r
7
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
600
________________
599
._____________-------------------------------
598
-aqua -00
-----a�u
S97
---- -Flood Prone Area
0 596____________________________________________________________-ooabnb
MY-01 10/I8/Ib
?
595
MI-02 a20/1]
C�
i�-0s a16/1s
594
z� 53/24/20
M
593
-0]2/1012
n z B z -0]
592
0 5
10
15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.5
595.90
3.6
595.61
7.2
594.59
9.7
594.85
11.1
593.57
14.1
593.40
16.9
593.17
20.5
593.42
22.6
593.13
24.4
593.43
26.0
594.85
27.1
595.53
30.6
596.43
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
54.9
Bankfull Width:
29.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.1
Low Bank Height:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.91

ins
Watershed:
0303002
XS ID
XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
i,
s'.'8
a
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596 _____________________________________________________
595
m
� B�u Mr-oo
-----a�u
0 594 Aar
----- Flood Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
593
[� MY I10/18/16
MY-024Y20/1]
592
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-06 3/2120
591 _ z�-0] 11/12
0 5 10 15 20 25 a MB z -o] 5
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.
Site gme"k,
Station
EI tion
0.0
596.2
3.2
596.1
6.2
595.8
8.0
595.9
8.3
594.9
9.3
594.0
10.2
593.3
11.1
593.1
12.8
593.0
14.6
593.0
16.1
592.9
17.3
592.6
18.2
592.8
20.3
592.9
22.0
592.9
23.3
592.8
24.4
592.8
25.9
592.9
26.0
592.9
26.8
594.0
27.6
595.1
28.4
595.4
30.0
595.7
32.3
595.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
60.0
Bankfull Width:
28.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Low Bank Height:
3.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull•
2.1
W / D Ratio•
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
vis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
7TRiffle
Feature
Date:
0/2022
Field Crew:
ams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.54
2.0
596.51
3.7
595.78
4.6
595.10
6.3
594.17
6.9
593.08
8.4
593.22
11.3
592.71
13.2
592.86
15.0
592.84
16.5
593.19
17.4
593.24
18.9
593.39
19.8
593.48
21.1
593.55
21.8
594.31
23.0
595.08
24.1
595.26
26.0
595.47
28.3
595.66
30.1
596.1
32.1
596.8
34.1
597.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
64.6
Bankfull Width:
29.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Low Bank Height:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
601
600
_______________•__________________________________________-
599
598
a u i -W
597
-----a-I&u
O
- - - - - --- ----�- - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Flood Prone Area
596
i-N4/bnb
m
W595
-11oi1si1e
t� 2a 0/17
594
MY 3a16n8
593
MY 5 3/2 /20
t-072/l0/22
592
n MB z -07
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)

Site
in s
Watershed:
0303002
99'o"k,
XS ID
XS - 9, Pool
Feature
MIAdams,
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Harris, Perkinson
Station
tion
-0.9
596.4
2.0
596.4
3.4
596.3
5.3
596.1
6.2
595.7
7.2
594.9
10.0
592.4
11.1
592.2
12.8
592.1
14.1
592.2
16.9
591.8
18.5
591.8
20.9
591.6
22.8
591.9
23.6
592.1
24.6
592.5
26.5
595.5
27.8
595.7
30.5
596.1
34.6
596.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
65.9
Bankfull Width:
22.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.2
Low Bank Height:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
W / D Ratio•
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type C/E

Site
gme"k,
4
�I
.,
�. �F
as,
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
599
598
597
596
0 595
594
W 593
592
07
591
0 10
20
30 40
50
60
Station (feet)
ins
Watershed:
0303002
XS ID
XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
EI tion
-0.5
597.2
4.2
596.8
8.4
596.2
13.2
595.8
17.6
595.5
20.2
594.8
22.1
594.1
23.0
594.0
24.7
593.4
26.1
593.2
27.8
592.9
29.7
592.7
31.0
592.6
32.3
592.3
34.0
592.3
34.8
592.9
35.5
593.3
36.3
593.7
37.0
594.4
37.8
595.0
39.2
596.1
40.4
596.5
41.7
597.2
42.6
597.3
44.7
597.6
47.8
598.0
50.0
598.2
52.1
598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
100.1
Bankfull Width:
43.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BankfulL•
5.0
Low Bank Height:
4.9
Mean Depth at BankfulL•
2.3
W / D Ratio•
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
vis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
7TRiffle
Feature
Date:
0/2022
Field Crew:
ams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.46
2.1
597.20
4.3
596.64
7.9
596.16
10.5
595.01
12.0
594.69
12.3
593.02
14.8
593.12
17.5
593.02
19.2
592.97
20.3
592.94
22.1
593.02
23.0
593.27
23.8
593.44
24.1
593.97
24.5
594.09
26.2
594.68
27.2
595.02
29.1
595.32
30.2
595.11
32.0
595.0
33.3
595.5
34.5
595.9
35.9
596.2
38.1
596.8
42.4
596.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
73.9
Bankfull Width:
36.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.9
Low Bank Height:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
602
601
600
599
m
598
0 597
____ ---------------------------------------------------
? 596
m
- Baalfuu i -oo
W 595
-----Baal.0
- - - - Flood Rohe Area
594
z-004/N16
593
MY-01 10/18/16
�-oz azo/n
592
z -03 a1&18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
moss azo
� t�-07 vlonz
Station (feet)
A MB M
-07

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Ei§Adams,
Travis Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.51
5.4
598.07
9.4
597.45
12.6
596.15
15.2
594.92
17.2
593.96
20.1
593.69
21.7
593.63
24.7
594.14
26.5
594.96
28.8
596.19
32.0
596.77
35.6
597.68
39.7
598.55
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
68.7
Bankfull Width:
31.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.3
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.3
Low Bank Height:
4.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
14.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
603
602
__________________._____________------------------------------.
601
600
m
599
0
598
B-kfu i -W
ti
597
-----B-kfu
W
596
-----Flood Prone Area
595
MY-00 ab116
MY-01 10/I8/16
594
�24/20/17
593
t�-0s a10/]s
MY-02 3/24/20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
--7-1-
Station (feet)
A MB Mi 7

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
7
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.7
3.4
597.6
5.9
596.9
8.5
595.4
11.5
593.2
13.0
592.7
16.5
592.9
18.7
593.6
20.6
595.4
23.3
597.0
28.0
597.6
31.9
598.6
34.7
598.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
64.0
Bankfull Width:
28.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
5.1
Low Bank Height:
4.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
600
599
598
------------------------------------------------------
597
B�u i�-oo
-----B-kfu
596
0
595
-----P1oud Pr A-
m
W 594
z�-oo a6/16
MY-01 ]0/H/16
593
z-024/20n9
MY-03 alb/IB
592
- �' Bruno
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
�t� 72/]on2
40
Station (feet)
n MB m -07
Note: Sediment movement in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
vis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
7TRiffle
Feature
Date:
0/2022
Field Crew:
ams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.4
599.10
4.9
597.87
8.3
596.99
9.6
595.99
10.5
595.03
12.8
594.78
15.3
594.58
17.8
594.69
20.5
595.04
23.9
595.67
26.3
596.04
29.0
596.56
31.5
597.92
34.5
599.15
36.9
599.58
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
104.5
Bankfull Width:
36.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
604.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.8
Low Bank Height:
4.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
W / D Ratio:
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.95
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
605
604
__________________ .________________-------------------------------
603
602
601
m
600
599
--------------------------------------------------------------
0
598
a-kfu z -N
W 597
- - - - Flood Prone Area
596
oo 1116
595-01
lonsne
594
t�n-oz azon�
n os alo is
593 z -oz srurzo
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 M-owlorzz
A MB i -o7
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.3
591.54
1.3
591.45
2.8
591.29
3.9
591.04
5.1
590.86
5.6
590.88
6.3
590.67
6.9
590.48
7.5
590.50
8.2
590.67
9.0
590.63
9.4
591.03
10.0
591.16
10.4
591.34
11.4
591.55
12.1
591.69
14.5
591.76
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
11.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
23.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
593
592
x
0
N
W 591
590
0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
2 4 6 8 10
Station (feet)
-------------
Bankfull MY-00
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
12 MY-05 2/7/20
MY-07 2/10/22
A TOB MY-07
16

�=
A �'
r
F A
i-
t ...
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
593
-----------------------------------------------------------
592
Bankfull MY-00
• Bankfull
N
w 59 1
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-MY10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
590
MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2
4 6
8 10
12
MY-07 2/10/22
Station (feet)
a TOB MY-07
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Elevation
0.1
591.59
2.0
591.47
3.7
591.32
4.8
591.15
5.7
590.91
6.3
590.81
6.9
590.73
7.6
590.73
8.0
590.94
8.2
591.09
8.4
591.22
9.4
591.17
10.7
591.35
12.0
591.48
12.4
591.53
13.7
591.59
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.6
Banld'ull Width:
13.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
40.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.3
2.5
592.1
3.9
591.6
4.7
591.5
5.0
590.7
6.1
590.5
7.0
590.5
7.9
590.8
8.6
590.9
9.3
591.2
10.3
591.6
11.4
591.8
14.2
592.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.7
Banld'ull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.1
592.00
4.0
591.39
5.9
591.39
6.5
591.09
7.0
590.97
7.4
590.91
7.8
590.94
8.3
590.95
8.9
591.16
9.5
591.57
10.5
591.95
11.5
592.19
13.2
592.31
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
592.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.2
Bankfull Width:
10.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
594
--------------------------------------------------------------
593---
0
592
Bankfull MY-00
%mw
w
7
• Bankfull
•Flood Prone Area
591
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
590
MY-os 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10
MY-07 2/10/22
14
Station (feet)
a TOB MY-07

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.1
592.42
2.6
592.16
4.5
591.74
6.4
591.80
6.8
591.19
7.4
591.10
8.3
591.10
8.9
591.47
9.6
591.61
10.8
591.88
12.1
592.26
13.7
592.33
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
592.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.6
Bankfull Width:
13.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
25.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -
5, Riffle
594
593
------------------------------------------
-
592
BankfullMY-00
• Bankfull
ti
w
• Flood Prone Area
591
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
590
MY-os 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8
10
12
16
MY-07 zno/zz
Station (feet)
, TOB MY-07

