20190158 Ver 1_Brahma_100092_MY3_2023_20240125

MY3 FINAL MONITORING REPORT

BRAHMA SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

DMS Project No. 100092
Full Delivery Contract No. 7743
DMS RFP No. 16-007571
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00126
DWR Project No. 20190158

Data Collection: January - November 2023
Submission: January 2024

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Response to DMS Comments – MY3 (2023)
Brahma Mitigation Site (DMS #100092), Contract No. 7743
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00126, DWR Project No. 20190158
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
Report & Field Visit:
1.During site visit, minor scour was observed on UT-1 a short distance upstream of UT-3 on outside of
meander bend. Recommend watching the area to ensure that this does not become an issue. Overall, this
site looks great.
Response: The observed scour location is approximately four (4) feet in length and is on the right bank
of UT1 within an Enhancement 1 portion of the stream. At this location exiting trees along the top of
bank were avoided during construction. The scour is downstream of an existing root-wad and the
channel is vertically stable. RS was able to plant five (5) live stakes in the scour area on 01/24/2024.
Species included silky dogwood and black willow. RS will continue to observe this area during the
monitoring period. The scour location has been added to the CCPV, and the shapefile is in the digital
submittal.
Digital Comments:
1.The submission is missing all hydrology summary tables (surface water and groundwater gauge tables).
Please submit the missing tables.
Response: The missing hydrology summary tables (Tables 11-13) have been added to the
Brahma_DMS_Tables_MY3_2023 file in the “Visual Assessment Data” > “Tables” folder of the digital
submittal.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Monitoring Summary
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Brahma Year 3, 2023 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
•No encroachment was identified in Year 3 (2023).
•No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., heavy deer browsing, beaver activated, etc.) was
observed.
Streams
• Streams remained stable with few deviations from MY0 even after receiving several high discharge
events.
o During the DMS MY3 (2023) site visit with RS, minor scour was observed on UT-1 a short
distance upstream of UT-3 on outside of meander bend. The observed scour location is
approximately four (4) feet in length and is on the right bank of UT1 within an Enhancement 1
portion of the stream. At this location exiting trees along the top of bank were avoided during
construction. The scour is downstream of an existing root-wad and the channel is vertically
stable. RS was able to plant five (5) live stakes in the scour area on 01/24/2024. Species
included silky dogwood and black willow. RS will continue to observe this area during the
monitoring period. The scour location has been added to the CCPV, and the shapefile is in the
digital submittal.
•All engineered structures were stable and functioning within design parameters.
•Three bankfull events were documented during MY3 (2023) making a total of 7 total bankfull
events to date during the monitoring period (Table 11, Appendix D).
•Channel formation was evident in all Site tributaries during MY3 (Table 13A-E, Appendix D).
•In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 5 (2023) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
occurred on June 13, 2023. See the table below for a summary of benthic macroinvertebrate
results. MY3 (2023) results and habitat forms are in Appendix F.
Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Sampling Station
Preconstruction Year 3 (2023) Year 5 (2025) Year 7 (2027)
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
UT-1 upstream 0 9.27 0 9.38
UT-1 downstream 0 9.30 2 8.03
Wetlands
•All twelve groundwater gauges exceeded success criteria for the year 3 (2023) monitoring period.
(Appendix D).
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Monitoring Summary
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Yr. 3 (2023) Groundwater Hydrology Data
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2021)
Year 2
(2022) Year 3 (2023) Year 4
(2024)
Year 5
(2025)
Year 6
(2026)
Year 7
(2027)
1 Yes
60 days (25.4%)
Yes
66 days (28.0%)
Yes
100 days (42.4%)
2 No
21 days (8.9%)
Yes
47 days (19.9%)
Yes
70 days (29.7%)
3 No
18 days (7.6%)
Yes
28 days (12.0%)
Yes
69 days (29.2%)
4 Yes
46 days (19.5%)
Yes
60 days (25.4%)
Yes
101 days (42.8%)
5 Yes
47 days (19.9%)
Yes
59 days (25.0%)
Yes
85 days (36.0%)
6 No
25 days (10.6%)
Yes
59 days (25.0%)
Yes
100 days (42.4%)
7 Yes
227 days (96.2%)
Yes
236 days (100%)
Yes
66 days (28.1%)
8 Yes
46 days (19.5%)
Yes
59 days (25.0%)
Yes
68 days (28.8%)
9 Yes
49 days (20.8%)
Yes
59 days (25.0%)
Yes
70 days (29.7%)
10 Yes
39 days (16.5%)
Yes
43 days (18.2%)
Yes
67 days (28.4%)
11 Yes
46 Days (19.5%)
Yes
66 days (28.0%)
Yes
100 days (42.4%)
12 No
21 Days (8.9%)
No
26 days (11.0%)
Yes
68 days (28.8%)

Vegetation
• Measurements of the 23 vegetation plots (19 permanent and 4 random transects) resulted in an
average of 451 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes. Sixteen of nineteen permanent plots and
two of four random plots met success criteria (Tables 7-8, Appendix B).

Site Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Project Millstones
Stream
Monitoring
Complete
Vegetation
Monitoring
Complete
Wetland
Monitoring
Data Analysis
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Construction Earthwork -- -- -- -- December 9, 2020
Planting -- -- -- -- January 12, 2021
As-Built Documentation Jan. 11-12, 2021 Jan. 14-15, 2021 -- March 2021 April 2021
Year 1 Monitoring October 19, 2021 July 28, 2021 Jan. – Nov. 2021 November 2021 January 2022
Year 2 Monitoring October 26, 2022 July 7, 2022 Jan. – Nov. 2022 November 2022 December 2022
Year 3 Monitoring April 19, 2023 July 25, 2023 Jan. – Nov. 2023 November 2023 December 2023

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Monitoring Summary
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Soil Testing
• On February 7, 2023, soil samples were collected at four locations across the site. Results
from the soil report indicate no negative impact from soil composition and tree vigor, see
Soil Report (Appendix H).

Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
5/15/2023-5/16/2023
Nodding Thistle. Chinse Privet, Russian Olive,
Multiflora rose

9/13/2023
Chinese Privet, Russian Olive, Multiflora rose
2/7/2023
Soil sampling

8/22/2023
Two large dead trees were cut and left in the
easement as habitat piles

MY3 FINAL MONITORING REPORT

BRAHMA SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

DMS Project No. 100092
Full Delivery Contract No. 7743
DMS RFP No. 16-007571
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-00126
DWR Project No. 20190158

Data Collection: January - November 2023
Submission: January 2024

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Prepared by:

And

Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Table of Contents
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure ............................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Success Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 4 A-F. Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from
Vegetation Data Entry Tool
Appendix C. Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology
Monitoring Summary
Appendix D. Hydrologic Data
Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 13 A-E. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph
Appendix E. Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 14. Project Timeline
Table 15. Project Contacts
Appendix F. Benthic Data
Benthic Sampling Results
Benthic Habitat Data Forms
Appendix G. MY3 Photo Log
Appendix H. Soil Report
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Page 1
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Brahma Site (Site).

1.1 Project Background, Components, and Structure
The Brahma Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) encompasses 22.7 acres of disturbed forest and
livestock pasture along unnamed tributaries to Reedy Branch (warm water streams in the Jordan Lake
watershed). The Site is located approximately 2 miles south of Snow Camp, NC, 5 miles northeast of Silk
Hope, NC, and southwest of Clark Road (SR 2352) in southern Alamance County.