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
592.81
1.3
592.87
2.2
592.82
2.9
592.35
3.3
592.37
3.9
592.24
4.4
592.21
4.9
592.13
5.3
592.57
5.8
592.54
6.6
592.66
7.8
592.41
8.9
592.54
10.2
592.68
11.9
592.52
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
11.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
36.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.8
Bank Height Ratio:
0.75
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
594
------------- ---------------------------------------
593
------------------------------------------------
i
x
0
Bankfull MY-00
p�
� � � • Bankfull
ti
w
592
. Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10//18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
591
MY-05 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10
MY-07 2/10/22
14
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-07
Note: Sediment deposition appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.3
593.10
1.8
592.95
3.3
592.93
4.0
592.83
4.7
592.44
5.2
592.41
5.9
592.39
6.5
592.53
7.1
592.61
7.7
592.73
8.2
592.92
8.8
593.03
9.8
593.21
11.7
593.05
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.9
Bankfull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
32.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
0.87
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
595
Bankfull MY-00
• Bankfull
594
• Flood Prone Area
N
MY-00 4/6/16
O
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
w
MY-034/16/18
593
MY-05 2/7/20
MY-07 2/10/22
a TOB MY-07
592
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.1
593.3
1.9
593.2
2.9
593.3
3.3
593.2
4.0
592.5
4.8
592.4
5.3
592.3
5.8
592.1
6.3
592.2
7.2
592.3
7.6
592.8
8.0
593.0
8.6
593.2
9.6
593.3
11.2
593.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.7
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
594
N
0 593
N
w
592
0
4
.A
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
-----------------------------------------
2 4 6 8 10
Station (feet)
Bankfull MY-00
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
MY-07 2/10/22
TOB MY-07
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added by hand in this reach.
4

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.77
2.2
594.71
3.3
594.56
4.1
594.53
4.6
594.18
5.3
593.98
5.9
594.07
6.4
594.05
7.2
594.28
8.1
594.72
9.0
594.79
10.9
594.81
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
10.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
39.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.3
Bank Height Ratio:
0.90
Stream Type C/E
s
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
596
------------------------------------------------------
595
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --
Bankfull MY-00
O
�,
- - - • Bankfull
O
?
- - - • Flood Prone Area
ti
w
594
MY-004/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
593
MY-07 zno/zz
0 2 4 6 8 10
14
o TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added by hand in this reach.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
'
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 10, Pool�i
Y �
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
SUMMARY DATA
0.1
595.7
Bankfull Elevation:
594.5
1.8
595.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.7
'
3.2
595.4
Bankfull Width:
4.5
3.9
595.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
-
r
4.5
593.7
Flood Prone Width:
NA�
1
�
5.7
593.2
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
\
6.7
593.1
Low Bank Height:
2.2`''
7.9
593.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
8.4
593.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
8.8
594.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
9.8
595.5
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
12.3
595.8
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -10, Pool
597
596
0
595
BankfullMY-00
O--
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---
------
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — —.Bankfull
594
• Flood Prone Area
N
w
MY-00 4/6/16
593
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
592
MY-05 2/7/20
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-07 2/10/22
14
Station (feet)
a TOB MY-07
Note: Sediment mobilization during storm events has occurred; however, latteral stability has not been compromised. No
problems are expected to result from pool deepening.

Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/10/2022
Field Crew: Adams, Harris, Perkinson
r `
Yr
J /
i
y �
Station Elevation. a
0.1 596.05
1.8 596.06
3.3 595.73�
3.8 595.04
4.2 595.04;_
4.9 595.10�` U
5.4 595.16Height:
6.0 595.61Depth
7.7 595.50 �✓� ��� `"
9.6 596.03
11.7 596.16
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
598
597— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
596 o — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bankfull MY-00
• Bankfull
ti
w • Flood Prone Area
595 MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
594
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-os 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 14
MY-07 2/10/22
Station (feet) , TOB MY-07
r `
Yr
J /
i
y �
Station Elevation. a
0.1 596.05
1.8 596.06
3.3 595.73�
3.8 595.04
4.2 595.04;_
4.9 595.10�` U
5.4 595.16Height:
6.0 595.61Depth
7.7 595.50 �✓� ��� `"
9.6 596.03
11.7 596.16
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
598
597— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
596 o — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Bankfull MY-00
• Bankfull
ti
w • Flood Prone Area
595 MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
594
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-os 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 14
MY-07 2/10/22
Station (feet) , TOB MY-07
597.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
a a
Station Elevation `
y k
0.0 597.65
2.0 597.54�<�
2.7 597.29�_
3.2 596.95
4.7 596.94�
5.2 597.14
6.2 597.43
8.4 597.42Depth
11.1 597.55
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
599
----------------------------------------------------------------
598
----------------------
o
Bankfull MY-00
ti • Bankfull
597 Flood Prone Area
W
•
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
596 MY-os 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 = MY-07 2/10/22 12
Station (feet) a TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Banld'ull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
33.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.94

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.2
4.1
597.9
5.1
597.9
5.6
597.7
6.0
596.8
6.7
596.6
7.4
596.5
8.2
596.5
8.9
597.9
9.9
598.0
12.0
598.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.5
Bankfull Width:
11.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type IC/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
599
--
598 !
------------------------------------------------
_—
N
B-kfWI MY-00
--� � � Bankfiill
�
io
O
— — — — — Flaod Prone Area
O
MY-004/6/16
W597
MY-011111M
MY-02 4/:1/:7
MY-04/6/8
MY-05 2nl20
596
f MY-072/10/22
0
2 4 6 8 10
TOB MY-07 14
Station (feet)
Note: Point bar development in pool is natural and appears stable through year 7 monitoring.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.3
598.37
2.0
598.30
2.7
598.17
3.3
597.86
3.7
597.62
4.6
597.64
5.1
597.47
5.9
597.55
6.8
597.71
7.5
598.04
8.3
598.31
9.4
598.42
11.0
598.45
�.
r
rJ
R R f at
s \
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -14, Riffle
600
----------------------------------------------------------------
599
0
_ _
? BankRill MY-00
N
W 598 Bankfidl
- - - - Flaod Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
597
MY-05 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 1 f MY-072/10M 12
Station (feet) a TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.1
Banld'ull Width:
6.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

kd
i
a
�a
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -15, Riffle
603
---------------------------------------------------------
602
----- -
-----------------------------
B-kfWt MY-00
---� Bankfiill
N
W 601
� - - - - Flaod Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
MY-0110118/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
600
MY-052nl20
0 2
4
6
8 10
} MY-072/10/22 14
Station (feet)
p TOB MY-07
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 15, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.3
602.02
4.2
601.21
5.8
601.25
6.3
601.24
6.3
600.92
6.8
600.79
7.4
600.88
8.1
600.89
8.5
601.16
9.0
601.54
10.3
601.65
11.5
601.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Banld'ull Width:
10.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
25.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

1�1 l
y
g�
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 16, Riffle
604
603------------------
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
0
-------------�---------------------------------------
BankRdl MY-00
W 602
-----B-kfll
- - - - Flaod Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-M 4/19/17
601
M--0 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
MY-05 2/7/20
14
MY-07 2/10,22
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-07
Note: Sediment transport appears natural and has stabilized during years 1-7. No problems are occuring in this reach.
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 16, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation0.0
602.15
2.1
602.10
3.0
602.07
3.4
601.92
41
601.68
4.9
601.51
5.6
601.55
63
601.57
73
601.53
8.4
601.83
9.8
601.96
112
60229
12.6
60229
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
602.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.6
Banld'ull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
603.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
27.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.74

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 17, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation0.0
603.82
2.5
603.59
4.4
603.30
5.7
603.02
6.1
602.66
6.8
602.47
7.4
602.35
8.1
602.46
8.7
602.54
9.6
602.96
10.4
603.21
13.1
603.41
b
A�
t iY L�,n (� ,,'.' ice.
1.
6�
E
s
i
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 17, Riffle
605
---------------------------------------------------------
-� 604 Bankfidl MY-00
---�
N
BankRdl
S' ----- Heed Prone Area
O
+�---------------�-------------------------- MY-004/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
W 603 M.1/11/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2n12020
f MY-072/10/22
A TOB MY:��602
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'nll Elevation:
603.4
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.9
Banld'ull Width:
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
604.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/10/2022
Field Crew: Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Banld'nll Elevation:
605.9
Station Elevation
-0.2 606.14
�
2.3 605.99
e ice. a
3.3 605.61 W.
3.8 605.53
4.2 604.68
4.8 604.63
5.5 604.75 ry4 //�/�/y' mow.:
6.2 605.34 _ tp s A, "I
7.3 605.5 6 �✓ « ass Ff
9.4 605.91 x
12.4 606.62
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
608
607
-------------------------------------------------------------•
Opp
606 B-kUl MY-00
i,- - -------------------------- - ------------------ B-kfidl
-
Z.)- - - - - Floral Prone Area
ti
W MY-004/6/16
605 MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2nl20
604 t MY-072/10/22
0 2 4 6 8 10 A TOB MY-07 14
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.1
607.3
2.1
607.1
4.2
606.8
5.8
606.7
6.3
606.3
6.8
605.8
7.0
605.8
7.6
605.6
8.4
605.5
9.3
605.6
9.9
605.7
10.4
606.3
11.4
606.9
13.3
607.6
15.2
607.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.5
Banld'ull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type C/E
Note: Point bar development appears to have stabilized during years 1-7.

4
�d t
►� s,
a
Stream Type C/E
Aycock
Springs, UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
609
----------------------------------------------------------
608
------------------------------------
B-kfWt MY-00
----- B-kfWt
ti---�
W 607
Flood Prove Area
MY-004/6/16
MY-0110118/16
MY-.4/11/17
MY-03 4/16/18
606
MY-05 2nl20
0 2
4 6
8 10
MY-07 2/10/22
12
1 6
A TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
_7�`
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-1.0
607.45
2.8
607.33
4.0
607.17
4.7
607.00
5.1
606.67
6.0
606.65
6.6
606.61
7.3
606.69
8.0
606.84
9.1
606.88
10.4
606.95
11.9
607.55
13.4
607.77
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.3
Bankfull Width:
12.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
30.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.06

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
609.9
2.6
609.6
4.1
609.5
5.3
609.3
5.8
609.0
6.4
607.4
7.1
607.5
7.8
607.6
8.4
607.8
8.7
607.7
9.1
608.8
10.4
609.2
13.4
609.7
15.6
609.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
609.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.3
Bankfull Width:
14.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.3
Low Bank Height:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
,
r
� %
3
i
Ira
a
V
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
611
610
--- -- -----------------------------
O60n
B-.1 MY-00
7
- - - - - Bankfidl
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
ti
W
MY-004/6/16
608
MY-0110/1 116
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/H
MY-05 21.
607
f MY-072/10/22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14
ri 8
p TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
Note: Point bar development appears to have stabilized during years 1-7.

�Lp
s
Stream Type C/E
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
611 ---
------------
OB-kfidl
MY-00
�
����� BankRill
Z.)
� � � � � Flood Prone Area
ti
W 610
MY-.4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 04/16/18
MY-05 2nl20
609
t MY-072/10/22
0 2
4
6 8
10 p
TOB MY-07
14
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.3
611.44
3.1
611.09
4.5
611.06
4.9
611.06
5.5
611.00
5.9
610.63
6.2
610.42
6.7
610.21
7.3
610.20
7.7
610.12
8.1
610.39
8.4
610.96
9.0
611.18
10.1
611.27
11.8
611.34
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'nll Elevation:
611.3
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Banld'ull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
612.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
25.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.5
Bank Height Ratio:
0.91

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
612.90
2.4
612.54
4.4
612.26
5.2
612.18
5.7
612.10
6.2
611.95
7.2
611.84
7.6
611.72
8.2
611.80
8.7
612.40
9.4
612.52
10.7
612.58
12.2
612.55
XV !PUPW �Ivg�
All I
r
12py
a
ON
u� f
r
3�F Yul
E
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
614
-------------------------------------------------------------
613
x -- -----------------------------
- - - Bankfwl MY--
Bankfiill
N
W 612 - - - - -Flaod Prone Area
MY-004/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
611 MY-05 2n/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 t MY-072/10/22 14
a TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
612.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Banld'ull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
613.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
32.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.8
Bank Height Ratio:
0.90

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.1
613.30
2.5
613.18
4.1
612.86
4.6
612.73
5.1
612.62
5.8
612.65
6.4
612.33
7.0
612.51
7.3
612.72
7.7
613.01
8.2
613.12
8.8
613.02
10.0
613.21
11.3
613.35
( i
x
zy' irp ,
��
_ 5 3
%
a d;
r
30
AN
ul
F/,�
Stream Type CB
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
615
--------------- -------------------------------------
614
Bankfidl MY-00
- � -- - - - - - -BankRdl
� ------- -------------------------------- - - - - -Flaod Prone Area
ti
W 613 MY-.1/6/16
MY-0110118/16
JI
M.1/11/17
004
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2n/20
t MY-072/10/22
612 A TOB MY-07
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'nll Elevation:
613.3
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Banld'ull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
614.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.0
Low Bank

Watershed:
Ca e Fear, 0303002
XS
w.
k
g sr
�_ ✓ - L�
k 4 r ?ate r
s.
...
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -1, Pool
594
-- -----------------------------------------------
S, 593 BaukfullMY-00
O
Baukfull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
N
W
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
5 92 MY-05 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 } MY-07 2/10/22 12
Station (feet) , TOB MY-07
Site Aycock Springs
IDIA-
Station
Elevation
-0.2
593.4
0.9
593.4
1.8
593.3
2.6
593.1
3.1
592.9
3.5
592.8
3.9
592.8
4.5
592.8
5.0
592.8
5.5
592.9
6.1
593.0
6.8
593.2
7.9
593.3
9.5
593.4
10.4
593.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.09
0.1
594.11
1.2
594.11
2.1
594.09
3.1
593.96
3.5
593.78
4.2
593.78
5.2
593.75
6.2
593.72
7.0
593.79
7.9
594.01
8.7
594.24
9.8
594.24
11.0
594.22
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
5.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl,full:
0.3
Low Bank Height:
0.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
25.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
18.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.90
Stream Type C/E
595
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------
°
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- --
Banldull MY-00
- - - - - Bankfull
W-
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
594
MY-05 2/7/20
0
2 4 6 O O
t MY-07 2/10/22 12
a TOB MY-07
Station (feet)

�i1W' 11
1 "`�l
s +"
k
h¢W.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
596
---------------------------------------------------------------
0 595
let
ti
w.....
Baukfull MY-00
Banldull
- - - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
594
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 MY-052/7/20 2
f MY-072/10/22
Station (feet)
n TOB MY-07
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.80
1.8
594.78
2.8
594.59
3.6
594.55
4.1
594.33
4.7
594.33
5.3
594.51
5.7
594.59
6.3
594.61
7.1
594.70
8.3
594.86
9.3
594.98
10.7
594.95
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Banld'ull Width:
8.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
39.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.0
Bank Height Ratio:
0.89

Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
(,
}
'Al
'"m}l. +mot a��s � "+ i �� d .�C t', �' ,G' xS ✓1/ P �, _ r
a, a Sf
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
596.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
595.5
x
°- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
p� Baukfull MY-00
W595.0-----Baokfull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
594.5 MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 --IN--MY-07 2/10/22 14
Station (feet) A TOB MY-07
Site Aycock Springs `
Station
Elevation
0.5
595.43
1.9
595.41
3.1
595.33
3.7
595.25
4.2
595.10
4.7
594.93
5.0
594.85
5.5
594.89
6.4
595.00
7.3
595.05
8.0
595.09
8.9
595.24
9.9
595.37
11.1
595.38
12.2
595.35
12.9
595.33
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Banld'ull Width:
5.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.4
Low Bank Height:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
25.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
18.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.07

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.23
1.7
597.07
3.2
596.86
4.2
596.69
4.8
596.60
5.5
596.45
5.9
596.42
6.5
596.42
6.9
596.48
7.5
596.64
8.1
596.75
8.9
597.13
9.8
597.16
10.0
597.15
10.7
597.10
11.1
597.06
��
,`� y u
oe
�a
8 ie
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
598
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
0 597 _-- -
Bankfull MY-00
w-----Banldull
W� - - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
596 MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 t MY-07 2/10/22 12
Station (feet) A TOB MY-07
IV
Bankfull
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.91
1.7
597.90
2.6
597.69
3.2
597.58
3.6
597.68
4.1
597.48
4.7
597.44
5.5
597.57
6.2
597.56
7.2
597.62
8.1
597.78
9.2
597.93
10.2
597.85
11.1
597.86
i d
1. "Wllie
-11
s
s >'�
aRtl� ,te
j s
glv✓i y t�'� i
' y €
F,
Stream Type
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
599
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 598 -
-----------------
ti
Baukfull MY-00
w-----Bauldull
- - - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
597 MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 7
} MY-07 2/10/22 12
Station (feet) e TOB MT-o7
C/E
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Banld'ull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
56.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Watershed:
Ca e Fear, 0303002
XS
d
F
4r � �R \ R '�'^ 3v i � �.�� f S
CAM. , ,Y"
n r Ar P
�� t�.
3
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
-- -----------------------------------------
Baukfull MY-00
____
0 598
Baukfull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
r Z.)MY-00 4/6/16
W MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
597 f MY-07 2/10/22
0 2 4 6 8 10 A TOB MY-07 14
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
IDo
Wu
UT 2, X'A'I��; Of�'
Station
Elevation
-0.1
598.5
1.7
598.4
2.9
598.1
3.7
597.6
4.3
597.5
5.2
597.5
5.7
597.5
6.3
597.5
6.6
597.6
7.1
597.8
7.7
597.8
8.3
597.9
9.0
597.9
10.5
598.2
12.5
598.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.1
Banld'ull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.36
2.3
601.15
3.7
601.02
4.7
600.88
5.1
600.93
5.4
600.74
6.0
600.73
6.8
600.92
7.6
600.96
8.8
600.90
9.8
601.28
11.5
601.61
W
L
���s II P1N
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
603
602----------------- --------------------------------------
N Bankfull MY-00
ti
w601-----Bankfull
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
600 MY-0 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 t MY-07 2/10/22714
Station (feet) A TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Banld'ull Width:
10.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
29.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
I Adams, Harris, Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.2
Banld'ull Width:
9.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl,full:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.91
Stream Type I C/E
606
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
----------------- -----------------------------------------
605
--+�---------------------
x
0
Banldull MY-00
N
W604
-----Banldu0
— — — — —
Flood Prme Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
603
MY-05 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8
+ MY-07 2/10/22 12
A TOB MY-07
Station (feet)

Watershed:
ae Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
�,
Y ( % 5 Jam, �/ e✓ _ �y, f ��
Tr fr !
{p f
c ,z 'fit
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -10, Pool
607
606
O�������������������������������������� ������ BaukfullMY-00
Baukfull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
W 605
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY -OS 2/7/20
604 t MY-07 2/10/22
0 2 4 6 8 10 A TOB MY-07 14
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.5
1.2
605.4
2.7
605.3
3.7
605.1
4.5
604.9
5.1
604.7
5.7
604.6
6.5
604.7
7.0
604.7
7.3
604.8
7.7
604.9
8.3
605.1
8.7
605.2
9.6
605.5
9.8
605.7
10.2
605.7
10.9
605.8
11.7
605.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.2
Banld'ull Width:
9.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