Before construction, land use at the Site was characterized by disturbed forest and livestock pasture.
Riparian zones are primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to
livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land-management activities.

During mitigation plan preparation, two Pilgrim’s Pride chicken houses were being constructed on the
property adjacent to the southeast portion of UT 1. The chicken houses were constructed on pads that
have a groundwater drainage network leading to two pipes that discharge adjacent to the easement. The
pipes do not drain effluent from the chicken houses and discharge clean water. Most drainage from the
chicken house facilities drains through a draw that is treated at the easement boundary and then
discharged in wetlands before entering Site tributaries.

Chicken waste management is being managed through a Joint Responsibility – Producer/Third-Party
Applicator agreement in a manner consistent with requirements set forth by the State of North Carolina
in 15A NCAC 02T Section 1400 (Manure Hauler Regulations) and NRCS standard 633 (Waste Utilization).
Documentation of the agreement is available upon request. Under the agreement, the producer
maintains the responsibility for keeping records on the amount of waste generated by the operation and
providing the responsible third party with waste analysis records. The third-party applicator is responsible
for applying materials at agronomic rates, soil testing, field evaluation, etc.

At present, no waste is to be discharged onto the property adjacent to the Site easement. If waste
management changes, a minimum setback of 100 feet from perennial waters is required.

Proposed Site restoration activities generated 3881.066 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 6.655
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) as described in Table 1.

Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Planting 17.7 acres of the Site with 20,200 stems (planted species are included in Table 6
[Appendix B]).
• Fencing the entire conservation easement.

Original
Mitigation Original Original Original
Plan As-Built Mitigation Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Ft/Ac Ft/Ac Category Level Ratio (X:1)Credits Comments
Stream
UT-1A 3034 3121 Warm EI 1.50000 2,022.667
UT-1B 192 191 Warm EII 2.50000 76.800
UT-1C 911 911 Warm P 10.00000 91.100
UT-2 1354 1392 Warm EII 2.50000 12.000
UT-2A 30 30 Warm EII 2.50000 541.600
UT-3 239 245 Warm R 1.00000 239.000
UT-4 129 135 Warm EII 2.50000 51.600
UT-5 626 631 Warm EII 2.50000 250.400
UT-6 501 511 Warm R 1.00000 501.000
UT-7 47 48 Warm EII 2.50000 18.800
Total:3,804.967
Wetland
Wetland Reestablish 4.740 4.736 R REE 1.00000 4.740
Wetland Enhancement 3.709 3.708 R E 2.00000 1.855
Wetland Preservation 0.601 0.601 R P 10.00000 0.060
Total:6.655
Project Credits
Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 740.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Re-establishment 0.000 4.740 0.000 0.000
Rehabilitation 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Enhancement 0.000 1.855 0.000 0.000
Enhancement I 2,022.667 0.000 0.000
Enhancement II 951.200 0.000 0.000
Creation 0.000 0.000 0.000
Preservation 91.100 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000
Benthics 2%76.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Totals 3,881.066 0.000 0.000 6.655 0.000 0.000
Total Stream Credit 3,881.066
Total Wetland Credit 6.655
Wetland Mitigation Category Restoration Level
CM Coastal Marsh HQP High Quality Preservation
R Riparian P Preservation
NR Non-Riparian E Wetland Enhancement - Veg and Hydro
EII Stream Enhancement II
EI Stream Enhancement I
C Wetland Creation
RH Wetland Rehabilitation - Veg and Hydro
REE Wetland Re-establishment Veg and Hydro
R Restoration
Table 1. Mitigation Site (ID-100092) Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Page 3
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Site design was completed in August 2020. Construction started on August 29, 2020 and ended within a
final walkthrough on December 9, 2020. The Site was planted on January 12, 2021. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, and project contacts are summarized in Tables 14-15
(Appendix E).

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Project goals are based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
and on-site data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field investigations. The
Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP report documents
benthic ratings vary between “Fair” and “Good-Fair” possibly due to cattle, dairy, and poultry operations.
The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, RBRP goals are
addressed by project activities as follows with Site-specific information following the RBRP goals in
parenthesis.

1. Reduce and control sediment inputs – reduction of 8.0 tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs - livestock removed from streams resulting in a direct
reduction of 1020.8 pounds of nitrogen, 84.6 pounds of phosphorus per year, and 11.2 x 1011
colonies of fecal coliform; fertilizer application has been eliminated; and marsh treatment areas
were installed);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas (NA).

Site-specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of the North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
pre-construction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see table
below).

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) page 4
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility with Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow • Attenuate flood flow across the Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding to the
maximum extent possible.
• Connect streams to functioning wetland
systems.
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
and restore jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface
roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
• Increase stream stability within the Site
so that channels are neither aggrading
nor degrading.
• Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock
• Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Stabilize stream banks
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with appropriate
substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 2.2 or greater
• < 10% change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant
inputs from the Site and reduce
contributions to downstream waters.
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• Install marsh treatment areas
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
ripping/plowing.
• Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic floodplain
elevation.
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
Wetland Particulate Change
Wetland Physical Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
• Improve instream and stream-side
habitat.
• Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Stabilize stream banks
• Install in-stream structures
• Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with appropriate
substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream structures.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
(3) Substrate
(3) In-Stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Physical Structure
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) page 5
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
1.3 Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives
identified from on-site NC SAM data collection. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
summarizes Site success criteria.

Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 at any measured riffle cross-section.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions.
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 1 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.

Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Macroinvertebrates X X X
Visual Assessment X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X

2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) page 6
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless otherwise
required) All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 Total of 12 cross-sections on
restored channels Graphic and tabular data.
Channel Stability
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels
Areas of concern will be depicted on a
plan view figure with a written
assessment and photograph of the area
included in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented
during monitoring Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Hydrology Continuous monitoring surface water
gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through
monitoring period
3 surface water gauges on UT 3, 5,
and 6
Surface water data for each monitoring
period
Bankfull Events
Continuous monitoring surface water
gauges and/or trail camera
Continuous recording through
monitoring period
3 surface water gauges on UT 3, 5,
and 6
Surface water data for each monitoring
period
Visual/Physical Evidence Continuous through monitoring
period 1 crest gauge on UT 1 Visual evidence, photo documentation,
and/or rain data.
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
“Qual 4” method described in Standard
Operating Procedures for Collection and
Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates,
Version 5.0 (NCDWR 2016)
Pre-construction, Years 3, 5, and 7
during the “index period”
referenced in Small Streams
Biocriteria Development (NCDWQ
2009)
2 stations (on UT 1 upstream and
UT 1 downstream); however, the
exact locations will be determined
at the time pre-construction
benthics are collected
Results* will be presented on a site-by-
site basis and will include a list of taxa
collected, an enumeration of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index
values.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Wetland Restoration Groundwater gauges
Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
throughout the year with the
growing season defined as March
1-October 22
10 gauges spread throughout
restored wetlands
Soil temperature at the beginning of
each monitoring period to verify the
start of the growing season,
groundwater and rain data for each
monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Vegetation
establishment and
vigor
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
(100 square meters) in size; CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 19 plots spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
stems/acre
Annual random vegetation plots, 0.0247
acre (100 square meters) in size As-built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 4 plots randomly selected each
year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in-stream habitat

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Page 7
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 3
(2023) monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix C. Stream flow/crest data for UT1
was lost due to a gauge malfunction, however success criteria for surface flow was still met, and visual
observations along with photo evidence shows year-round flow through the channel. The gauge was
replaced on September 6, 2023 and is currently functioning properly.