�.NO
-G;II�CY`iE�.
�a�1111111
,,
IN
9+
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS -11, Pool
607
------
------------------------------
------
0 606
Bauldull MY-00
--� Baukfull
w
---� Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
605
MY-03 4/16/18
MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2
4
6 8
t MY-07 2/10/22 12
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-07
Site
A cock S rin s
Wat77e��rshed:
e Fvear, 0303002
XS 1L
7VC7a
T 2, AS - 11, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.3
606.3
0.8
606.3
1.6
606.2
2.4
606.1
3.0
605.7
3.5
605.5
4.2
605.4
5.2
605.3
5.8
605.6
6.8
605.6
7.7
605.8
8.7
606.1
9.6
606.3
10.7
606.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Banld'ull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.4
608.30
1.5
608.33
2.6
608.21
3.4
607.98
4.4
607.72
5.5
607.64
6.8
607.57
7.7
607.58
8.7
607.60
9.5
607.68
10.4
607.80
11.6
607.84
12.6
608.00
-
,�
a
n
R'
v ;
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 12, Riffle
609
----------------------------------------------------------------
0 608------------- -----------------------------------------------
� Baukfull MY-00
w
Baukfull
- - - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
607 MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 t MY-07 2/10/22 14
Station (feet) a TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Banld'ull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
28.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.4
Bank Height Ratio:
0.88

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
608.83
1.4
608.86
2.2
608.81
2.8
608.69
3.4
608.66
4.2
608.54
5.0
608.51
5.8
608.62
7.0
608.47
8.1
608.57
9.0
608.70
9.8
608.97
10.7
609.07
12.6
609.11
�.
5,
d
,iF�r i, ilk ®y 11� a
LL
f �Y �
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
610
0 609 _
- - _ ----------------------------------------- �B.kfull MY-00
ti
w�����Bankfull
- - - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
MY-03 4/16/18
608
MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2 4 6 8 10 � MY-07 2/10/22 14
Station (feet) A TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.1
Banld'ull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
609.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.4
Low Bank Height:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
44.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
x".
NO-
5.9���K ill
i OP
�5.'StreamTypeAycock Springs, UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
599
598
Baukfull MY-00
----- B.kfull
- Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
597------------------------ MY-0110/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
f MY-072/10/22596 TOB MY-OS0 2 4 6 8 10 1216Station (feet)
Height:
Station
Elevation0.3
597.972.0
597.633.8
597.04
596.59
7.4
596.58
8.0
596.24
8.6
596.25
9.2
596.30
9.8
596.53
11.6
597.22
12.9
597.65
15.1
598.15
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.7
Banld'ull Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.7
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
Low Bank

Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
599
598
O- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -�
----- �Baukfull MY-00
�
---� � Bankfull
ti�
� � � � Flood Roue Area
W 597
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
\
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
596
MY-012/7/20
0 2
4
6 8 10
f MY-072/10/22
12 16
p TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.1
597.59
2.9
597.41
4.3
597.07
5.7
596.58
6.2
596.44
6.7
596.16
7.2
596.19
7.7
596.25
8.3
596.35
9.7
596.91
11.7
597.72
15.1
598.69
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Banld'ull Width:
4.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
8.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.08

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape
..
r
�a t
. y
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
599
598
�
Baukfull MY-00
--� Baukfull
597
-----Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
v
W
MY-01 10/18/16
596
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-01 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
595
t MY-07 2/10/22
��I4
0 2
4
6
8
10
A TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.3
596.8
1.6
596.7
2.7
596.5
3.7
596.1
4.8
596.1
5.8
596.0
6.7
596.1
7.7
597.0
9.3
597.6
11.0
598.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA

Station
Elevation.,
0.0
597.00
2.5
596.86
4.2
596.92
5.0
596.71
5.6
596.66
� 1�
6.2
596.62
8
6.8
596.76
7.6
596.90
0
8.8
597.07
10.6
597.30
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
598
-------------------
------------------------------------------
O 597 ----------------------------------------
�Baukfull MY-00
i,
- - - - - Baukfull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
ti
W
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
t1
596
f MY-07 2/10/22
0 2
4 6 8
p TOB MY-07 12
Station (feet)
NOTE: Reduced BHR is the result of small changes in a very small channel. No signs of instability were observed along this reach
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Banld'ull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
36.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.78

;i
Station
Elevation
-0.3
597.26
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1

Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
601
----------------------------------------------------------------
600
O�������������
�� ������������������������������
-B.kfullMY-00
�
�����Bankfull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
W 599
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
598
MY-012/7/20
0 2 4
6 8 10 12
f MY-07 2/10/22
14 18
a TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
NOTE: Reduced BHR is the result of small changes in a very small channel. No signs of instability were observed along this reach
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation0.0
600.05
0.2
600.06
2.3
599.89
5.1
599.49
5.5
599.33
6.2
599.09
6.7
598.98
7.7
599.12
8.4
599.05
9.9
599.06
11.0
599.28
12.7
599.41
14.5
600.02
16.7
600.04
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Banld'ull Width:
9.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.3
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.4
Bank Height Ratio:
0.77

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.1
600.2
4.0
599.9
5.8
599.5
7.1
599.3
8.3
598.9
9.4
598.8
10.5
599.0
11.5
599.1
12.5
599.9
14.2
600.0
15.7
599.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Banld'ull Width:
11.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl full:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA
Stream Type IC/E

Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/10/2022
Field Crew: Adams, Harris, Perkinson
� 4
Station Elevation � Y
0.0 599.87 �E 4
4
3.3 599.82 Vol —C
5.5 599.62 'INIA-
d
6.4 599.34
-:
7.1 599.29
8.0 599.32
9.2 599.35Height:
10.6 599.56 Mean Depth
12.0 599.69
13.9 600.13
16.3 600.17
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
---------------------------------------------------------------
0 600
Baukfull MY-00
ti-----Baukfull
w
Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
599 MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MY-052/7/20 18
f MY-07 2/10/22
Station (feet)
� TOB MY-07
�
� 4
Station Elevation � Y
0.0 599.87 �E 4
4
3.3 599.82 Vol —C
5.5 599.62 'INIA-
d
6.4 599.34
-:
7.1 599.29
8.0 599.32
9.2 599.35Height:
10.6 599.56 Mean Depth
12.0 599.69
13.9 600.13
16.3 600.17
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
---------------------------------------------------------------
0 600
Baukfull MY-00
ti-----Baukfull
w
Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
599 MY-03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MY-052/7/20 18
f MY-07 2/10/22
Station (feet)
� TOB MY-07
�
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3

Fear, 0303002
XS
V1
-l� r�
/fyl
/ I a,.� f,.
kk
143"�NA g
1
✓/�
S1.
` kM
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
601
----------------------------- --- - --
600
Baukfull MY-00
-----Baukfull
O
+" - - - - - Flood Roue Area
ti 599 MY-004/6/16
W 77 MY-0110/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
598
f MY-07 2/10/22
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 18
A TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
Site A cock Springs
Watershed: Cape
IOg
IWONZi
kk
D
Station
Elevation
0.5
600.2
3.2
600.3
4.2
600.1
4.9
600.0
5.6
599.6
6.3
599.3
7.0
599.1
7.8
599.1
8.8
599.2
9.7
599.6
11.0
599.7
12.5
600.1
14.0
600.1
15.4
600.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.2
Bankfull Width:
12.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
NA

Pmw
1„ri 1�
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
601
-------------------�-------------------
-------------------
- ------
-----
-
-----
600
Baukfull MY-00
?
ti
� � � � � Baukfull
[�
� � � � � Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
MY-03 4/16/19
599
MY -OS 2/7/20
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 tMY-072/10/22 16
Station (feet)
A TOB MY-07
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.22
2.4
600.26
3.6
599.94
4.5
599.65
6.0
599.47
7.4
599.37
8.4
599.42
9.6
599.49
10.3
599.82
11.1
600.05
12.3
600.24
14.5
600.11
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3
Banld'ull Width:
8.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.9
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.15

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
-0.2
600.56
2.7
600.46
3.7
600.45
5.2
600.10
6.2
599.87
6.7
599.88
7.7
599.74
8.5
599.75
9.4
599.87
10.3
599.93
11.4
600.16
12.8
600.53
15.3
600.60
S
`ks ue
r,
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
602
601 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0
--------------------------------------- ----
- - ---- Baukfull MY-00
N
ti
w 600 -----Baukfull
- - - Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
599 MY-03 4/16/18 MY-052/7/20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 18
f MY-072/10/22
Station (feet)
p TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Banld'ull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.1
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.08

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.96
2.7
601.01
3.9
600.88
4.8
600.57
5.7
600.27
6.6
600.13
7.5
600.16
8.7
600.07
10.0
599.95
11.5
600.27
12.8
600.53
14.6
600.90
15.9
600.82
z a,
E�
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
602
-------------------------------------------------------------
601
------- -------------------------------------
0
Banldull MY-00
Z.) � � � � � Baukfull
W 600 ____
Flood Roue Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
5 9 n MY-03 4/16/18
77 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MY-072/18
f MY-02/10/210/22
Station (feet) a TOB MY-07
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'nll Elevation:
600.9
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Banld'ull Width:
10.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.7
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
19.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.06

/
f J a
i
ti.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
603
602
Baukfull MY-00
---� Bauldull
- - - - - Flood Roue Area
W 601
MY-004/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
Moog
- MY-01 4/16/18
MY-05 2/7/20
600
t MY-07 2/10/22
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
A TOB MY-07
Station (feet)
Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/10/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, Harris, Perkinson
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.15
2.3
600.94
4.1
600.74
5.3
600.54
6.3
600.39
7.6
600.36
8.3
600.39
9.3
600.50
10.1
600.69
11.4
601.03
12.8
601.29
14.3
601.24
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Banld'ull Width:
12.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.0
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
26.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Table 10A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 1
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
3.8
9.6
6.7
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
7.2
8.3
7.8
6.4
9.6
8.0
Floodprone Width ft
8
73
30
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
90
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.3
8
5.9
4.3
3
6.6
3.9
BF Mean Depth ft
0.8
1
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.5
BF Max Depth ft
1.1
1 1.4
1 1.4
1.1
1 1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1 1.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
1.1
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
8
15.1
10.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
11
19
15
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
2.6
9
6.4
9
14
11.3
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.8
1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
Hydraulic radius fl
=__
___
___
___
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
23
47
31
23
47
31
Radius of Curvature ft
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
14
31
23
14
1 31
23
Meander Wavelength ft
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
47
94
66
47
1 94
66
Meander Width ratio
2.4
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
1 3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
9
70
16
Riffle slope ft/ft
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
2.77%
6.47%
4.16%
0.01 %
4.33%
2.23%
Pool length ft
=__
___
===
4
23
9
Pool spacing ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
23
62
31
23
62
31
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
1.02
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.37%
3.61 %
2.58%
0.50%
1.27%
3.35%
1.89%
BF slope ft/ft
Rosgen Classification
Cg
E
E
E/C
I E/C

Table 10B. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 2
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
3.8
9.6
6.7
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
7.2
8.3
7.8
4.8
8.6
7.2
Floodprone Width ft
8
73
30
15
25
18
150
150
150
20
70
50
90
BF Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.3
8
5.9
4.3
1
4.2
2.3
BF Mean Depth ft
0.8
1
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.3
BF Max Depth ft
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
0.7
1 0.9
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8
15.1
10.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
12
32
22
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
2.6
9
6.4
11
19
13
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.8
1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
Hydraulic radius ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
23
47
31
23
47
31
Radius of Curvature ft
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
14
31
23
14
31
23
Meander Wavelength ft
44
68.4
31
74
47.8
47
94
66
47
94
66
Meander Width ratio
2.4
E4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
1 3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
9
23
14
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
2.77%
6.47%
4.16%
0.00%
5.24%
2.88%
Pool length (ft)
=__
___
===
5
17
10
Pool spacing (ft)
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
23
62
31
23
62
31
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1.02
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.37%
3.61 %
2.58%
0.50%
1.27%
3.35%
3.01 %
BF sloe (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Cg
E
E
E/C
E/C
Note: UT 2 is characterized by a spring/seep, with a very small watershed. The channel was constructed with a smaller Bankfull Cross Sectional area to account for the
smaller stormwater pulses and controlled discharge. In addition, the lower reaches of the channel are low slope wetlands that elevate the width -to -depth ratio in post
construction measurements.

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

Table lOD. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 4
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
4.8
11.7
8.3
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
8.7
10
9.4
8
10.9
8.5
Flood rone Width (ft)
8
70
39
15
25
18
150
150
150
70
200
150
50
BF Cross Sectional Area 112
6.3
8
5.9
6.3
3.5
5.6
4.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
1.3
0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth ft
0.9
1 2
1.5
1.1
1 1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1 1.7
0.8
1 1.1
1
0.6
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7
23.4
12.4
8
15.1
10.1
1 4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
1 16
22
19
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
11.5
4.9
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
7.5
21.3
16
5
6
6
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
2.4
1.8
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
28
56
38
28
56
38
Radius of Curvature ft
11
27
6.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
17
38
28
17
38
28
Meander Wavelength (ft)
44
L68.4
31
74
47.8
56
113
80
56
113
80
Meander Width ratio
2.4
E4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
1 3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
12
35
16
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
1.12%
2.60%
1.67%
0.61 %
2.42%
1.28%
Pool length ft
=__
___
===
14
42
22
Pool spacing (ft)
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
28
75
38
28
75
38
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length (ft)
SinuosL
1.1
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.93%
2.58%
0.50%
0.93%
0.66%
BF slope ft/ft
Rosgen Classification
Eg
I
E
I
E
E/C
E/C

Table 10E. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs Travis Creek
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
30
51.7
41.4
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
25.7
29.6
27.7
25.2
30.3
26.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
68
160
122
15
25
18
150
150
150
200
300
250
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
54.9
8
5.9
54.9
41.3
73.9
51.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.8
1.4
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.9
2.1
2
1.6
2.4
2
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.3
1 4.1
3.7
1.1
1 1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1 1.7
2.7
3
2.8
2.3
3.4
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.7
47
32.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
12
16
13
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
5.3
3.2
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
7.2
10.8
9
5
6
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.1
1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
83
166
111
83
166
ill
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
55
111
83
55
111
83
Meander Wavelength (11)
44
68.4
31
74
47.8
166
332
236
166
-1-12
236
Meander Width ratio
2.4
E4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
1 3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
16
87
54
Riffle sloe 11/ft
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
0.28%
0.64%
0.41 %
0.00%
0.70%
0.19%
Pool length ft
=__
___
===
27
70
43
Poolspacing, ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
83
222
111
83
222
111
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
1.05
1.2
1.22
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Sloe 11/11
NA
2.58%
0.50%
0.23%
0.10%
BF sloe (11/11)
Rosgen Classification
Fc
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 11A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (Downstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 2 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 3 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 4 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 5 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 6 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (11)
26
26.7
26.4
27.3
28.5
29.5
25.2
26.2
26.3
28.3
27.7
29
33.7
33.2
35.4
39
43.5
43.9
25.5
27
26.5
28.4
29.2
28.674
26
26.7
26
25.7
32.5
32.7
27.3
27.7
26.8
28.9
29.8
29.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
41.3
40
40.1
40.1
41.3
41.3
47.5
47.4
47.9
47.9
47.5
47.5
58.7
55.8
57.2
57.2
58.7
58.7
47.2
44.6
43.8
43.8
47.2
47.2
61.4
58.1
52.3
52.3
61.4
61.4
54.9
50.6
50.3
50.3
54.9
54.9
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.64
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6461
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.88
BE Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
1 2.6
1 2.7
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
1 2.8
2.93
3.7
1 3.5
1 3.7
3.6
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
12.997
12.9459
4
1 3.7
1 3.2
3.3
1 3.4
1 4.0
3
1 2.9
1 2.8
3
1 3.1
1 3.1
Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.8
17.4
18.6
19.7
21.1
13.4
14.5
14.4
16.7
16.2
17.6
----
----
----
----
----
----
13.8
16.3
16.0
18.4
18.1
17.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
13.6
15.2
14.3
16.6
16.2
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.1
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.4
5.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.9
5.6
5.7
5.3
5.1
5.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.5
5.4
5.6R31.3
1
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.4
3.8
3.0
3.0
3.08
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.07
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
<1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
<1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.11
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.1
27.4
27.2
28
29.4
30.9
26.4
27.5
27.3
29.5
29.1
30.1
34.8
34.4
36.4
40.2
45.1
46.2
26.6
28
27.5
29.6
30.4
30.392
27.6
28.2
27.3
26.9
33.8
34.2
28.7
29.1
27.9.7Hydraulic
Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.88Substrate
d50 (mm)
--
d84(mm)
----
E�Ej
----
----
----
---
---
---
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
------
Parameter
XS 7 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 8 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 9 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 10 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 11 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
25.9
27.7
25.7
25.1
28.9
28.9
28.1
28.5
28.6
28
28.9
29
29.3
29.1
29.7
27.8
27.4
22.2
38.6
38.6
39.1
37.5
43.8
43.1
30.3
29.8
30.5
30.7
34.5
36.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
60
45.8
44.9
44.9
60
60
64.6
57.4
58.3
58.3
64.6
64.6
65.9
63.1
60.8
60.8
65.9
65.9
100
91
87.5
87.5
100.1
100.1
73.9
66.6
69.6
69.6
73.9
73.9
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.4
3.0
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.0
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.9
2.8
2.5
3
1 3.5
1 3.4
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.7
1 3.7
3.7
1 3.4
1 3.4
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.3
1 4.2
4.1
4.31
5.003
1 5.0
3.4
3.6
1 3.6
3.6
3.8
3.9
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.2
14.2
14.0
13.4
12.9
13.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.4
13.3
13.4
13.5
16.1
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.4
5.2
5.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.3
4.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.1
3.8
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
5.1
4.9
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.9
3.8
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
<1
<1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.5
29.1
26.8
26.2
30.8
31.5
29.5
29.7
29.8
29.8
30.5
31.1
30.6
30.3
30.8
29.4
30
25.3
40.2
40
40.4
39.1
46
45.1IM
32.1
32.1
36.2
32.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.22.2
2.2
2.0
2.3
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
--------
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
-------
----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.
Table 11B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (UDstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 12 Riffle (Travis Up)
XS 13 Pool (Travis Up)
XS 14 Riffle (Travis Up)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (11)
29
29.6
29.7
31.3
30
31
26.9
26.9
27.8
27.8
30.7
28.9
32.8
32.3
31.9
33.6
36.4
36.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.7
66.4
67.9
67.9
68.7
68.7
64.0
50.3
51.9
48.2
64.0
64.0
104.5
92.4
94.6
94.6
104.5
104.5
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
1 2.3
1 2.2
2.4
1 1.9
1 1.9
1.7
1 2.1
1 2.2
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.9
1 2.9
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.3
3.9
3.3
3.2
4.0
5.1
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.83
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
13.2
13.0
14.4
13.1
14
----
----
----
----
----
----
10.295
11.3
10.8
11.9
12.7
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
5.1
5.1
4.8
5.0
4.8
----
----
----
----
----
----
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.1
4.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
4.1
4.4
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.5
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
<1
<1
<1
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
<1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.4
30.8
30.9
32.5
1 31.4
1 32.5
28.8
28.1
28.8
32.5
1 32.9
31.6
35.0
34.2
33.8
35.8
38.5
38.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.9
2.0
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.7
Substrate
d50 (in
---
----
----
----
---
----
..
...
----
d84(mm)
-------
----
----
----
I ----
----
----
----
----
----
----
.
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.