In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 5 (2023) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling occurred
on June 13, 2023. See the table below for a summary of benthic macroinvertebrate results. MY3 (2023)
results and habitat forms are in Appendix F.

Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Sampling Station
Preconstruction Year 3 (2023) Year 5 (2025) Year 7 (2027)
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
UT-1 upstream 0 9.27 0 9.38
UT-1 downstream 0 9.30 2 8.03

Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Burst Documented
Monitoring Period Used for
Determining Success
12 Percent of
Monitoring Period
2021 (Year 1) March 1, 2021 March 1-October 22
(236 days) 28 days
2022 (Year 2) March 1, 2022 March 1-October 22
(236 days) 28 days
2023 (Year 3) March 1, 2023* March 1-October 22
(236 days) 28 days
*Based on documented bud burst on 2/28/23 and an onsite soil temperature logger reading of 50.37°F on 3/1/23 and staying
well above 41°F thereafter.

All twelve groundwater gauges exceeded success criteria for the year 3 (2023) monitoring period.
(Appendix D). Monthly rainfall sum and 30-70 percentiles from historic WETs data are reported in Figure
D1 (Appendix D).

Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 19 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within
the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). Year 3 (2023) vegetation measurements occurred on July 25, 2023 and also included four
temporary vegetation plots (50 meter by 2 meter). Measurements of the 23 vegetation plots (19
permanent and 4 temporary plots) resulted in an average of 451 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Page 8
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Additionally, sixteen of the nineteen individual permanent plots and two of four random transects met
success criteria (Tables 7-8, Appendix B).

Due to observed low stem density during MY2 (2022), RS implemented an adaptive management plan in
February 2023. The plan included the supplemental planting of 3,650 bare-root stems over 13.08 of the
original 17.7 acres of planted area. Remedial bare-root planting included species a minimum of 18-24
inches tall with adequate root mass to help reduce mortality. See table below for planted species and
planting denisties.

Species and Quantity of Supplemental Planting
Vegetation Association: Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Planting Area = 13.08 Acres

Species Count % of Total
Replant
Listed Mitigation
Plan Species
Wetland
Indicator
River birch (Betula nigra) 600 16.44% Yes FACW
Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 550 15.07% Yes FAC
Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 150 4.11% Yes FACW
Oak Water (Quercus nigra) 550 15.07% Yes FAC
Oak Willow (Quercus phellos) 350 9.59% Yes FACW
Silky Dogwood (Cornus amomum) 350 9.59% Yes FACW
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 550 15.07% Yes FACW
Tulip Poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 550 15.07% Yes FAC
Total 3,650 100%

Newly planted stems appear vigorous, and MY3 monitoring indicates significant improvement in sitewide
planted stem density. Supplemental planting areas are depicted on Figure 1 (appendix A).
UT 2UT 3 UT4 UT5 UT6 UT7
1384 239 129 657 501 47
1390 245 135 662 511 48
57.3 14.6 1.6 26.2 12.3 2.9
Int/Per Int Int Int/Per Int Int
G4/5 G5 F6 G/F4/5 F5 G5
G4/5 C/E 4 F6 C/F4/5 C/E 4G5
III III V IV III/IV IV
Applicable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA NA
Supporting Docs?
401 Permit
404 Certification
CE Document
CE Document
NA
Resolved?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
Wehadkee
Hydric
Regulatory Considerations
G5
Table 3. Project Attribute Table
Brahma Site 
Alamance County, North Carolina
22.7
35.8540ºN, 79.4106ºW
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont
Cape Fear
03030002
03‐06‐04
231
<2%
Parameters
Soil Hydric Status
Mapped Soil Series
Post‐project (acres)
Wetland Type (non‐riparian, riparian)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
Water of the United States ‐ Section 404
Water of the United States ‐ Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Historic Preservation Act
C/E 4 C/E 4
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable III/IV III/IV
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
Pre‐project (acres)
Wetland Summary Information
Wetlands
5.157 acres drained & 4.427 acres degraded
4.736 acres restored & 4.309 acres enhanced/preserved
Parameters
Riparian riverine
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 
 Land Use Classification 
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Post‐project (feet) 1072 3313
Pre‐project length (feet) 3227
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres) 149.3 230.8
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Per Per
Alluvial, confined ‐ moderately confined
C, NSW
1071
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) Cg 4/5
Parameters
UT 1 
(upstream of 
confluence with UT2)
UT 1 (downstream of 
confluence with 
UT2)
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres) 
River Basin
DWR Sub‐basin
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude decimal degrees)
Physiographic Province
Managed Herbaceous Cover & Hardwood Swamps
Reach Summary Information
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Page 10
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
3.0 REFERENCES

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&groupId=38364

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2008. Lumber River Basin Restoration
Priorities (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Lumber_River_Basin/Lu
mber_RBRP_2008_FINAL.pdf (January 9, 2018).

North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.

Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Page 11
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm [May 7, 2018]. United States
Department of Agriculture.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center. AgACIS Climate Data. Burlington Alamance Regional Airport WETS
Station (online). Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 4 A-F. Stream Visual Stability Assessment
Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
$+
$+
^_
'­
X S -3
X
S
-
2
XS-4
XS-8
X
S
-
1
X S -7
X
S
-
5
X
S
-
6
X S -9
X S -1 2
X S -1 1
XS-10
2 3 R
21R
2
0
R
2 2 R
2
1
9
8
7
6
5
4
32
1
12
11
10
5
9
4
6
8
3
7
1
2 11
19
17
16
12
18
10
13
14
15
NCCGIA, NC 911 Board
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
DEC 2023
1:3000
19-006
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
BRAHMASITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
1
³
Legend
Bra hma Ea sem ent = 22.7 ac
St ream Restorat ion
St ream En hancemen t (Le vel I)
St ream En hancemen t (Le vel II)
St ream Pre servatio n
St ream G ene ratin g No Credit
Wetland Ree sta blishme nt
Wetland En hanceme nt
Wetland Pre servatio n
MY3 Perma nent Vege tation Plo ts M eeting St em Density Requiremen t
MY3 Perma nent Vege tation Plo ts Not Mee ting Stem Den sit y Requ ireme nt
^_Plo t Origins
MY3 Temporary Vegetation Plots Meeting Stem Density Requirement
MY3 Temporary Vegetion Plots Not Meeting Stem Density Requirement
Cross-Sectio ns
Groun dwater G aug es M eeting Pe rforman ce St anda rd in MY3
#*St ream Flow/Crest Gau ges
^_Rain G auge /Soil Tempe rature Log ger
2023 Re medial Pla nting Area
'­MY3 Sco ur Hole
0 500 1,000250Feet
Clark Road
U T -1
UT-2
UT-3
UT-4
U
T-5
U T -1
U
T
-
6
U
T
-
2
A
U
T
-
7
MY3 Scour Hole
Table 4A.  Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 1
Assessed Stream Length 3312
Assessed Bank Length 6624
Bank Surface Scour/Bare 
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 
and/or surface scour 4 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.  
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable 
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
4 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across 
the sill. 33 33 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 
guidance document) 
33 33 100%
% Stable, 
Performing as 
IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric
Number Stable, 
Performing as 
Intended
Total Number 
in As‐built
Amount of 
Unstable 
Footage
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Totals  
Table 4B. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 2
Assessed Stream Length 1390
Assessed Bank Length 2780
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 8 8 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
8 8 100%
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Table 4C. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 3
Assessed Stream Length 245
Assessed Bank Length 490
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 6 6 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
6 6 100%
% Stable,
Performing as
IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
Table 4D. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 4
Assessed Stream Length 135
Assessed Bank Length 270
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 0 0 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
0 0 100%
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Table 4E. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 5
Assessed Stream Length 662
Assessed Bank Length 1324
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 0 0 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
0 0 100%
% Stable,
Performing as
IntendedMajor Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
Table 4F. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach UT 6
Assessed Stream Length 511
Assessed Bank Length 1022
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill. 19 19 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
19 19 100%
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Table 5. Visual Vegetation Assessment
Planted acreage 17.7
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10acres 0.00 0.0%
0.00 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage 22.7
Invasive Areas of Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated
against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native,
young, woody stems in the short-term or community structure for existing communities. Species
included in summation above should be identified in report summary.
0.10 acres 0.00 0.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Encroachment may be point,line,or polygon.Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of
restrictions specified in the conservation easement.Common encroachments are mowing,cattle access,
vehicular access.Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact
area.
none # Encroachments noted
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
% of Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
Combined
Acreage
Brahma Site
MY3 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken July 2023)
Brahma Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
MY3 Monitoring Report – December 2023
Plot 8Plot 7
Plot 1 Plot 2
Plot 3 Plot 4
Plot 5 Plot 6
Brahma Site
MY3 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken July 2023)
Brahma Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
MY3 Monitoring Report – December 2023
Plot 9 Plot 10
Plot 11 Plot 12
Plot 13 Plot 14
Plot 15 Plot 16
Brahma Site
MY3 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken July 2023)
Brahma Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data
MY3 Monitoring Report – December 2023
Plot 17 Plot 18
Plot 19
Transect 1 Transect 2
Transect 3 Transect 4
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix B
Vegetation Data

Table 6. Planted Bare-Root Woody Vegetation
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Counts and Densities
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 6. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Brahma Site
Species Total
Acres 17.7
Asimina triloba 200
Betula nigra 1500
Celtis occidentalis 500
Cephalanthus occidentalis 600
Cornus amomum 2700
Diospyros virginiana 500
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 900
Liriodendron tulipifera 1000
Morus rubra 600
Nyssa sylvatica 1000
Platanus occidentalis 2700
Quercus alba 1000
Quercus lyrata 500
Quercus nigra 2000
Quercus pagoda 1000
Quercus phellos 2000
Quercus shumardii 1000
Ulmus americana 500
TOTALS 20,200
Average Stems/Acre 1141

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 7. Planted Vegetation Totals
Brahma Site
Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met?
1 729 Yes
2 486 Yes
3 486 Yes
4 526 Yes
5 445 Yes
6 405 Yes
7 648 Yes
8 364 Yes
9 526 Yes
10 81 No
11 324 Yes
12 202 No
13 526 Yes
14 202 No
15 688 Yes
16 445 Yes
17 567 Yes
18 405 Yes
19 405 Yes
R-20 769 Yes
R-21 283 No
R-22 648 Yes
R-23 202 No
Average Planted Stems/Acre 451 Yes
Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool
17.7
2021‐05‐15
NA 
NA 
2023‐07‐25
0.0247
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 11
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 1111 33 11
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU 33
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 3311
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 115533 22 22
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 4 4 22
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2 2 2 2
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 2 2 1 1
other 11
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3311111111 1 116622
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 4422 44 11
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 11
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 2 2 1122111122
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 4433332266
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1
Quercus sp.11 2222 113311 55
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 11 11
Sum Performance Standard 16 18 12 12 12 12 13 13 11 11 9 10 16 16 9 9 13 13 2288
18 12 12 13 11 10 16 9 13 2 8
729 486 486 526 445 405 648 364 526 40 283
95666665714
22 42 33 31 27 30 38 33 46 100 62
23222222342
00000000000
18 12 12 13 11 10 16 9 13 2 8
729 486 486 526 445 405 648 364 526 40 283
95666665714
22 42 33 31 27 30 38 33 46 100 62
23222222342
00000000000
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not 
approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Shrub
Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
% Invasives
Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FIndicator 
Status
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Table 8.  Vegetation Plot Data Table from Vegetation Data Entry Tool (continued)
17.7
2021‐05‐15
NA 
NA 
2023‐07‐25
0.0247
Veg Plot 20 R Veg Plot 21 R Veg Plot 22 R Veg Plot 23 R
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree FAC 11
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 11 1
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU 1111
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 11
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 12 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree FACW 44 331133 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 11 11
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 12
other 11 22
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 3311 662233 1 1
Quercus alba white oak Tree FACU 11 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree OBL 1111 2
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1111 22 2
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree FACW 2 2
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 2 2 1111 44 22931
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU
Quercus sp.1166 101011111111 2
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 11 11
Sum Performance Standard 5 5 13 13 5 5 17 17 11 11 14 14 10 10 10 10 19 7 16 5
5 13 5 17 11 14 10 10 19 7 16 5
202 526 202 607 405 567 405 405 769 283 486 202
454458767443
40 46 40 59 55 29 30 30 47 43 75 40
123231323222
000000000000
5 13 5 17 11 14 10 10 19 7 16 5
202 526 202 607 405 567 405 405 769 283 486 202
454458767443
40 46 40 59 55 29 30 30 47 43 75 40
123231323222
000000000000
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not 
approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.
Veg Plot 17 F Veg Plot 18 F Veg Plot 19 FVeg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 F Veg Plot 14 F Veg Plot 15 F Veg Plot 16 FCommon Name Tree/Shrub
Indicator 
Status
Species 
Included in 
Approved 
Mitigation Plan
Mitigation Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
Scientific Name
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
Post Mitigation 
Plan 
Performance 
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
Stems/Acre
Species Count
Dominant Species Composition (%)
Average Plot Height (ft.)
% Invasives
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data

Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 9A-D. Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 10A-B. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary

Station Elevation
0.0 597.4 596.8
2.7 597.1 1.03
4.5 596.9 594.9
5.1 596.6 596.9
5.5 596.2 2.1
5.9 595.9 9.2
6.6 595.7
7.6 595.4
8.5 595.1
9.3 594.9
9.8 595.2
10.4 595.6
11.0 595.8 E/C 5
11.5 596.1
11.9 596.6
12.4 596.9
13.6 597.2
15.0 597.7
17.4 597.8
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS -1, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
SUMMARY DATA
595
596
597
598
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 1, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 597.5 597.4
2.8 597.6 0.98
4.2 597.2 596.5
5.5 596.9 597.4
6.3 596.8 0.9
6.9 596.6 5.8
7.6 596.5
7.9 596.5
8.7 596.6
9.4 596.5
10.3 596.5
10.7 596.6
11.5 596.9 E/C 5
12.5 597.1
13.4 597.4
14.4 597.7
15.4 598.1
17.3 598.2
19.6 598.2
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS -2, Riffle
596
597
598
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 599.9 599.3
2.0 599.7 1.00
3.4 599.3 598.0
4.6 598.8 599.3
5.6 598.6 1.3
6.3 598.4 10.4
7.0 598.3
7.6 598.1
8.2 598.2
8.6 598.0
8.9 598.0
9.2 598.0
9.6 598.2 E/C 5
10.1 598.1
10.7 598.1
11.7 598.1
12.4 598.4
13.2 598.6
14.3 598.9
15.3 599.1
16.5 599.32
18.1 599.4
20.4 599.4
4/19/2023
Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS -3, Riffle
597
598
599
600
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 3, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 601.2 600.2
1.7 600.8 0.99
3.6 601.0 597.9
4.4 600.6 600.2
5.3 599.3 2.3
5.6 599.2 14.5
5.9 598.3
6.3 598.2
7.3 598.1
8.3 597.9
9.1 598.0
9.3 598.0
10.1 597.9 E/C 5
10.9 598.2
11.8 598.4
12.6 599.6
13.2 600.2
14.6 600.5
17.0 600.7
19.8 600.9
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS -4, Pool
597
598
599
600
601
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 4, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 606.7 606.5
2.5 606.6 0.96
3.8 606.5 604.9
5.2 605.8 606.4
5.6 605.3 1.5
6.4 605.4 10.0
6.8 605.1
7.5 605.0
8.3 604.9
9.3 604.9
10.2 604.9
10.9 605.1
11.4 605.1 E/C 5
12.2 605.8
13.0 606.1
14.3 606.4
15.8 606.6
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS - 5, Riffle
604
605
606
607
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 606.8 606.5
3.0 606.5 1.00
4.9 606.0 603.1
6.1 605.5 606.5
6.3 605.4 3.4
7.9 605.2 17.8
8.7 604.3
9.6 604.0
10.2 603.5
10.9 603.2
11.8 603.1
12.4 603.2
13.0 606.0 E/C 5
14.2 606.3
17.7 606.7
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS - 6, Pool
603
604
605
606
607
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 611.8 611.7
2.0 611.9 1.04
3.0 611.7 610.1
3.8 611.4 611.7
4.9 610.9 1.7
5.7 610.6 11.7
6.5 610.4
7.1 610.3
7.7 610.1
8.1 610.1
8.4 610.1
8.8 610.1
9.4 610.2 E/C 5
10.0 610.1
11.2 610.1
11.7 610.3
12.3 611.2
13.0 611.5
13.9 611.8
15.2 611.9
15.2 611.90
17.1 612.0
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS - 7, Riffle
609
611
612
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.0 612.2 611.5
2.7 611.9 1.04
3.5 611.8 608.9
4.7 611.3 611.7
5.8 611.1 2.8
6.2 610.8 14.4
6.5 610.1
7.2 609.5
8.0 609.2
8.9 609.0
9.4 608.9
10.3 609.0
11.1 609.3 E/C 5
12.0 610.9
13.3 611.7
17.4 612.3
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT1, XS - 8, Riffle
608
609
611
612
613
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/18/2023
Station Elevation
-0.2 602.0 602.0
2.6 602.1 0.90
3.9 602.0 601.5
4.8 601.6 602.0
5.3 601.5 0.5
5.7 601.5 1.3
5.9 601.5
6.6 601.7
7.5 601.8
8.4 601.9
9.5 601.9
11.1 602.1
E/C 5
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT3, XS - 9, Riffle
600
601
603
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 3, XS - 9, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
0.1 602.5 602.5
2.3 602.5 0.96
3.8 602.6 601.8
4.4 602.4 602.5
4.8 602.1 0.7
5.3 601.8 1.5
5.6 601.8
5.9 601.8
6.4 601.9
6.8 602.3
7.9 602.5
10.4 602.7
12.8 602.8 E/C 5
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT3, XS - 10, Pool
601
603
604
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 3, XS - 10, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03 4/19/2023
Station Elevation
-0.1 605.9 605.8
1.6 605.8 1.01
2.8 605.8 604.8
3.7 605.6 605.8
4.1 605.4 1.0
4.5 605.0 3.4
4.8 604.9
5.3 604.9
5.8 604.9
6.5 604.8
6.8 605.0
7.0 605.1
7.4 605.3 E/C 5
8.0 605.5
8.7 605.6
10.1 605.6
12.3 605.6
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Pool
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT6, XS - 11, Pool
604
605
606
607
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 6, XS - 11, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03
Station Elevation
0.1 606.4 606.1
2.0 606.3 0.89
3.3 606.0 605.2
4.1 605.9 606.0
4.5 605.9 0.8
4.9 605.6 1.4
5.2 605.5
5.6 605.2
5.8 605.3
6.2 605.3
6.6 605.4
6.9 605.8
7.1 605.8 E/C 5
7.4 606.0
8.1 606.3
8.8 606.0
10.2 606.0
11.9 605.8
LTOB Max Depth:
LTOB Cross Sectional Area:
Stream Type
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bank Hieght Ratio:
Thalweg Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:4/19/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Smith, Flemming, Adams
Site Brahma Site
Watershed:Cape Fear River Basin, 03030002
XS ID UT6, XS - 12, Riffle
605
606
607
0 10
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Brahma, UT 6, XS - 12, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 12/16/20
MY-01 10/19/21
MY-02 5/26/22
MY-03
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)5.8 8 16 9.4 10.8 9.8 12.9 3
Floodprone Width (ft)6 8 14 40 100 100 100 3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 1.0 3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.6 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.2 10.7 3
Width/Depth Ratio 4.5 9.1 32 12 16 11.3 15.8 3
Entrenchment Ratio 0.9 1 1 4.3 9.3 7.8 10.2 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.5 1.9 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)5.4 8.2 16.9 10.2 11.8 9.6 9.6 1
Floodprone Width (ft)14 19 100 50 150 75.0 75.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 1.6 2.7 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 1
Width/Depth Ratio 3.4 7.8 33.8 12 16 8.4 8.4 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 2.4 13.3 4.9 12.7 7.8 7.8 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 2.1 2.9 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Other
28.2
0.0076 0.0075 0.0073
1.1 1.12
Monitoring Baseline
(MY0)Design
1.12
28.2
0.0052 0.0052 0.0064
34.4 34.4 34.4
1.33 1.33 1.33
Table 9A. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma - UT 1 (Upstream)
Table 9B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
28.2
E/C 4G5E/C 4
Brahma - UT 1 (Downstream)
Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)
Gg 4/5 E/C 4 E 4
Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)Design
Monitoring Baseline
(MY0)
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)3.1 3.8 5.9 4.1 4.7 4.9 4.9 1
Floodprone Width (ft)3 5 8 25 75 50.0 50.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1
Width/Depth Ratio 6.2 9.5 19.7 12 16 14.3 14.3 1
Entrenchment Ratio 0.8 1.4 1.6 6.1 15.8 10.2 10.2 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.3 3.2 4 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Other
Parameter
Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)3.3 6.5 16.3 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 1
Floodprone Width (ft)5 13 23 25 75 50.0 50.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.8 1
Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 32.5 163 12 16 9.6 9.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1.5 2.7 6.1 15.8 12.1 12.1 1
Bank Height Ratio 1 3.1 5 1 1.3 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Other
Monitoring Baseline
(MY0)
Table 9C. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma - UT 3
Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)Design
0.017 0.0173 0.0195
5.4 5.4 5.4
1.08 1.12 1.12
G 5 E/C 4 E/C 4
Table 9D. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Brahma - UT 6
0.0203 0.0173 0.0297
F 5 E/C 4 E 4
Pre-Existing Condition (applicaple)Design
Monitoring Baseline
(MY0)
4.8 4.8 4.8
1.02 1.12 1.12
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 597.11 597.07 596.99 596.84 597.43 597.41 597.43 597.44 599.24 599.30 599.30 599.33 600.54 600.41 600.27 600.20 606.49 606.47 606.43 606.46
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.02 0.90 1.03 1.00 1.05 1.03 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.91 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.05 0.96
Thalweg Elevation 595.50 595.42 595.23 594.85 596.4 596.49 596.35 596.48 597.83 598.00 597.90 597.99 598.02 598.06 598.01 597.91 604.89 604.89 604.80 604.86
LTOB2 Elevation 597.11 597.09 596.81 596.91 597.4 597.45 597.46 597.41 `599.24 599.29 599.28 599.32 600.54 600.50 600.06 600.18 606.49 606.46 606.51 606.39
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.61 1.67 1.58 2.05 1.04 0.96 1.11 0.94 1.41 1.28 1.38 1.33 2.52 2.44 2.05 2.28 1.60 1.56 1.70 1.54
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)8.7 9.01 7.46 9.20 6.0 6.51 6.31 5.81 10.5 10.35 10.14 10.41 14.6 15.47 12.96 14.46 10.7 10.55 11.57 10.01
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 606.58 606.65 606.70 606.52 611.70 611.65 611.62 611.67 611.59 611.68 611.68 611.54
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.01 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.07 0.97 1.04 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.04
Thalweg Elevation 602.89 603.09 603.17 603.08 610.1 610.08 610.00 610.06 609.02 609.10 609.10 608.87
LTOB2 Elevation 606.58 606.70 606.62 606.51 611.7 611.76 611.58 611.74 611.59 611.74 611.74 611.65
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)3.69 3.61 3.45 3.43 1.61 1.68 1.58 1.67 2.57 2.64 2.64 2.79
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)18.0 18.67 16.89 17.83 11.0 12.13 10.48 11.68 13.3 13.94 13.94 14.39
0.00
1.80
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area 602.04 602.02 596.99 602.02 602.55 602.53 597.43 602.54 605.79 605.85 605.85 605.79 605.90 605.89 605.95 606.11
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.02 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.12 1.03 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.01 0.86 0.89
Thalweg Elevation 601.40 601.43 595.23 601.46 601.7 601.72 601.72 601.76 604.69 604.83 604.89 604.83 605.26 605.25 605.33 605.25
LTOB2 Elevation 602.04 602.03 596.81 601.97 602.6 602.64 602.61 602.51 `605.79 605.85 605.83 605.80 605.90 605.90 605.86 606.01
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.64 0.60 1.58 0.50 0.83 0.91 0.89 0.75 1.10 1.02 0.95 0.97 0.64 0.65 0.53 0.76
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.7 1.77 7.46 1.34 1.6 2.06 2.51 1.51 3.4 3.34 3.29 3.42 1.6 1.83 1.39 1.39
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
0.00
1.80
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull1 Area
Bank Height Ratio_Based on AB Bankfull1 Area
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.
Table 10B. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Brahma/ DMS:100092) UT 3 and UT 6
UT 3 - Cross Section 9 (Riffle)UT 3 - Cross Section 10 (Pool)UT 6 - Cross Section 11 (Pool)UT 6 - Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional sediments observed.
UT 1 - Cross Section 6 (Pool)UT 1 - Cross Section 7 (Riffle)UT 1 - Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Table 10A. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
(Brahma/ DMS:100092) UT 1
UT 1 - Cross Section 1 (Pool)UT 1 - Cross Section 2 (Riffle)UT 1 - Cross Section 3 (Riffle)UT 1 - Cross Section 4 (Pool)UT 1 - Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the
focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area
and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would
be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg
elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2 - LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for
each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the
focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area
and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
1 - Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2, then the MY1 bankfull elevation would
be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey = 10 ft2. The BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank (LTOB) elevation for MY1 and the thalweg
elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each successive year.
2 - LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for
each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix D
Hydrologic Data

Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tables 13 A-E. Channel Evidence
Surface Water Gauge Graphs
Figure D1. 30/70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Soil Temperature Graph

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo
(if available)
December 24, 2020 December 24, 2020
Trail cameras and crest gauges documented a bankfull event
on UT1 and UT2 after 1” of rain was captured by an on-site
rain gauge on December 24.
1, 2
January 31, 2021 January 31, 2021
Trail cameras and crest gauges documented a bankfull event
on tributaries 1, 2, 3, and 4 after 2.25” of rain was captured by
an on-site gauge between January 25 – 31.
3, 4, 5, 6
March 12, 2022 March 12, 2022
Trail cameras and crest gauges documented a bankfull event
on UT1, UT3, and UT5 after 1.15” of rain was captured by an
on-site gauge on March 12, 2022.
7, 8, 9
October 26, 2022 September 30, 2022
Crest gauges documented bankfull flows on all site tributaries
after 3.22” of rain was captured by an on-site gauge on
September 30, 2022 as a result of Tropical Storm Ian.
--
January 19, 2023 January 11, 2023
Stream gauges documented high flows on all tributaries after
3.69” of rain was captured by an on-site gauge on January 11,
2023. Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed in the
UT2 floodplain on January 19, 2023.
10
April 18, 2023 April 7, 2023
Stream gages documented bankfull flows on all site tributaries
after 4.10” of rain was captured by an on-site rain gauge
between April 6-7, 2023.
--
September 6, 2023 June 22, 2023
Trail cameras and crest gauges documented a bankfull event
on UT3, UT4, and UT6 after 1.66” of rain was captured by an
on-site gauge June 22, 2023.
11

Photo 1: UT1 during a bankfull event.

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 2: UT2 during a bankfull event.

Photo 3: UT1 during a bankfull event.

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 4: UT2 during a bankfull event.

Photo 5: UT3 during a bankfull event.

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 7: UT1 during a bankfull event.

Photo 6: UT5 receding from a bankfull event.
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 9: UT5 rising just before a bankfull event.
Photo 8: UT3 during a bankfull event.