Table 11C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-1 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 3 Pool (UT 1)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
9.3
9.2
9.7
9.1
11.3
11.4
8.8
9.3
9.2
10.2
12.9
13.6
8.4
8.4
9.3
9.5
8.6
9.1
9.3
9.7
9.3
10.2
10.7
10.7
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.2
11.6
13
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
90
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
4.7
4.4
4.4
5.6
5.56
4.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.6
4.6
6.7
5.6
6.4
6.4
6.7
6.7
6.2
5.5
5.7
5.7
6.2
6.2
6.6
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.6
6.61
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
BE Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.05
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.87
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.39
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1
1
1.2
1.26
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
18.0
21.4
18.8
22.7
23.2
16.8
23.4
22.9
28.1
36.4
40.3
----
----
----
----
----
----
14.0
17.1
15.2
18.4
18.3
18.6
14.0
15.3
14.9
14.8
20.4
25.4
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.3
9.9
8.0
7.9
10.2
9.7
9.8
8.8
7.0
6.6
----
----
----
----
----
----
9.7
9.3
9.7
8.8
8.4
8.4
9.4
9.5
9.7
9.8
7.8
6.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
< 1
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
< 1
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1 1.01
1 1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
9.4
1 10
9.3
1 11.5
1 11.7
9
1 9.4
1 9.4
10.3
13.1
13.8
8.9
8.9
9.8
10
9.3
9.9
9.7
10
9.6
10.5
11
11.1
10
10
9.8
9.7
12
13.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
1 0.7
1 0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----IE
----
- -
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
---
E
----
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 7 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 8 Pool (UT 1)
XS 9 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 10 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
6.9
7.5
6.7
6.9
11.4
11.5
7.5
7.2
7.3
6.7
9.6
11.2
7.8
8.7
7.2
6
11.2
11.3
7.9
7.2
7.6
6.7
9.6
10.89
7.6
7
6.9
5.5
4.8
4.54
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
1.9
2.2
2.2
3.6
3.6
3.9
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.6
3.9
5.7
4.1
3.6
3.6
5.7
5.74
3
4.1
1.6
1.6
3
2.985
4.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
4.7
4.72
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
1.0
1.0
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.73
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.81
1.2
1
0.9
1
1.2
1.32
0.7
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.798
0.826
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.38
1.3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
29.6
20.4
21.9
36.1
36.9
14.4
21.6
22.2
18.9
25.6
32.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
20.8
12.6
36.1
28.1
30.7
39.7
----
----
----
----
---
----
Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
12.0
13.4
13.1
7.9
7.8
12.0
12.5
12.3
13.4
9.4
8.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
11.4
12.5
11.8
13.5
9.4
8.3
----
----
----
----
----
----
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.5
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
<1
<1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
<1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
0.6
1.8
1.2
1.0
<1
----
----
----
----
----
I ----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.2
7.6
1 6.8
7
1 11.6
1 12
7.8
1 7.3
7.5
1 6.9
9.9
11.4
8.3
9.1
7.5
6.6
11.8
12.1
8
7.8
7.7
7
1 9.9
1 11.2
R
1 7.7
7.7
6.6
6
5.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
1 0.3
1 0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
1 0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
Parameter
XS 11 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 13 Pool (UT 1)
XS 14 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 15 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
7.4
7
7.8
8.4
8.4
7.4
8
7.4
6.4
7.3
9.4
11.1
8.6
8
8.3
8.3
11.8
11.6
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.5
6.622
7.1
7.2
6.3
5.6
9.1
10.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.53
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.66
6.5
4.3
4.7
4.7
6.5
6.49
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.1
3.098
4
3.3
2.4
2.4
4
3.96
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.96
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.75
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.75
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.839
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.93
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.4
19.8
19.8
15.5
17.3
19.6
14.6
18.8
23.9
33.6
----
----
----
----
----
----
13.2
14.2
14.2
14.0
13.6
14.2
12.6
15.7
16.5
13.0
20.7
25.7
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.5
10.8
10.8
12.2
11.3
12.2
14.1
12.3
9.6
8.1
----
----
----
----
----
----
14.1
14.3
14.3
14.4
13.8
13.6
12.7
12.5
14.3
16.1
9.9
8.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
< 1
1.03
1.03
1.0
1.2
1 1.2
1.2
1.03
< 1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1 1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.1
8.9
8.9
8.0
8.5
7.6
6.6
7.5
9.6
11.3
9.2
8.5
9.0
9.0
12.7
13.1
6.8
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.8
6.9
1 7.4
7.6
6.6
6.1
9.5
10.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
*MYO-2 BUR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BUR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the
cross -sectional area to MYO.

Table 11C continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-1 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 16 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 17 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 18 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 19 Pool (UT 1)
XS 20 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
BF Width (ft)
9
8.3
8.5
8.8
11.3
11.1
8.5
8.1
7.4
7.4
7.3
8.88
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.9
6.4
6.6
7.6
7.7
8.1
8.1
9
9.23
9.1
8.5
8.7
9.4
9.1
12.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
4.6
4.57
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.9
3.89
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
6.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
6.5
6.51
5.3
4.4
4.9
4.9
5.3
5.35
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
1 0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
1 0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.3
1
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.51
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
26.5
25.8
27.6
27.8
27.0
18.5
18.2
14.8
14.5
13.7
20.3
14.4
15.2
12.5
13.5
11.7
12.5
----
----
----
----
----
----
15.6
16.4
15.4
18.1
15.6
30.6
Entrenchment Ratio
10.0
10.8
10.6
10.2
8.0
8.1
10.6
11.1
12.2
12.2
12.3
10.1
12.7
12.5
13.4
13.0
14.1
13.6
----
----
----
----
----
----
9.9
10.6
10.3
9.6
9.9
7.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.94
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
<1
<1
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
<1
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
<1
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.06
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.4
8.7
9.0
11.5
11.3
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.7
7.7
9.2
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.4
7.7
7.5
8.2
8.3
8.7
8.6
9.8
10.1
9.4
8.7
9.0
9.8
9.4
13.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 21 Pool (UT 1)
XS 22 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 23 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 24 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BF Width (ft)
8.3
8.2
9.7
8.4
15
14.1
7.2
7.5
7.3
6.4
7
9.43
7.6
6.8
7
7
6.9
10.2
8
7.7
7.6
7.8
11.3
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
9.3
5.9
5.4
5.4
9.3
9.35
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.56
3.2
3.2
3
3
3.2
3.24
4
3.2
3.4
3.4
4
3.24
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
1 0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.4
1.3
1.7
2.1
2.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
14.4
16.5
16.1
12.4
13.6
25.0
18.1
14.5
16.3
16.1
14.9
32.1
16.0
18.5
17.0
17.7
31.9
32.1
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.5
12.0
12.3
14.1
12.9
9.5
11.8
13.2
12.9
12.9
13.0
8.8
11.3
11.7
11.8
11.6
8.0
8.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
<1
1.0
1.0
0.9
<1
1.0
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.5
9.2
10.4
10
16.6
16.2
7.5
7.8
7.5
6.8
7.6
10.2
9.3
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.3
10.6
9.3
7.8
7.8
8
11.5
10.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the
cross -sectional area to MYO.

Table 111). Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-2 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Pool (UT 2)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 3 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 6 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 7 Pool (UT 2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
BF Width (ft)
6.5
6.3
6.9
7.3
10.4
10.6
4.8
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.1
5.0
5.7
5.3
5.8
5.8
8.4
8.2
6.4
5.7
5.4
5.4
4.7
5.0
8.4
7.7
8.5
9.9
9.2
8.9
6.9
7
6.8
6.4
9.9
9.4
8.3
9.4
8.2
8.4
10.8
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.8
2.1
3.2
3.2
3.8
3.8
1
1.1
1
1
1
1.0
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.7
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1
1.0
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.3
1.4
1
1
2.3
2.3
5.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
5.1
5.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
1 0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
1 0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
1 0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
1 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
23.0
28.5
30.3
32.3
25.4
25.8
19.1
20.1
28.0
26.9
41.5
39.4
41.0
36.1
32.4
33.0
22.1
25.7
22.8
21.2
24.9
33.2
27.3
25.2
20.7
35.0
46.2
40.5
42.6
38.5
----
----
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
18.8
16.1
16.4
16.2
17.7
18.1
15.8
17.0
15.5
15.6
10.7
11.0
14.1
15.8
16.7
16.7
19.1
18.0
10.7
11.7
10.6
9.1
9.8
10.1
13.0
12.9
13.2
14.1
9.1
9.6
----
----
----
----
----
----
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.09
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
<1
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
<1
1.07
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.02
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
<1
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.9
6.5
7.2
7.4
10.6
10.7
4.9
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.0
5.8
5.4
6.0
5.9
8.5
8.3
6.5
5.7
5.5
5.5
4.7
5.1
8.6
7.9
8.6
10.0
9.4
9.0
7.0
1 7.0
6.9
6.4
10.0
9.5
8.8
9.5
8.4
8.6
11.0
10.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
1 0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 8 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 9 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 10 Pool (UT 2)
XS 11 Pool (UT 2)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 13 Riffle (UT 2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BF Width (ft)
8.6
8.3
8.3
10.1
10.5
10.3
7.4
7.9
7.9
8.5
9.6
9.8
7.5
7.8
7.6
6.7
9.8
9.8
6.2
6.4
5.6
5.8
7.1
7.4
8.3
9.2
7.7
7.2
9.2
9.5
7.2
7.6
7.4
6.7
7.2
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
90
90
90
90
90
90.0
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
3.1
2.8
2.8
3.6
3.61
4.2
3.8
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
5.2
4
4
4
5.2
5.2
3.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.2
2.3
1.9
1.9
3.2
3.2
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
1 0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
1 0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
1 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.66
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
22.2
24.6
36.6
30.6
29.6
13.0
16.4
14.2
16.5
21.9
23.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
21.5
36.8
31.2
27.4
26.5
28.5
24.7
34.0
30.4
24.8
24.7
32.2
Entrenchment Ratio
10.5
10.8
10.8
8.9
8.6
8.7
12.2
11.4
11.4
10.5
9.4
9.1
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
10.8
9.8
11.7
12.5
9.8
9.4
12.5
11.8
12.2
13.4
12.5
11.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
<1
1.09
<1
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.0
<1
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.8
8.5
8.6
10.3
10.6
10.5
7.7
8.1
8.2
8.5
9.8
10.0
8.1
8.2
8.0
7.2
10.1
10.0
6.6
6.6
5.8
6.1
7.1
7.7
8.6
9.3
8.0
7.4
9.3
9.6
7.3
7.7
7.5
6.8
7.3
8.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
1 0.3
1 0.3
0.3
Substrate
d50(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
-
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
--
----
----
---
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
---
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.

Table 11E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT-3 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 3 Pool (UT 3)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 3)
Dimension
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
WI
MY2
1IY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
6.5
6.9
6.7
7.2
7
6.82
4.7
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.71
5
5.4
5.2
5.7
5
7.9
7
6.8
6.9
7.5
8.8
9.1
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.5
6.3
6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
11
11
11
10
11
20
8
8
8
8
8
----
----
----
----
----
----
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.71
1.9
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.91
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.2
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.73
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
20.7
18.7
21.8
18.1
17.2
11.6
16.9
14.2
13.9
12.5
11.7
----
----
----
----
----
----
22.3
24.3
28.0
33.7
35.2
37.6
23.4
28.5
28.0
35.4
33.6
31.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
4.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
----
----
----
----
----
----
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.3
2.2
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
<1
1.10
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.08
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.02
<1
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.31
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.8
7.1
6.9
7.5
7.2
7.1
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.0
5.7
5.8
5.7
6.2
5.7
8.2
7.1
6.9
7.0
7.7
8.9
9.1
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.7
6.4
6.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Substrate
d50 ()
---
F
k#
d84 (mm)
--d
FFF
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of "Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,
fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.
Table 11F. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT-4 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 2 Pool (UT 4)
XS 3 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 4 Pool (UT 4)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 4)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BF Width (ft)
8.3
9.4
8.8
9.1
10.2
9.3
8.5
9.1
9.5
9.2
11.1
11.7
8.6
8.7
8.4
9
12
13.1
8.5
10.6
10.7
10.5
11.6
12.8
8
8.3
7.8
7.9
8.5
8.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
50
50
50
50
50
50.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
50
50
50
50
50
50.0
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.7
6.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
6.4
6.4
4.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
4.3
4.3
6.2
5.2
5.6
5.6
6.2
6.15
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.8
4.3
4.3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.8
0.6
1 0.6
1 0.6
0.6
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.4
0.3
1 0.7
1 0.5
0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.5
1 0.5
0.5
1 0.5
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.5
1
1.1
1
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
1 0.7
0.7
1.2
1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.18
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
26.8
23.5
25.2
28.1
23.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
17.2
22.3
20.2
23.2
33.5
40.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
14.9
16.8
16.0
16.5
16.8
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio
6.0
5.3
5.7
5.5
4.9
5.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.8M424.2
3.8
----
----
----
----
----
----
6.3
6.0
6.4
6.3
5.9
5.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.0
0.80.7
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.19
<1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0<1
<1
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.15
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.6
9.5
9.0
9.3
10.4
9.5
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.8
11.4
12.1
9.012.2
13.2
9.1
10.9
11.1
11.0
12.0
13.2
8.3
8.5
8.1
8.2
8.8
8.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
033
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50(�)
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84(�)
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 7 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 8 Riffle (UT 4)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
BE Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
8.9
8.4
9
8.4
9.9
11.7
9.1
9.8
11.4
10.4
10.9
11.1
11
10.6
11.7
12.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50.0
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50.0
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.5
5.6
4.9
5
5
5.6
5.61
5.6
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.6
5.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.4
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 0.5
1 0.5
0.4
1 0.4
1 0.5
0.5
0.5
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
1 0.8
1 0.7
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
1 0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
24.0
21.7
23.1
20.3
17.5
27.9
16.6
19
23.2
19.1
21.2
25.1
24.7
22.9
24.4
26.7
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.6
5.9
5.6
5.9
5.1
4.3
5.5
5.1
4.4
4.8
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.3
4.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.95
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
1.0
<1
1.10
1.08
1.0
1.5
1.1
1.3
<1
1.06
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.07
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4M40.
.0
8.9
9.2
8.6
10.2
11.9
9.4
10
11.7
10.6
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.8
12.1
12.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.44
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.53
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (�)
----------------------
d84 (�)
-------
----
----
---
*MYO-2 BHR were calculated using DMS method of"Dmax year x /Dmax year 0". MY3 was calculated using DMS method of area best fit, fixing the cross -sectional area to MY2. MY5-7 BHR were calculated using area best fit,
fixing the cross -sectional area to MYO.

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graph
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Figure E1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 12. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
Max consecutive days channel flow
37
110
276
145
152
134
213
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
::Yes
Yes
or otherwise)
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating
sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
banks
Change in plant community (absence or destruction
of terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species
adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends
and/or channel braiding) at natural topographic
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
path of flow
Other:
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

26.00
24.00
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
d
y 10.00
J
ar 8.00
16
3 6.00
a
w 4.00
3
2.00
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT-3
Year 7 (2022 Data)
N N N N W W W W A A A l71 Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 01 V V V V 00 00 00 W LO LO LO LO
0 W N 01 4-h 4-h N W \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ V l71 \ 00 01 \ N O \ Ul W \ \ V l71 \ O 00 01 \ N O 00 \ W F-� l0 \ N O
N N \ \ N \ m \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ N N \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ O1 A LO l0 V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N N \ \ N \ \\
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N N
4X17
2.5
FM
0.5
c

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of
Photo
Collection
Occurrence
Method
(if available)
Wrack, laid-back vegetation, sediment, and standing water
May 5, 2016
May 3, 2016
observed in the floodplain after 1.55 inches of rain documented*
1
on May 3, 2016, at a nearby rain gauge
September 28,
2.05 inches of rain was recorded on September 28, 2016, at an
October 13, 2016
--
2016
onsite rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of the bank after
October 13, 2016
October 8, 2016
3.05 inches of rain was recorded on October 8, 2016, at an onsite
2
rain gauge
4.66 inches of rain was recorded between April 23 and 25, 2017, at
June 15, 2017
April 25, 2017
an onsite rain gauge. Visual observation of wrack and reclining
--
vegetation in the floodplain of UT2
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed in the floodplain of Travis
October 27, 2017
June 19, 2017
Creek after 1.93 inches of rain was recorded on June 19, 2017, at
3
an onsite rain gauge
October 24, 2018
September 17,
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Florence on September 15-17,
2018
2018
October 24, 2018
October 11, 2018
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Michael on October 11, 2018
--
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 1.82
October 16, 2019
July 7, 2019
inches of rain was recorded on July 7, 2019, at an onsite rain gauge
--
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 1.35
October 16, 2019
July 23, 2019
inches of rain was recorded on July 23, 2019, at an onsite rain
--
gauge
Visual and onsite rain gauge data indicated that a bankfull event
November 21,
October 22, 2019
occurred after 1.8 inches of rain was recorded on October 22,
4
2019
2019, at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of bank and
February 7, 2020
February 6, 2020
floodplain after 4.04 inches of rain was recorded on February 6,
5
2020, at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack observed along fencing in the Travis Creek floodplain after
June 18, 2020
May 20, 2020
3.70 inches of rain was recorded between May 19-20, 2020, at an
6
onsite rain gauge
September 17,
Wrack observed in the floodplain of Travis Creek after 3.88 inches
November 5, 2020
of rain was recorded between September 17, 2020, at an onsite
7
2020
rain gauge
March 2, 2021
January 31, 2021
Trail cameras captured Travis Creek at bankfull after 1.02 inches of
8
rain was recorded on January 31, 2021 at an onsite rain gauge
Trail cameras captured Travis Creek at bankfull after 1.81 inches of
March 2, 2021
February 13, 2021
rain was recorded between February 11 and 13, 2021 at an onsite
9
rain gauge
August 4, 2021
July 19, 2021
Trail cameras captured Travis Creek at bankfull after 2.51 inches of
10
rain was recorded on July 19, 2021 at an onsite rain gauge
Wrack observed in the floodplain of Travis Creek and UT-1 after
February 10, 2022
January 3, 2022
2.64 inches of rain was recorded on January 3, 2022, at an onsite
11-12
rain gauge
*The onsite rain gauge was installed on May 18, 2016- rain data from a nearby Site (Abbey Lamm Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site) was used to confirm this bankfull event.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 1: Wrack, laid-back vegetation,
and sediment in the floodplain of Travis Creek
i
17.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

"J
Bankfull Photo 4: Wrack and laid-back vegetation ; F,4.1
on the top of bank and floodplain of UT1a..�
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 5: Wrack, laid-back vegetation,
and sediment in the floodplain of UT1
'A,1
17
a
1
,
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 9: Trail Cam photo of
Travis Creek at bankfull stage
EL
a —
1 I I I
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Bankfull Photo 11: Wrack in the
floodplain of Travis Creek
w
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
v
L -10
-12
-14
-16
0
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 7 (2022 Data)
N N W W W 4�- 4�:- 4�:- Ln Ln Ln Ln M M M V V V W W W W W W
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O F- F" F" N N N
F- N F" F" N F" F" N W F" N W F" N W W F" N m F" N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ F- F- O O \ N N O O O O O O\ W W \ W W W F- N V F- N V F- N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M M \ V V \ V V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
tire]
2.5
1.0
0.5
W