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 10: Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed in the
UT2 floodplain just after a bankfull event.
Photo 11: UT5 rising during a bankfull event
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 12. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2021)
Year 2
(2022)
Year 3
(2023)
Year 4
(2024)
Year 5
(2025)
Year 6
(2026)
Year 7
(2027)
1
Yes
60 days
(25.4%)
Yes
66 days
(28.0%)
Yes
100 days
(42.4%)

2
No
21 days
(8.9%)
Yes
47 days
(19.9%)
Yes
70 days
(29.7%)

3
No
18 days
(7.6%)
Yes
28 days
(12.0%)
Yes
69 days
(29.2%)

4
Yes
46 days
(19.5%)
Yes
60 days
(25.4%)
Yes
101 days
(42.8%)

5
Yes
47 days
(19.9%)
Yes
59 days
(25.0%)
Yes
85 days
(36.0%)

6
No
25 days
(10.6%)
Yes
59 days
(25.0%)
Yes
100 days
(42.4%)

7
Yes
227 days
(96.2%)
Yes
236 days
(100%)
Yes
66 days
(28.1%)

8
Yes
46 days
(19.5%)
Yes
59 days
(25.0%)
Yes
68 days
(28.8%)

9
Yes
49 days
(20.8%)
Yes
59 days
(25.0%)
Yes
70 days
(29.7%)

10
Yes
39 days
(16.5%)
Yes
43 days
(18.2%)
Yes
67 days
(28.4%)

11
Yes
46 Days
(19.5%)
Yes
66 days
(28.0%)
Yes
100 days
(42.4%)

12
No
21 Days
(8.9%)
No
26 days
(11.0%)
Yes
68 days
(28.8%)

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 1
Year  3 (2023 Data)October 22
Growing Season End
March 1Growing 
Season Start 100 Days ‐42.6%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 2
Year  3 (2023 Data)
70 Days ‐29.8%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 3
Year  3 (2023 Data)
69 Days ‐29.4%%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 4
Year  3 (2023 Data)
101 Days ‐43.0%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 5
Year  3 (2023 Data)
85 Days ‐36.2%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 6
Year  3 (2023 Data)
March 1Growing 
Season Start
100 Days ‐42.6%
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 7
Year  3 (2023 Data)
66 Days ‐28.1%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 8
Year  3 (2023 Data)
68 Days ‐28.9%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 9
Year  3 (2023 Data)
70 Days ‐29.8%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 10
Year  3 (2023 Data)
67 Days ‐28.5%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 11
Year  3 (2023 Data)
100 Days ‐42.6%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐24.00
‐22.00
‐20.00
‐18.00
‐16.00
‐14.00
‐12.00
‐10.00
‐8.00
‐6.00
‐4.00
‐2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Groundwater Gauge 12
Year  3 (2023 Data)
68 Days ‐28.9%
March 1Growing 
Season Start
October 22
Growing Season End
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 13A. UT-1 Channel Evidence
UT-1 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022) Year 3 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 83 133 31*
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
*Gauge malfunctioned resulting in data loss for the majority of the year.

Table 13B. UT-2 Channel Evidence
UT-2 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022) Year 3 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 78 139 121
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 13C. UT-3 Channel Evidence
UT-3 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022) Year 3 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 266 226 277
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:

Table 13D. UT-5 Channel Evidence
UT-5 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022) Year (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 50 86 210
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:

MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 13E. UT-6 Channel Evidence
UT-6 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022) Year (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 73 92 135
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐5.0
‐3.0
‐1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
17.0
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Crest Gauge UT‐1
Year  3 (2023 Data)
Logger malfunctioned and was 
replaced on 5/17. The new gauge 
also malfunctioned resulting in full 
data loss. A new gauge was installed 
on 9/6/23 and is currently 
functioning properly.
31 Days
Total Cumulative 
Flow ‐43 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐5.0
‐3.0
‐1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT‐2
Year  3 (2023 Data)
121 Days
Total Cumulative 
Flow ‐162 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐5.0
‐3.0
‐1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT‐3
Year  3 (2023 Data)
277 Days
Total Cumulative 
Flow ‐286 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐5.0
‐3.0
‐1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
13.0
15.0
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT‐5
Year  3 (2023 Data)
210 Days
Total Cumulative 
Flow ‐240 days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
‐5.0
‐3.0
‐1.0
1.0
3.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Brahma Stream Flow Gauge UT‐6
Year  3 (2023 Data)
135 Days
Total Cumulative 
Flow ‐167 days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
 in
 In
c
h
e
s
Figure D1: Brahma 
30‐70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall 
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30‐70th percentile data from WETS Station: Burlington Alamance Regional Airport
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
34.00
36.00
38.00
40.00
42.00
44.00
46.00
48.00
50.00
52.00
54.00
56.00
58.00
60.00
62.00
64.00
66.00
68.00
70.00
72.00
74.00
76.00
78.00
80.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
5
/
2
3
1/
2
9
/
2
3
2/
1
2
/
2
3
2/
2
6
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
6
/
2
3
4/
9
/
2
3
4/
2
3
/
2
3
5/
7
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
6/
4
/
2
3
6/
1
8
/
2
3
7/
2
/
2
3
7/
1
6
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
1
3
/
2
3
8/
2
7
/
2
3
9/
1
0
/
2
3
9/
2
4
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
2
/
2
3
11
/
5
/
2
3
11
/
1
9
/
2
3
So
i
l

T
e
m
p

°F
Date
Brahma Soil Temperature
Year 3 (2023 Data)
Lowest temp.
after March 1:
44.12°FMarch 1:
50.37°F
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 14. Project Timeline
Table 15. Project Contacts

Table 14. Project Timeline
Data Collection Task Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Deliverable Submission
Project Instituted NA Dec‐18
Mitigation Plan Approved NA 8‐Jul‐20
Construction (Grading) Completed NA 9‐Dec‐21
Planting Completed NA 12‐Jan‐21
As‐built Survey Completed 15‐Jan‐20 Feb‐21
MY‐0 Baseline Report Jan‐21 Apr‐21
Year 1 Monitoring Report Nov‐21 Dec‐21
Year 2 Monitoring Report Nov‐22 Dec‐22
Year 3 Monitoring Report Nov‐23 Jan‐24
Remediation Items (e.g. beaver removal, supplements, repairs etc.)
Encroachment 

Table 15. Project Contacts
Provider Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
Mitigation Provider POC Worth Creech
919‐755‐9490
Designer Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
Primary project design POC Grant Lewis
919‐215‐1693
Construction Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Charles Hill
919‐639‐6132
Brahma Site/100092 
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix F
Benthic Data

Benthic Sampling Results
Benthic Habitat Data Forms

PA ID NO 56916 56917
STATION Brahma Brahma
UT1U UT1D
DATE 6/13/2023 6/13/2023
SPECIES
Tolerance 
Value
Functional 
Feeding 
Group
PLATYHELMINTHES
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae FC
Musculium lacustre FC 5
Pisidium sp.6.6 FC
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.8.7 CG 42
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta CG
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae CG
Lumbriculus sp.CG 1
Hirudinea P
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae P
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae P
Helobdella sp.P
ARTHROPODA
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia sp.
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Cyclopidae
Mesocyclops edax
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp.8.4 CG
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.7.2 CG
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG 16
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Aeshna umbrosa P 2
Anax junius P
Coenagrionidae P 4
Corduliidae
Somatochlora sp.8.9 P 5
Libellulidae P
Libellula vibrans 9.4 P 1
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.6
PA ID NO 56916 56917
STATION Brahma Brahma
UT1U UT1D
DATE 6/13/2023 6/13/2023
SPECIES
Tolerance 
Value
Functional 
Feeding 
Group
Plecoptera
Perlidae P
Perlesta sp.2.9 P
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.9.5 P
Corixidae PI 14 11
Hesperocorixa sp.PI
Notonectidae
Notonecta sp.P
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Chauliodes rastricornis P 2
Sialidae P
Sialis sp.7 P 2
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.6.6 FC 1
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche sp.2.5 SH
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae P
Neoporus sp.5
Thermonectus sp.P
Hydrophilidae P
Tropisternus sp. 9.3 P 1
Diptera
Chaboridae
Chaoborus albatus P
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.4 P 4
Chironomus sp. 9.3 CG 11
Conchapelopia sp.8.4 P 12
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 3.9 CG
Natarsia sp. 9.6 P 2
Paratendipes albimanus/duplicatus 5.6
Procladius sp. 8.8 P 52
Psectrotanypus dyari 10 P 16
Tanytarsus sp. 6.6 FC
Zavrelimyia sp. 8.6 P 2
Culicidae FC
Anopheles sp. 8.6 FC
Culex sp.FC 2
Psychodidae CG
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 102067 102055
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 16 14
EPT INDEX 0 2
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned Values 9.38 8.03
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix G
MY3 Photo Log

Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 1: Enhancement (Level I) on UT1
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 2: Enhancement (Level II) on UT2
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 3: UT-1 Northernmost Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 4: UT-1 Northernmost Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 5: UT-1 Piped Crossing North of UT-4 – Upstream End
Photo 6: UT-1 Piped Crossing North of UT-4 – Downstream End
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 8: UT-1 Road Crossing Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 7: UT-1 Road Crossing Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 9: UT-1 Southernmost Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 10: UT-1 Southernmost Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 11: UT-2 Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 12: UT-2 Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 13: UT-5 Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 14: UT-5 Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 15: Bud Burst of Carpinus caroliniana
Photo Taken 2/28/23
Photo 16: Bud Burst of Ulmus americana
Photo Taken 2/28/23
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Brahma
MY-03 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 17: UT1 Right Bank Scour
MY3 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 18: UT1 Right Bank Scour – live stakes
MY3 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100092) Appendices
Brahma Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix H
Soil Report

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY23-SL024986
Mehlich-3 Extraction
Completed: Received:Sampled:
Soil Report
Farm:
Client:
Links to Helpful Information
Advisor:
Brahma03/03/202302/08/202302/07/2023
Predictive
Matthew Harrell
1101 Haynes Street Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27603
Sampled County : Alamance
524468Client ID: Advisor ID:
Lime History:
Sample ID: More
Information
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class:
Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM%
2 -
1 -
Crop
Recommendations:Lime
BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N
Mineral
Hardwood, E 0.5
0.0
CVS17
0 0
32625.11.9727.00.910.36 312119022336
0 50 Note: 11
190
(tons/acre)
333
0
50 20
Nutrients (lb/acre)
0.2
0 0
Lime History:
Sample ID: More
Information
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class:
Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM%
2 -
1 -
Crop
Recommendations:Lime
BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N
Mineral
Hardwood, E 0.0
0.0
CVS12
0 0
331135.51.4765.60.970.27 211915814236
0 50 Note: 11
158
(tons/acre)
333
0
58 15
Nutrients (lb/acre)
0.1
0 0
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Reprogramming of the laboratory-information-management system that makes this report possible is being funded
- Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture
NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY23-SL024986
Page 2 of 3Matthew Harrell
Lime History:
Sample ID: More
Information
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class:
Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM%
2 -
1 -
Crop
Recommendations:Lime
BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N
Mineral
Hardwood, E 0.4
0.0
CVS16
0 0
391145.21.9747.20.860.27 313124229945
0 40 Note: 11
242
(tons/acre)
333
0
54 17
Nutrients (lb/acre)
0.2
0 0
Lime History:
Sample ID: More
Information
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class:
Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM%
2 -
1 -
Crop
Recommendations:Lime
BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N
Mineral
Hardwood, E 0.3
0.0
P3P4C
0 0
58665.31.8777.90.940.36 312816529259
0 20 Note: 11
165
(tons/acre)
333
0
54 19
Nutrients (lb/acre)
0.2
0 0
NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY23-SL024986
Page 3 of 3Matthew Harrell
Recommendations
Lime
If testing finds that soil pH is too low for the crop(s) indicated, a lime recommendation will be given in units of either
ton/acre or lb/1000 sq ft. For best results, mix the lime into the top 6 to 8 inches of soil several months before planting.
For no-till or established plantings where this is not possible, apply no more than 1 to 1.5 ton/acre (50 lb/1000 sq ft) at one
time, even if the report recommends more. You can apply the rest in similar increments every six months until the full rate
is applied. If MG is recommended and lime is needed, use dolomitric lime.
Fertilizer
Recommendations for field crops or other large areas are listed separately for each nutrient to be added (in units of
lb/acre unless otherwise specified). Recommendations for N (and sometimes for B) are based on research/field studies
for the crop being grown, not on soil test results. K-I and P-I values are based on test results and should be > 50. If they
are not, follow the fertilizer recommendations given. If Mg is needed and no lime is recommended, 0-0-22 (11.5% Mg) is
an excellent source; 175 to 250 lb per acre alone or in a fertilizer blend will usually satisfy crop needs, SS-I levels appear
only on reports for greenhouse soil or problem samples.
Farmers and other commercial producers should pay special attention to micronutrient levels. If $, pH$, $pH, C or Z
notations appear on the soil report, refer to . In general, homeowners do not
need to be concerned about micronutrients. Various crop notes also address lime fertilizer needs; visit
Recommendations for small areas, such as home lawns/gardens, are listed in units of lb/1000 sq ft . If you cannot find
the exact fertilizer grade recommended on the report, visit to find information that
may help you choose a comparable alternate. For more information, read
.
Test Results
The first seven values [soil class, HM%, W/V, CEC, BS%, Ac and pH] describe the soil and its degree of acidity. The
remaining 16 [P-I, K-I, Ca%, Mg%, Mn-I, Mn-AI1, Mn-AI2, Zn-I, Zn-AI, Cu-I, S-I, SS-I, Na, ESP, SS-I, NO 3-N (not routinely
available)] indicate levels of plant nutrients or other fertility measurement. Visit
Report Abbreviations
Ac exchangeable acidity
B boron
BS% % CEC occupied by basic cations
Ca%% CEC occupied by calcium
CEC cation exchange capacity
Cu-I copper index
ESP exchangeable sodium percent
HM%percent humic matter
K-I potassium index
K2O potash
Mg%% CEC occupied by magnesium
MIN mineral soil class
Mn manganese
Mn-Al1 Mn-availability index for crop 1
Mn-AI2 Mn-availability index for crop 2
Mn-I manganese index
M-O mineral-organic soil class
N nitrogen
Na sodium
NO3-N nitrate nitrogen
ORG organic soil class
pH current soil pH
P-I phosphorus index
P2O5 phosphate
S-I sulfur index
SS-I soluble salt index
W/V weight per volume
Zn-AI zinc availability index
Zn-I zinc index
Understanding the Soil Report: explanation of measurements, abbreviations and units
$Note: Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients
www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/obpart4.htm#fs
A Homeowner's Guide to Fertilizer.
www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/uyrst.htm
ncagr.gov/agronomi/pubs.htm.