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
v
L -10
-12
-14
-16
0
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 7 (2022 Data)
N N W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln Ln M M M V V V W W W W W W
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O F- F-' F-' N N N
N F" F" N F" F" N W F" N W F" N W W F" N m F" N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O O O \ W W \ W W W N N V N N V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ W W \ V V \ V V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
0
E
a
1.5 120
c
m
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
v
L -10
-12
-14
-16
0
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 7 (2022 Data)
N N W W W 4�- 4�:- 4�:- Ln Ln Ln Ln M M M V V V W W W W W W
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O F- F-' F-' N N N
N F" F" N F" F" N W F" N W F" N W W F" N m F" N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O 0 0 \ W W \ W W W N N V N N V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ M M \ V V \ V V
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N N N N
3.0
2.5
2.0 •S
Ln
0
E
a
1.5 120
c
m
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 14. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1*
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
1
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/58 days
Yes/59 days
Yes/95 days
Yes/47 days
Yes/46 days
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
(25.1 percent)
(27 percent)
(41 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(19.5 percent)
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/65 days
Yes/66 days
Yes/71 days
Yes/76 days
Yes/70 days
2
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(28.1 percent)
(30 percent)
(30 percent)
(32.2 percent)
(29.7 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/46 days
No/14 days
Yes/34 days
Yes/39 days
Yes/42 days
(23.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(19.9 percent)
(6.5 percent)
(14.5 percent)
(16.5 percent)
(17.8 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5, 2016; therefore, the growing season for
Year 1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17.
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

10
9
8
7
U
6
0 5
4
3
0
Figure E1: Aycock Springs
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Data from WETS Station: Burlington Alamance Regional Airport, NC
� 2016
� 2017
2018
� 2019
� 2020
� 2021
� 2022
—30th Percentile
—70th Percentile

82.00
80.00
78.00
76.00
74.00
72.00
70.00
68.00
66.00
64.00
1.L 62.00
0
Q 60.00
E
58.00
0 56.00
Ln
54.00
52.00
50.00
48.00
46.00
44.00
42.00
40.00
38.00
36.00
34.00
Aycock Springs Soil Temperature
Year 7 (2022 Data)
W -P�- -P�- -P�- In In In In M M M W W W
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N N N fV fV fV
fV W I--' fV N I--' N I--' I--' N I--' I--' fV W I--' fV W I--' fV W l0 I—' fV W I--' N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O\ fV fV \ N N\ N N N O O O O O O\ l0 l0 \ W W W N fV -I N fV -I N fV
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ fV \ \ N \ \ \ W W \ J J \ J J
N N N N N fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV \ \ fV \ \ fV \ \
fV fV fV fV N fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV fV
N N N N N N
Date

APPENDIX F
MISCELLANEOUS
2016-2017 Remediation
2022 Photo Log
2022 Year 7 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
.:
�¢ —
Replan) Rrea 9
Denary: e20 bees in O.ii ac - 2E0 Trees ! Ac -
- ,- r`
f
2 rltW planted Stems add ro Veg pint 13 d. -
x }•
Replam Area 3
D—ty' 26 Lees m .22 ac -71 trees' AC.
Replant Area 2.
Oensi 170 trees on 1. T ac - 172 Trees r Ac-
3 nary yeated'atems: added in vag plots 12 $ 14
Replan[ Awa 4
0"$rW: 25 bees m ❑ 2$ ac - W Trees; AC.
2 new planed stems added to veg pints 10
ReplantAMa i5
Derri 75 trees n 0.32 ac - 2X Trees: Ac
5 nan planled v'ems added to reg plot 5
Map of Replant Areas- green dots indicate approximate location of where photos were taken.
Replanl Area S'
Density 1801ree& m 0.42 at - 200 Trees 1 Ac.
4 new plamad stems added to ve8 pots 8 S. 0
2 neK planted ate_ dded:o reg pbr 2
�� tr T1
sr- n 1 ��7.. � .'71 r•
S
� 1 !
ReplErnt Rrea 7
Denaly: 3TO 1 e&S In 1.55 se • 200 Trees a At
5 nerr pldnied 5[em6 added ` veg *12
No sew Phi Sleets added In reg pld I
'af..
,rr..
Replant Area 8.
Oenatty. 1501 revs In 57 2U"- 2661fees, An.
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
s,.r1 2r1 + Aycock Springs Mitigaiton Site
2018 Remedial Planting Plan

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
Photo 1: Looking SW. along Replant Area -1 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
C
xf
iO
kuws VI") . ... .....
;F *71-
"IkA1� - \. , ,
k
Irk
7
0- Ome <9cilk
A--
" ' '
'I.
3FI "'
Photo 2: Looking S. in Replant Area 2, just N. of veg. plot 14 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

a� �I z
1 �� `:'� :. �',Cu-'.i'`�E. *• fr �.. +'i a ,-�'.

y � Y r '1� � r, r• 7'4 � ; A' �� tee.
4
�t '�± � ��• ° � .F ri _ - J i �� �' '�y�rli5 �Y�w /' t � �,. y��a �'..� �S! �;11�}�c: - �1���1 i !• .,

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
1
a
�f
ilk
ioto 4: Looking S. in Replant Area 6, from outside of the easement Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
•.. sP
Photo 6 / 7: Live stake establishment on bank in Replant area 6
Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement- Update
® RESTnRATIONSYSTEMS, LLC SCALE: 1In-nzn �+
1-HAY E—T.SUITEzn DATE: z-2o77 ,Illy Aycock Springs
RALEIGH, NC 275af
Substrate replacement - 2-23-2017
PHONE: 918.755,MOO SITE',
FA%: 91B ]559i92
Aensi I—— (�cj ESRI
u"PEE ._,•, r�=>"•. w+on acne Ceerdin eBya nr
^o•'K �.I.,^^b •^n^�,.n.�.�n^vmr - NP9_1993_3P_N G_FIPS_3290 Ft.
Ay—k Springy, UT 1, XS - 11, RirrlP
-------------------------------------------------------
396------- -----------------
M--eru�e
1Sve! Inn 7ora
�FX-00 W i6
�xrn! mna5a
s95 .
9 e Q. I. l4
9m++wl (x+n5
Aycock Springs, Ur 1, XS -10, Pool
596
595
594
W
W 00 4M 6
593
�n<r: m mnsn6
=
0 2
4 6 $ 10 12 14
Station (f et)
Aye mk Springs, UT 1, XS • 9, RIMO
Spfi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
393
------------------------------------
RiraA W i6
�AlY-0! WpAga
593
U e 1 W i%
£Y nw O�v)f
Map of Area — UT 1, XC 9, 10, 11

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo 1: Substrate loss, 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 2: Pool, upstream of 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9 (XC 10 in background)

Aycock Springs— Remw+Action Plan SubsmeReplaemet —UQate
o ~
?2z 6��-
�
Kea>z*: ±. .. 2.
v,y,\%, ^ +�
�� ( »J
+«o1 Substrate remaceme« at 7 t R 9
Photo Date: 2-2a52

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update
r 4 �
Y � x
Al
4;lJ'
a
+�tJ
I 7 �
s °•,✓� r, a., roc, -..ID. ��'`' `� ,> C °' �a���4"A�, q�,�g ��+h ��
v �}�; y 3 T 1� 1pl ' i �a�;-•'�1'i�*a � p
gS,�r�d r-
'� 4 v {F WI "74
fF�
Ili,
'� �y� f `y+jk F�� �W CC J+����✓ Hb �>� �� l� xd � i � �j��; r�i� �,�"r : �
��bMk, �:,.okiIl
Photo 3: Substrate loss, upstream riffle of XC 10 (pool)
Photo Date: 2-23-2017

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update
y Fsis� y
ZA
a_
r
i`,�yt't��
qp
Photo 4: Substrate replaced, upstream riffle of XC 10 (pool)
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
r
1'
.N
v�
el
•.,
1 _
� 4 'Y,
� P
> t t
,r

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
XC (` —1err1
r� i-� �i�4iY•ii�y►''1� �� .4�.� f� 1�1
+
a.AS,.
Aq
Z
10,
r
b.'• v � + P yt��y� � r �f � � � ��r rl�,,�, y r �,� 'Ss' dWW ; ��.
f - - - Sri ,y •r d .. �i.fi�A - -
3,9� •-� F � .�� / � iN� - � I' 1��--__.1G � � ���rA fa, �JY�':.,
r .�`,f„ �y' , r r Y se °i'.•r`*• "yy/ _f" t
•¢ �- � �y,'l', -,+ - - -'':Lr $ :i. �r�t4"N ���+��!� �n tiW r f x 3t {. ,
XC-09
PV
k L
s
i,
V.
I*
O
Photo 5: post replacement overview

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
-kilo -
XC-09
..
•-y.J
'�'
_•
°'-• r.. iF� Mi ai.+` .tZ q ati� ,So- .e.
'. -
XC-10
ti
K�
i�i�..��
_ uk
F,
4 rf
:" .J _. a 11�i *y :'
r ! rfi�".'`�',eskl 4.x+a _ .. ..k .. ..1"e.hilil�Jl. _ ..w, •.FS.
Photo 6: UT-1 looking downstream from XC-11

Aycock Springs —Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement —Update
Photo Date: 3-03-2017
k``
t'
.
• -. �i1•.I a �ci�.
- i
Photo 7: XC-9 — Post 3-1-2017 0.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NC)'" 7 miles from Site

Aycock Springs -Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement- Update Photo Date: 3-03-2017
Photo 7: XC-10 - Post 3-1-2017 0.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NC)-7 miles from Site

•_ - i "a
',
le
I
� t
'�°
i
� � •� �
' �E.�s } :x !r
' f Teyr9e'� rock •��
�N:��
�Y•:•" �.
�
1r � ..
k MA
. - .ice.:_ ��.� . ?s•.�..:•:...Y.?.�',...cj - .'T�°.7v,. -'�+f E.' �' + � .
{.���-'� :L ' ..t:" fir.': _ .11.•. x ,
''�
AV
ie
- .:'. ....is'r• ~ ,{,.' p,r.�£:�-fir. rr• .: V..- , - °r• -

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Photo Log
MY7 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 96312) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Photo Log
MY7 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 96312) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Photo Log
MY7 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 96312) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Photo Log
k
Photo 9: Travis Creek Previously Observed Erosion Area
—
Left Bank
WF-
k
MY7 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 96312) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Photo Log
Photo 11: Bud Burst of Cornus amomum 1
Photo Taken 3/1/22
;
s
MY7 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 96312) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
MY-07 (2022) Photo Log
Photo 13: Bud Burst of Quercus sp.
Photo Taken 3/1/22
VW
41
�• i
A
I
MY7 (2022) Monitoring Report (Project No. 96312) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC