20170921 Ver 1_MajorHill_100015_MY5_2023_20240209

MONITORING REPORT
2023 (Year 5)

MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina

DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990

Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

Data Collection: January 2023 – October 2023
Submission: February 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 Monitoring Year 5 (2023) DMS Comments
Major Hill Mitigation Site
DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990

Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)

Report & Field Visit
1. Trash such as large metal gate, tires, and concrete were observed along UT-3 which will need to be removed
before IRT closeout.
Response: Surface debris in the Enhancement II area along UT-3 will be removed by hand in Q1 2024. No
digging or equipment work will be conducted to avoid disruption to the existing mature riparian buffer.

2. Some privet sprouts (<1 ft) were observed along UT-3 near southern crossing. Please continue treatment.
Overall, this site looks great.
Response: Invasive treatments will continue as needed through closeout.

Digital Comments
1. The submission is missing summary tables 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 included in the report; please submit missing tables.
If any photo points were established at the mitigation plan phase in addition to cross sections and
vegetation plots, please submit these photos as well. Note that stream survey data should include data
labels (ex. LTP, TW) in future submission.
Response: Tables 1-4 have been added to the “Background Tables” folder in the digital submittal. Tables 5-
6 were included in the “Tables” folder of the “Visual Assessment Data” folder in the draft digital submittal
and have been included in the final as well. Table 8 was included in the “Veg Plot Data” folder of the draft
digital submittal and has been included in the final as well. Tables 9 and 10 were added to the “Veg Plot
Data” folder of the final digital submittal. No photo points were established in the mitigation plan other
than vegetation plots and cross-sections.

Boundary Inspection
1. Please locate or install the corner monument at platted corners #35 and #41. It is recommended that the
culvert position relative to the easement at the south-central portion, near corner #41, be verified.
Response: A surveyor has been contracted to locate these pins. Work will be completed in Q1 2024.

2. Large debris were observed inside the conservation easement. Items noted were relict fencing debris, metal
T-posts, permanent deer stand, bull gate, and wires which will need to be removed before IRT closeout.
Response: Relict fencing will be removed in Q1 2024, and landowners will be advised regarding deer stand
standards. Surface debris in the Enhancement II area along UT-3 will be removed by hand in Q1 2024. No
digging or equipment work will be conducted to avoid disruption to the existing mature riparian buffer.

3. Please repair/ locate/ install missing signs at corners and in-line.
Response: Noted. This will be corrected in Q1 2024.

4. Wooden H-brace that appears to be supporting the active fence at corner #21 and should be moved outside
the conservation easement.
Response: Noted. This will be corrected in Q1 2024.

Page 2 of 2

5. There are several platted non-monumented corners at the crossing in the northwest corner of the site that
are difficult to locate. It is recommended that they be marked with posts.
Response: These non-platted corners are at the stream centerline where the parcel line runs, which is not
practical to mark with posts. However, in Q1 2024 we will add marking along the general alignment of the
crossing to better identify the corridor.

6. Fence maintenance is recommended at areas where trees have damaged the fence.
Response: Recommendation noted. RS will continue to work with landowners to ensure fencing where
livestock is present is adequate to prevent encroachment.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Monitoring Summary
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Major Hill Year 5, 2023 Monitoring Summary

General Notes
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.) was observed.

Streams
• Stream monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross sections as compared to
as-built data. The channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions outlined in
the Detailed Restoration Plan and as constructed.

• Across the Site, all in-stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. The channel
geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions outlined in the Detailed Restoration
Plan and as constructed. No stream areas of concern were identified during year 5 (2023)
monitoring. Stream visual assessment results are documented in Tables 5A-5B (Appendix B). Tables
for year 5 (2023) data and annual quantitative assessments are included in Appendix D.

• Two bankfull events were documented during year 5 (2023), resulting in 9 bankfull events to date
during the monitoring period (Table 15, Appendix E).

• Channel formation was evident in UT 1 during year 5 (2023). The two streamflow gauges and trail
cameras recorded 233 and 249 consecutive streamflow days (Tables 14A-B, Appendix E).

• Benthic macroinvertebrate sampled data during MY 5 shows increases in richness and diversity
when compared to preconstruction surveys. When compared to reference site data, the onsite
data is only slightly below reference values for MY 5. Results and habitat forms are included in
Appendix F.

Wetlands
• All six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 5 (2023) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data is in Appendix E.

Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020) Year 3 (2021) Year 4 (2022) Year 5 (2023) Year 6
(2024)
Year 7
(2025)
1 No/14 days*
6.0 percent
Yes/136 days
57.9 percent
Yes/74 days
31.4 percent
Yes/93 days
39.4 percent
Yes/95 days
40.3 percent
2 No/19 days*
8.1 percent
No/19 days
8.0 percent
No/21 days
8.9 percent
Yes/44 days
18.6 percent
Yes/50 days
21.3 percent
3 Yes/25 days
10.6 percent
Yes/235 days
100 percent
Yes/226 days
95.8 percent
Yes/204 days
86.4 percent
Yes/190 days
80.9 percent
4 Yes/34 days
14.5 percent
Yes/72 days
30.5 percent
Yes/60 days
25.4 percent
Yes/155 days
65.7 percent
Yes/85 days
36.2 percent
5 Yes/119 days
50.6 percent
Yes/135 days
57.4 percent
Yes/53 days
22.5 percent
Yes/77 days
32.6 percent
Yes/51 days
21.7 percent
6 Yes/77 days
32.8 percent
Yes/44 days
18.7 percent
Yes/80 days
33.9 percent
Yes/81 days
34.3 percent
Yes/100 days
42.6 percent
MY5 (2032) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Monitoring Summary
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Vegetation
• Measurements of the 8 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 354 planted
stems/acre excluding livestakes. Seven out of 8 plots met success criteria. Additionally, two
temporary vegetation transects met success criteria resulting in a sitewide average of 547
stems/acre, including natural recruits. Lastly, stem height data from the 8 permanent vegetation
plots indicates a Site average of 7.29 feet, which meets the 7-foot height criteria required at Year
5. Year 5 (2023) vegetation data is included in Tables 8-10 (Appendix C).

MY 5 (2023) Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
MY 5 (2023) Vegetation Data Collection August 25, 2023 --
MY 5 (2023) Stream Data Collection May 16, 2023 --
MY 5 (2023) Monitoring Report October 2023 February 2024

Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
05/17/2023
Privet, Russian Olive, Nodding Thistle,
Multiflora rose

09/13/23
Privet, Russian Olive, Multiflora rose, Tree-of-
heaven
06/14/2023, 06/21/2023, 09/27/2023, and
09/28/2023
Old fence within easement removal and
boundary inspections.

12/02/2023
Fence relocation

12/05/2023
Supplemental planting

Boundary Inspection
• During the NC DMS boundary inspection with Danielle Mir and Jeff Horton on September 21,
20223, multiple issues were discovered. No conservation easement placards were visible
across the entire property. One section of fence located at easement corner 1 was
constructed +/-18 inches within the easement, see on Figure 3 (Appendix H). Easement corner
1 appeared to be improperly stamped. One stamped easement cap was not located at
easement corner 2, see Figure 3 (Appendix H.)
o Resolutions:
On September 27th, 2023, RS staff members performed a comprehensive boundary
inspection. While performing the inspection, conservation easement placards were
installed at each corner of the easement, see Photo Log (Appendix H.) The section of
fence constructed inside the easement is determined to remain in place due to
property boundary constraints and large hardwood trees in line with the easement
boundary, see NC DMS Email Response (Appendix H). Easement corner 1 is stamped
appropriately according to the NC DEQ Guidance, see Easement Inspection Photo Log
MY5 (2032) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Monitoring Summary
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
(Appendix H). Easement corner 2 is a property corner and has an existing iron pipe
marking property lines, see Map of Record (Appendix H).

• On September 27, 2023, while performing the easement inspection, RS staff members
discovered an encroachment area measuring 0.04 acres on the Site's south side shown on
Figure 2 (Appendix B). An existing cattle fence was not relocated to boundary corners during
construction. No other encroachments were documented during the inspection.
o Resolutions:
On December 02, 2023, the fence was relocated outside the easement. On December
05, 2023, a supplemental planting of twenty 3-gallon pots consisting of mitigation
plan approved species, including 5 Black gum (Nyssa Sylvatica), 5 Water Oak (Quercus
nigra), and 10 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) were planted within the encroached
area, see Photo Log (Appendix H).

MONITORING REPORT
2023 (Year 5)

MAJOR HILL STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina

DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990

Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

Data Collection: January 2023 – October 2023
Submission: February 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)

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................1
Project Goals & Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1
Project Background .................................................................................................................. 3
Project Components and Structure ......................................................................................... 3
Success Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 3
Stream Success Criteria .............................................................................................. 4
Wetland Success Criteria ............................................................................................ 4
Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................ 4
METHODS ...............................................................................................................................5
Stream Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 5
Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 6
Vegetation Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 7
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................9
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5B. Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Site Photo Log
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Height Data
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D. Monitoring Data (Dimensional
Morphology Summary & Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross-Section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix F. Benthic Data
Benthic Results
Habitat Data forms
Appendix G. Riparian Buffer MY5 (2023) Monitoring
Report
Appendix H. Easement Inspection Response
Figure 3. Map of Record Overview
NC DMS Comment Response
NC DMS Email Correspondence
Map of Record
Easement Inspection MY5 (2023) Photo Log

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site).

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

1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (reduction of 10.0 tons/year after mitigation is complete);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removal from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application, and marsh treatment areas may result in a direct reduction of 852.4 pounds of
nitrogen and 70.6 pounds of phosphorus per year);
3. Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas.

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

Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success
Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain
Access)
• 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
(3) Streamside Area
Attenuation
(4) Wooded Riparian
Buffer
(4) Microtopography

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives (Continued)
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY (Continued)
(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
cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
•
• Cross-section measurements
indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Visual documentation of stable
channels and structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 1.4 or greater
• < 10% change in BHR and ER in
any given year
• Livestock excluded from the
easement
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(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
• Livestock excluded from the
easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
(3) Upland Pollutant
Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
• Improve instream
and streamside
habitat.
• Construct stable channels with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
provide organic matter and shade
• Construct new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows and plant woody
riparian buffer
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Cross-section measurement
indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel 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) Stream Stability
(3) In-Stream Habitat
(2) Streamside Habitat
(3) Streamside Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Landscape Patch
Structure
Wetland Vegetation
Composition

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Executive Summary
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Project Background
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line (Figure 1, Appendix B).

Before construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been relocated
to the floodplain edge, ditched, impounded, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures. Approximately
60 percent of the stream channel was degraded, contributing to sediment export from the Site resulting
from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside wetlands were cleared
and drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in degraded
water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel
characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to
channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle-pool morphology aiding in energy
dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and will greatly reduce sediment loss from
channel banks.

Project Components and Structure
Site restoration activities generated 3058 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.76 Wetland Mitigation
Units (WMUs) as the result of the following:
• 1738 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 3299 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level II)
• 0.54 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.44 acre of riparian wetland enhancement

Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of a marsh treatment area to treat drainage prior to entering UT1.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing, removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 8.11 acres of the Site with 8600 stems (planted species and densities by zone are included
in Table 7 [Appendix C]).
• Removing a small, abandoned farm pond by 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the
dam to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that was unsuitable for
channel bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel
construction (as necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel
with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.

Site design was completed in February 2018. Construction started on July 25, 2018 and ended within a
final walkthrough on September 6, 2018. The Site was planted in December 2018-January 2019.
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).

Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016, NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Stream Success Criteria
From a mitigation perspective, several goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered
successful upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria.

• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross-section.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from
baseline condition during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met
through four separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring
years 1-7.

Wetland Success Criteria
The following summarizes wetland success criteria.
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10
percent of the growing season during average climatic conditions

According to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, the growing season for Alamance County is from April
17 – October 22 (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the
Piedmont region; therefore, for this project, hydrologic success will be determined using data from March
1 - October 22 to represent the period of biological activity more accurately. Based on growing season
information outlined in the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (USACE 2010), this will be confirmed annually by soil
temperatures exceeding 41 degrees Fahrenheit at 12 inches depth and/or bud burst.

Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored
period (March 1-October 22) during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic
conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may be used for comparison to the Site; however,
reference gauge data will not be tied to success criteria. These areas are expected to support hydrophytic
vegetation. A jurisdictional determination will be performed if wetland parameters are marginal as
indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring. The jurisdictional determination will not supersede
monitoring data or overturn a failure in meeting success criteria; however, this information may be used
by the IRT, at the discretion of the IRT, to make a final determination on Site wetland re-establishment
success.

Vegetation Success Criteria
The following summarizes vegetation success criteria.

• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3;
and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting
list for the Site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-
by-case basis.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems within any vegetation plot.
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.

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

Stream Monitoring
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections and substrate on riffles and pools
(Figure 2, Appendix B). Data presented in graphic and tabular format include 1) cross-sectional area, 2)
bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, and 5) width-to-depth ratio. Longitudinal profiles
were monitored for as-built; however, profiles will not be measured unless monitoring demonstrates
channel bank or bed instability. In this case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along
reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate stability.

Stream Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless
otherwise required)
All restored stream
channels
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 10 cross-sections
Channel Stability
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream
channels
Bank Pins Yearly
Only if instability is
documented during
monitoring
Additional Cross-sections Yearly
Only if instability is
documented during
monitoring
Stream Hydrology
Continuous monitoring
water level gauges and/or
trail camera
Continuous recording
through monitoring
period
Two gauges on UT1
(upstream and
downstream) and one
trail camera on UT1
(downstream)
Water Quality Water samples Yearly Two locations
Macroinvertebrates Qual 4 sampling Years 3, 5, and 7 Two locations

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 5
(2023) monitoring. Stream morphology and water quality data is available in Appendix D, and benthic
macroinvertebrate data is in Appendix F.

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampled data during MY 5 shows increases in richness and diversity when
compared to preconstruction surveys. When compared to reference site data, the onsite data is only
slightly below reference values for MY 5. Results and habitat forms are included in Appendix F.

Wetland Monitoring
Six groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within the drained pond area and the remaining
wetland restoration areas to take measurements after hydrological modifications were performed at the
Site (Figure 2, Appendix B). Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the entire year at intervals
necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria. In addition, an on-site rain gauge will
document rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions, and
a trail camera was installed to confirm overbank flooding events. Growing season soil temperatures will
also be documented using a continuously logging soil temperature probe, this data will be provided with
wetland hydrology data (Appendix E).

Wetland Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected
Wetland
Restoration
Groundwater
gauges
As-built, Years 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
6 gauges spread
throughout
restored
wetlands
Soil temperature at the
beginning of each monitoring
period, groundwater and rain
data for each monitoring period

Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Burst Documented
Monitoring Period Used for
Determining Success
10 Percent of
Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1) March 1, 2019 March 1-October 22
(236 days) 24 Days
2020 (Year 2) March 1, 2020 March 1-October 22
(236 days) 24 Days
2021 (Year 3) March 1, 2021 March 1- October 22
(236 days) 24 Days
2022 (Year 4) March 1, 2022 March 1- October 22
(236 days) 24 Days
2022 (Year 5) March 1, 2023* March 1- October 22
(236 days) 24 Days
*An on-site soil temperature data logger installed 12 inches below the ground surface read 54.08oF on March 1, and the soil
temperature remained well-above 41oF thereafter. Additionally, bud bursts were documented on February 28.

All six groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 5 (2023) monitoring period. Year 5 (2023)
groundwater gauge data and graphs are located in Appendix E.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Vegetation Monitoring
Planting occurred in December 2018-January 2019 within 8.11 acres of the Site and included 8600 stems.
After planting was completed, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods and to
determine initial species composition and density.

In early January 2020, a winter-time visual assessment of the Site was performed, and it was determined
that although Year 1 (2019) vegetation data, including random transects, showed a high density of trees,
a light supplemental planting would help ensure the long-term success in several areas. On January 31,
2020, three areas that visually exhibited low stem density and/or poor vigor were supplementally planted
(Figure 2, Appendix B). During the supplemental planting effort, 370 stems were planted across 1.20 acres
(approximately 300 stems per acre). As the planting was designated for visual purposes and was not an
effort to increase stem density data, no stems were planted within permanent vegetation plots.

Preparation included the application of 100 lbs of lime, 50 lbs of fertilizer, and 3 lbs of seed to stabilize
bare areas. The following table lists species included in the supplemental planting list.

2020 Supplemental Planting Species List
Species Number of Stems
Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata)@ 20
Chinkapin (Castanea pumila)@ 20
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)% 50
Hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii)@ 20
Crab Apple (Malus angustifolia)@ 50
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra)@ 100
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)* 50
Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii)@ 50
Total 370
* Included in mitigation plan planting list
% Not included in mitigation plan planting list but meets target community
@ Species selected based on lack of availability of mitigation plan planting list and target community species

In addition, three random vegetation transects (MY2 2020 Random Vegetation Transects) were
measured after planting was complete to determine that those areas met the required stem densities;
results indicated a range of stems per acre of 364 to 1012.

An assessment was made during early Fall 2018 to treat fescue within the Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest
planting zones to reduce competition with planted stems. Treatment was conducted in December 2018.
Treatments of invasive plant species continued during 2019 throughout the Site. Japanese Stiltgrass and
Tree-of-Heaven were high priorities during the 2019 invasive treatment season. Restoration Systems will
continue to treat and monitor the Site for invasive species throughout the monitoring period.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 8
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
05/17/2023
Privet, Russian Olive, Nodding Thistle,
Multiflora rose

09/13/23
Privet, Russian Olive, Multiflora rose, Tree-of-
heaven
06/14/2023, 06/21/2023, 09/27/2023, and 09/28/2023
Old fence within easement removal and boundary inspections.

12/02/2023
Fence relocation

12/05/2023
Supplemental planting

2023 Planned Vegetation Maintenance
Restoration Systems continues to monitor fescue throughout the Site. Based on permanent and random
vegetation monitoring plots and visual observations, planted stems are established within areas where
fescue was a concern.

On September 27, 2023, while performing the easement inspection, members discovered an
encroachment area measuring .04 acres on the site's south side shown on Figure 2 (Appendix B). An
existing cattle fence was not relocated to boundary corners during construction. No other encroachments
were documented during the inspection. On December 02, 2023, the fence was relocated outside the
easement. On December 05, 2023, a supplemental planting of twenty 3-gallon pots consisting of
mitigation plan approved species, including 5 Black gum (Nyssa Sylvatica), 5 Water Oak (Quercus nigra),
and 10 Willow Oak (Quercus phellos) were planted within the encroached area, see Photo Log (Appendix
H).

Vegetation Monitoring Summary
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected
Vegetation
establishment
and vigor
Permanent vegetation
plots 0.0247 acre (100
square meters) in size
As-built, Years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7
8 plots spread
across the Site
Species, height,
location, planted vs.
volunteer, and age
Random vegetation plots,
0.0247 acre (100 square
meters) in size
As-built, Years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7
2 plots randomly
selected each year Species and height

During quantitative vegetation sampling, 8 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). Measurement also included two random sample plots (50-meter by 2-meter). Measurements of
the 8 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 354 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes.
All plots met the stem density success criteria based on planted stems alone except for permanent plots
1 and 4; however, when including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), plot 1
met the stem density success criteria. Additionally, both temporary vegetation transects met the stem
density success criteria resulting in a sitewide average of 547 stems/acre, including natural recruits. Lastly,
stem height data from the 8 permanent vegetation plots indicates a Site average of 7.29 feet, which meets
the 7-foot height criteria required at Year 5. Year 5 (2023) vegetation data is included in Tables 8-10
(Appendix C).

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

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

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

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

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8, 2016]. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

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). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=
864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupId=60329

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

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC 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.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) page 10
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center. AgACIS Climate Data. Burlington Regional Airport WETS Station
(online). Available: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits - Major Hill Restoration Site
Reach ID
Stream
Stationing/
Wetland Type
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Constructed
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration
Level
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits Comment
UT 1 00+00 to
16+99 1829 1699 1699 Restoration 1699 1:1 1699
UT 1 16+99 to
27+96 1097 1060 1097 EII 1097 2.5:1 439
UT 2 00+00 to
01+68 168 168 168 EII 168 2.5:1 67
UT 2 01+68 to
02+07 39 43 39 Restoration 39 1:1 39
UT 3 00+00 to
22+98 2298 2197 2298* EII 2298-80-144-
40=2034 2.5:1 814
80 lf and 40 lf of UT3 are not
credit generating due to crossings
and drainage easement. 144 lf
are not credit generating due to
lack of control of south bank and
drainage easement.
Wetlands Riparian
Riverine -- 0.54 0.54 Restoration 0.54 1:1 0.54 Wetland Restoration
Wetlands Riparian
Riverine 0.52 0.44 0.44 Enhancement 0.44 2:1 0.22 Wetland Enhancement

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits - Major Hill Restoration Site (Continued)
Length & Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream (linear footage) Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration 1738 0.54
Enhancement (Level II) 3299* --
Enhancement -- 0.44**
* An additional 264 linear feet of stream enhancement (level II) is proposed outside of the easement (at road crossings), or the sponsor controls only one bank
of the stream, and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**Approximately 0.08 acre of existing, degraded wetland will not be enhanced as the result of the design channel crossing the wetland area.

Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 3057.600
Riparian Riverine Wetland 0.760

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History - Major Hill Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal Issue Date (RFP No. 16-006990) September 16, 2016 September 16, 2016
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 7193) -- May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan -- February 2018
404 Permit Date -- June 28, 2018
Construction Plans -- July 2018
Site Construction -- July 25-September 6, 2018
Planting -- December 2018-January 2019
As-built Stream Data Collection September 19, 2018 --
As-built Vegetation Data Collection January 8, 2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring Report -- March 2019
MY1 (2019) Vegetation Data Collection September 9, 2019 --
MY1 (2019) Stream Data Collection September 10, 2019 --
MY1 (2019) Monitoring Report October 2019 November 2019
Supplemental Planting -- January 31, 2020
MY 2 (2020) Vegetation Data Collection October 2020 --
MY 2 (2020) Stream Data Collection July/October 2020 --
MY 2 (2020) Monitoring Report October 2020 November 2020
MY 3 (2021) Vegetation Data Collection October 2021 --
MY 3 (2021) Stream Data Collection March 2021 --
MY 3 (2021) Monitoring Report October 2021 January 2022
MY 4 (2022) Vegetation Data Collection NA --
MY 4 (2022) Stream Data Collection NA --
MY 4 (2022) Monitoring Report October 2022 November 2022
MY 5 (2023) Vegetation Data Collection August 25, 2023 --
MY 5 (2023) Stream Data Collection May 16, 2023 --
MY 5 (2023) Monitoring Report October 2023 February 2024

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 3. Project Contacts Table - Major Hill Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Planting Contractor
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Mary-Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Erosion Control Plans
Sungate Design Group, PA
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
As-built Surveyor
K2 Design Group
5688 US Highway 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 4. Project Attribute Table - Major Hill Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name Major Hill Restoration Site
Project County Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres) 16.7
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude) 35.873206, -79.360906
Planted Area (acres) 8.11
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit) 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres) 17 to 445
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover & Mixed Upland Hardwoods
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT 1 UT 2 UT 3
Length of reach (linear feet) 2796 207 2298
Valley Classification & Confinement Alluvial, moderately confined to confined
Drainage Area (acres) 71.7 17.2 444.7
NCDWR Stream ID Score 20.25 – 33.5 -- --
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent/Perennial Intermittent Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) Cg5 C4/5 C3
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996) C/E 4 C4/5 C3
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986) III/IV III I
Underlying Mapped Soils Efland silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Orange silt
loam, Worsham sandy loam, Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Well-drained, well-drained, well-drained, poorly drained, well-drained,
poorly drained, respectively
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric, hydric,
respectively
Slope 0.0241 0.0256 0.0130
FEMA Classification NA
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site) 45% forest, 35% agricultural land, 20% low density
residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock Reference
Channel)
65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low density
residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix A
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 4. Project Attribute Table - Major Hill Restoration Site (Continued)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Wetland acreage 0.54 acre drained or impounded & 0.44 acre degraded
Wetland Type Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series Worsham and Local Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
% Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
Restoration Method Hydrologic, vegetative
Enhancement Method Vegetative

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix B
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5B. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Site Photo Log

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed, U. S. Geological Survey - National Geospatial Program. Data Refreshed October,
2017.
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
NOV 2017
1:20,000
17-009
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
MAJOR HILLSTREAM ANDWETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed, U. S. Geological Survey -
National Geospatial Program. Data
Refreshed October, 2017.
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, Castle Rock Farm Road becomes Old Switchboard Road,- Continue for 2.1 miles, turn right onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn left onto Major Hill Road,- Site can be accessed from Burnett Church Road which is on the left after 1 mile.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.873206, -79.360906 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Saxapahaw, Silk Hope, Snow Camp, and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quads)
Snow Camp
¬«87
Lindley
Mill
Road
B
e
t
h
e
l
S
o
u
t
h
F
ork
R
o
a
d
E G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
S
n
o
w
C
a
m
p
R
o
a
d
B
eth
el
S
o
uthForkRoad
Ma jo r H ill R o a d
O
l
d
S
w
it
c
h
b
oar
d
R
o
a
d
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
XW
^_
!(
!(
#0
#0
XS-7P
XS-1
R
XS-2R
XS-3P
XS-8R
XS-
6
P
XS-4
R
XS-9P
XS-5R
XS-10
R
1
2
2
1
2
4
6
5
7
8
1
3
12
3
5
6
4/4a
NCCGIA, NC 911 Board
­
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
FIGUREDwn. By:
Date:
Project:
KRJ
Oct 2023
17-009
2
Legend
Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
^_Trail Camera
#0 Benthic/Water Quality Stations
Groundwater Gauge Meeting Success Criteria During Year 5 (2023)
!(Stream Gauges
Vegetation Transects Meeting MY7 Stem Density Requirement During Year 5 (2023)
XW Rain Gauge/Soil Probe
!(Marsh Treatment Areas
^_Plot Origins
CVS Plots Meeting MY7 Stem Density Requirement During Year 5 (2023)
CVS Plots Not Meeting MY7 Stem Density Requirement During Year 5 (2023)
2020 Supplemental Planting Area
2023 Encroachment Area
Structures
Cross-sections
Project Fencing
Previously Existing Fencing that Remains Post-Construction
Fencing Removed During Construction
U
T
-
1
U
T
-
2
U
T
-
1
U T -3
U
T-3
0 300 600150Feet
Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Major Hill UT-1
Assessed Length 1699
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 71 71 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)70 70 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)70 70 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)70 70 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)70 70 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.26 26 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 26 26 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.26 26 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 26 26 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.26 26 100%
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Major Hill UT-2
Assessed Length 39
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)2 2 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)2 2 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2 2 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)2 2 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.0 0 NA
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 0 0 NA
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.0 0 NA
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 0 0 NA
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.0 0 NA
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Major Hill
Planted Acreage1 8.1
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor None 0.25 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage2 16.7
4. Invasive Areas of Concern4 None 1000 SF none 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3 None none pink crosshatch 1 0.04 0.2%
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
% of
Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Number of
Polygons
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Combined
Acreage
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken August 25, 2023
Plot 1 Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 5 Plot 6
Plot 4
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (continued)
Taken August 25, 2023
Plot 7 Plot 8
Transect 1 Transect 2
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 1: Buffer Vegetation along UT-1
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 2: Buffer Vegetation along UT-1
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 3: Fencing and Buffer Vegetation along UT-1
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 4: Buffer Vegetation along UT-1
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 5: Marsh treatment area west of groundwater
gauge 2
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 6: UT-1
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 7: UT-3 Downstream Piped Crossing – Upstream End
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 8: UT-3 Downstream Piped Crossing – Downstream
End
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 9: Bud Burst of Carpinus caroliniana
Photo Taken 3/2/2023
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 10: Bud Burst of Lindera benzoin
Photo Taken 3/2/2023
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 11: UT-1 Flow 6/19/23
Bankfull event
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 12: UT-1 Flow 6/21/23
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 13: UT-2 leading out of easement
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 14:Pool on UT-1
Major Hill
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 15: UT-3
MY-05 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015)Appendices
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 16: UT-3
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix C
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Height Data

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix C
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation – Major Hill Restoration Site
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak/Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
Streamside
Assemblage Total
Acres 1.1 5.5 0.01 1.5 8.11
Alnus serrulata 5 20 25
Asimina triloba 200 200
Betula nigra 100 200 300
Carpinus caroliniana 600 600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis 5 20 25
Cercis canadensis 500 500
Cornus amomum 95 5 800 900
Diospyros virginiana 450 450
Fraxinus americana 100 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 150 750 900
Liriodendron tulipifera 75 75
Nyssa sylvatia 600 600
Platanus occidentalis 120 780 900
Quercus nigra 110 790 500 1,400
Quercus phellos 100 700 400 1,200
Salix nigra* 400* 400
Sambucus canadensis 11 14 25
TOTALS 750 3,740 26 4,084 8,600
Stems/Acre 682 680 2600 2722 1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 17.009.  Project Name: Major Hill
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 3
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 111 111222222333777
Betula nigra river birch Tree 111 111111333333444666999
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 111333444 222 111111111111111101010141414555
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 2 2 2 222444444555888141414
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 222111
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 112111111111111 444991088109910999555
Fraxinus ash Tree 111111111111111111
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 333 111444555555555555
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 16 111111 111 5519558558444333
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 111111111111555
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 222222444101010
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 111222 444445555778777
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 111111222333232323
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 111444333333111121212121212121212202020101010
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 222333 111555334141415131314121212161616181818
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1
Unknown Shrub or Tree 666
5519778101010444777121212111111141415707086727280757579103103109129129129
444444444444444666555888131313141415141414151517161616
202.3 202.3 768.9 283.3 283.3 323.7 404.7 404.7 404.7 161.9 161.9 161.9 283.3 283.3 283.3 485.6 485.6 485.6 445.2 445.2 445.2 566.6 566.6 607 354.1 354.1 435 364.2 364.2 404.7 379.4 379.4 399.6 521 521 551.4 652.6 652.6 652.6
Color for Density
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P‐all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
17.009‐01‐0008
Annual Means
MY5 (2023)MY3 (2021) MY2 (2020) MY1 (2019) MY0 (2019)
Current Plot Data (MY5 2023)
17.009‐01‐0003 17.009‐01‐0004 17.009‐01‐0005 17.009‐01‐000617.009‐01‐0001 17.009‐01‐0002 17.009‐01‐0007
1
0.02
8
0.20
8
0.20
8
0.20
8
0.20
8
0.20

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix C
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data – Major Hill Restoration Site
Species
50m x 2m Temporary Plot
(Bearing)
T-1 (10⁰) T-2 (345⁰)
Carpinus caroliniana 5
Diospyros virginiana 8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 6
Platanus occidentalis 2 1
Quercus nigra 1
Quercus pagoda 3 1
Total Stems 16 11
Total Stems/Acre 648 445

Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals – Major Hill Restoration Site
Plot # Success Criteria Met? MY 5 (2023)
Planted Stems/Ac
MY 5 (2023)
All Stems/Ac
1 No 202 769
2 Yes 283 324
3 Yes 405 405
4 No 162 162
5 Yes 283 283
6 Yes 486 486
7 Yes 445 445
8 Yes 567 607
T-1 Yes -- 648
T-2 Yes -- 445
Average Planted
Stems/Acre Yes 354 457

Major Hill MY5 (2023) Stem Height Data
Plot SCIENTIFIC NAME X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Height (ft)Plot Ave Height 
(ft)
Plot Ave Height (ft) ‐ 
6 tallest stems* (>210 
stems/ac)
1 Liriodendron tulipifera 7.3 1.3 240 0.2 3 7.87
1 Carpinus caroliniana 9.2 4.1 251 0.25 2 8.23
1 Quercus 6.6 4.7 151 0.25 4 4.95
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1.6 3.8 118 0.25 3 3.87
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 6.7 9.7 110 0.1 4 3.61
2 Quercus phellos 2.9 0.5 360 3 4 11.81
2 Carpinus caroliniana 4.8 3.4 160 0.25 4 5.25
2 Carpinus caroliniana 7.1 6.5 69 3 2.26
2 Platanus occidentalis 10.0 7.1 230 1.5 4 7.55
2 Quercus phellos 1.6 5.9 280 2 4 9.19
2Diospyros virginiana 7.8 2.6 165 0.5 4 5.41
2 Carpinus caroliniana 7.5 4.6 114 4 3.74
3 Carpinus caroliniana 2.4 1.4 340 2 4 11.15
3 Quercus phellos 5.3 1.4 260 1.5 4 8.53
3 Carpinus caroliniana 8.1 1.3 71 4 2.33
3 Carpinus caroliniana 6.8 2.7 110 4 3.61
3 Quercus phellos 10.0 3.0 120 0.5 4 3.94
3 Carpinus caroliniana 6.3 5.3 50 3 1.64
3Cercis canadensis 4.2 10.0 10 4 0.33
3Cercis canadensis 1.3 10.0 35 4 1.15
3Diospyros virginiana 1.3 8.1 770 1.5 4 25.26
3 Quercus phellos 1.7 5.3 200 0.5 4 6.56
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7.6 0.9 86 4 2.82
4Betula nigra 7.6 3.3 61 4 2.00
4 Quercus nigra 6.2 8.0 60 4 1.97
4Diospyros virginiana 2.4 7.2 131 0.1 4 4.30
5 Quercus nigra 0.3 1.0 240 2.5 4 7.87
5 Platanus occidentalis 2.8 0.1 370 5 4 12.14
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2.1 3.7 265 2 4 8.69
5Diospyros virginiana 5.1 4.3 50 4 1.64
5 Quercus nigra 5.5 1.2 100 4 3.28
5 Quercus nigra 7.5 8.0 110 4 3.61
5 Quercus nigra 0.2 6.5 225 0.25 4 7.38
6 Quercus nigra 2.2 0.3 190 0.25 4 6.23
6 Carpinus caroliniana 3.0 2.7 95 3 3.12
6Diospyros virginiana 0.9 3.4 205 1 4 6.73
6 Quercus phellos 6.5 0.8 205 1.5 4 6.73
6 Carpinus caroliniana 8.4 2.4 200 1 4 6.56
6 Quercus nigra 9.8 3.9 210 1.5 4 6.89
6 Platanus occidentalis 7.6 4.8 310 4 4 10.17
6 Fraxinus americana 9.0 7.0 380 2.5 4 12.47
6 Fraxinus americana 6.8 7.2 285 2 4 9.35
6 Fraxinus americana 4.6 8.0 290 2.5 4 9.51
6 Quercus nigra 0.5 8.1 230 0.5 4 7.55
6 Platanus occidentalis 2.2 6.7 320 2 4 10.50
7 Quercus phellos 4.8 0.9 340 2.5 4 11.15
7 Quercus phellos 5.3 3.0 390 5 4 12.80
7Betula nigra 5.7 4.9 290 1.75 4 9.51
7 Quercus nigra 7.6 3.5 193 0.25 4 6.33
7 Quercus phellos 8.8 1.2 290 2.75 4 9.51
7Asimina triloba 8.5 6.1 340 4.5 4 11.15
7 Quercus phellos 6.3 7.1 360 3.75 4 11.81
7 Quercus nigra 8.8 8.5 380 4.5 4 12.47
7 Quercus nigra 1.2 6.9 250 2 4 8.20
7 Quercus phellos 1.7 5.1 240 1.75 4 7.87
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3.6 8.2 340 2.75 4 11.15
8Diospyros virginiana 4.3 1.5 165 0.25 4 5.41
8 Fraxinus 4.8 3.2 150 0.25 4 4.92
8Diospyros virginiana 1.3 4.6 160 0.25 4 5.25
8Cercis canadensis 7.3 0.4 40 4 1.31
8 Fraxinus americana 9.9 2.9 130 0.1 4 4.27
8Betula nigra 7.3 2.8 110 4 3.61
8 Quercus nigra 5.1 5.0 195 0.25 4 6.40
8 Carpinus caroliniana 7.5 5.7 95 4 3.12
8Cercis canadensis 9.8 6.0 50 4 1.64
8 Quercus phellos 7.4 6.2 280 1.5 4 9.19
8Diospyros virginiana 7.2 7.6 225 1 4 7.38
8 Quercus phellos 8.4 8.7 190 0.5 4 6.23
8 Fraxinus americana 5.0 8.5 92 4 3.02
8Diospyros virginiana 3.0 7.1 172 0.5 4 5.64
8 Quercus phellos 1.7 9.2 151 0.25 4 4.95
6.34 7.63
* Where applicable. For plots that contain <6 stems, this number represents the average of all stems in the plot.
Site Average
7.16
2.77
9.84
7.16
6.71
11.76
9.92
2.77
6.37
7.98
10.18
4.82
5.71
6.46
6.45
5.71

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix D
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-11B. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-12D. Monitoring Data (Dimensional Morphology Summary & Stream Reach Data Summary)
Table 13. Water Quality Data
Cross-Section Plots

Parameter Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)3.8 5.6 6.4 8.0 9.6 12.1 5.6 6.4 6.0 6.0 10.9 11.8 3
Floodprone Width (ft)11.0 27.0 48.0 15 75 140 20 60 40 23 40 40 3
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 3
BF Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.7 2.0 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.1 3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.6 2.6 2.6 8.0 11.4 14.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.5 7.1 3
Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 13.4 27.0 8.0 9.6 15.1 12.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 19.6 33.9 3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 5.8 12.6 1.9 7.1 13.0 3.6 9.3 6.6 3.4 3.7 3.8 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.3 3
Riffle length (ft)5 16 47 3
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0100 0.0207 0.0576 0.0268 0.0401 0.0357 0.0000 0.0252 0.0539 3
Pool length (ft)4.0 13.0 28.0 3
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 2.3 2.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 2.0 2.5 3
Pool spacing (ft)22.0 40.8 81.0 18.0 48.0 24.0 18.0 24.0 48.0 3
Channel Beltwidth (ft)17 26.3 38 18 36 24 18 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft)9 23.6 113 12 60 18 12 18 60
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.8 2.4 10.3 2 10 3 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)10 65.7 116 36 72 51 36 51 72
Meander Width ratio 1.5 2.7 4.7 3 6 4 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Profile
Pattern
Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT 1 Upstream)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (UT 1
Upstream)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (UT 1
Upstream)Monitoring Baseline (UT 1 Upstream)
Additional Reach Parameters
Cg 5 Eb 5 E/C 4 E/C-type
9.5 28.8 - 60.6 9.5 9.5
1.07 1.2 - 1.46 1.08 1.08
0.0225 0.0053 - 0.0258 0.0223 0.0195
Parameter Gauge
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Med Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)4.9 6.7 8.7 8.0 9.6 12.1 6.8 7.8 7.3 8.6 10.3 11.8 3
Floodprone Width (ft)9.0 14.0 21.0 15 75 140 25 75 50 22 40 40 3
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 3
BF Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.7 2.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.2 3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.8 3.8 3.8 8.0 11.4 14.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 5.8 7.5 3
Width/Depth Ratio 6.1 13.1 21.8 8.0 9.6 15.1 12.0 16.0 14.0 18.0 18.0 21.0 3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 4.3 1.9 7.1 13.0 3.7 9.6 6.9 2.6 3.4 3.9 3
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 2.2 2.8 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 3
Riffle length (ft)5 16 47 1
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0100 0.0207 0.0576 0.0000 0.0297 0.0264 0.0000 0.0252 0.0539 1
Pool length (ft)4.0 13.0 28.0 1
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 2.3 2.7 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1
Pool spacing (ft)22.0 40.8 81.0 21.9 58.4 29.2 18.0 24.0 48.0 1
Channel Beltwidth (ft)17 26.3 38 21.9 43.8 29.2 22 29 44
Radius of Curvature (ft)9 23.6 113 14.6 72.9 21.9 14 22 73
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)0.8 2.4 10.3 2 10 3 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)10 65.7 116 43.8 87.5 62 44 62 88
Meander Width ratio 1.5 2.7 4.7 3 6 4 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
1.26 1.2 - 1.46 1.12 1.12
0.0147 0.0053 - 0.0258 0.0165 0.0195
14.2 28.8 - 60.6 14.2 14.2
Profile
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
Cg 5 Eb 5 E/C 4 E/C-type
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (UT 1 Downstream)
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition (UT 1
Downstream)Reference Reach(es) Data Design (UT 1
Downstream)Monitoring Baseline (UT 1 Downstream)
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+
BF Width (ft)11.8 11.2 12.6 12.7 14.1 8.6 7.4 7.8 7.7 9.3 13.0 12.5 13.1 12.6 12.5 10.3 10.4 12.8 10.8 12.7
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 NA NA NA NA NA 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Low Bank Height 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
Width/Depth Ratio 18.6 16.7 21.2 21.2 26.5 21.1 15.6 17.4 17.1 24.6 NA NA NA NA NA 18.3 18.6 28.2 21.6 28.0
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.4 NA NA NA NA NA 3.9 3.8 3.1 3.7 3.1
Bank Height Ratio*1.0 1.08 1.0 1.08 1.0 1.0 1.14 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.06 1.06 <1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
d50 (mm)25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 --
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)8.6 10.3 11.8 3 7.4 10.4 11.2 3 7.8 12.6 12.8 3 7.7 10.8 12.7 9.3 12.7 14.1
Floodprone Width (ft)22 40 40 3 22 40 40 3 22 40 40 3 22 40 40 22 40 40
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.6 0.6 3 0.5 0.6 0.7 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.9 1.2 3 0.7 1.1 1.2 3 0.7 1.1 1.2 3 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.5 5.8 7.5 3 3.5 5.8 7.5 3 3.5 5.8 7.5 3 3.5 5.8 7.5 3.5 5.8 7.5
Width/Depth Ratio 18.0 18.0 21.0 3 15.6 16.7 18.6 3 17.4 21.2 28.2 3 19.3 20.1 21.5 24.6 26.5 28.0
Entrenchment Ratio 2.6 3.4 3.9 3 3.0 3.6 3.8 3 2.8 3.1 3.2 3 2.9 3.1 3.7 2.4 2.8 3.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.1 1.1 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Riffle length (ft)5 16 47 1
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0252 0.0539 1
Pool length (ft)4.0 13.0 28.0 1
Pool Max depth (ft)1.7 1.7 1.7 1
Pool spacing (ft)18.0 24.0 48.0 1
Channel Beltwidth (ft)22 29 44
Radius of Curvature (ft)14 22 73
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 62 88
Meander Width ratio 3 4 6
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Cross Section 4 (UT 1 Downstream)
Riffle Riffle
Cross Section 3 (UT 1 Downstream)
Pool
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Cross Section 1 (UT 1 Downstream)Cross Section 2 (UT 1 Downstream)
Riffle
MY-2 (UT 1 Downstream)MY-3 (UT 1 Downstream)MY-5 (UT 1 Downstream)
Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period are not required, unless evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed and the data is requested by the IRT.
MY-7 (UT 1 Downstream)
E/C type
1.12
Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Additional Reach Parameters
Baseline (UT 1 Downstream)MY-1 (UT 1 Downstream)
Pattern
Profile
0.0195
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+
BF Width (ft)11.8 11.8 12.3 12.7 12.7 8.9 9.9 10.0 10.5 9.5 7.4 9.5 6.9 7.2 10.1 6.0 5.7 6.5 6.5 6.5
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0
Low Bank Height 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.2 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Width/Depth Ratio 19.6 19.6 21.3 21.2 23.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12.0 10.8 14.1 13.0 14.3
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5
Bank Height Ratio*1.0 1.0 1.0 <1 1.08 1.0 1.0 1.10 1.09 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.10 1.08 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.11 <1 <1
d50 (mm)25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 --
Dimension MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY7+
BF Width (ft)7.0 9.4 8.0 11.8 11.5 10.9 11.2 13.3 9.4 12.4
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)NA NA NA NA NA 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Low Bank Height 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 33.9 35.8 50.5 23.5 44.0
Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 3.7 3.6 3.0 4.3 3.2
Bank Height Ratio*1.0 1.08 1.0 1.08 1.06 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1 1.07
d50 (mm)25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 -- 25.4 33.0 4.9 3.7 --
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
BF Width (ft)6.0 10.9 11.8 3 5.7 11.2 11.8 3 6.5 12.3 13.3 3 6.5 9.4 12.7 3 6.5 12.4 12.7
Floodprone Width (ft)23 40 40 3 23 40 40 3 23 40 40 3 23 40 40 3 23 40 40
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.5 0.6 3 0.3 0.5 0.6 3 0.3 0.5 0.6 3 0.4 0.5 0.6 3 0.3 0.5 0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 1.1 3 0.6 0.9 1.2 3 0.6 0.9 1.1 3 0.6 0.9 1.1 3 0.6 1.0 1.2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.0 3.5 7.1 3 3.0 3.5 7.1 3 3.0 3.5 7.1 3 3.0 3.5 7.1 3 3.0 3.5 7.1
Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 19.6 33.9 3 10.8 19.6 35.8 3 14.1 21.3 50.5 3 14.1 22.7 25.2 3 14.3 23.0 44.0
Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.7 3.8 3 3.4 3.6 4.0 3 3.0 3.3 3.5 3 3.1 3.5 4.3 3 3.1 3.2 3.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.3 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 1.0 1.0 1.1 3 0.8 1.1 1.3 3 0.8 0.8 0.9
Riffle length (ft)5 16 47 3
Riffle slope (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0252 0.0539 3
Pool length (ft)4.0 13.0 28.0 3
Pool Max depth (ft)1.3 2.0 2.5 3
Pool spacing (ft)18.0 24.0 48.0 3
Channel Beltwidth (ft)18 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft)12 18 60
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)36 51 72
Meander Width ratio 3 4 6
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S%
SC%/SA%/G%/C%/B%BE%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Pool Riffle
0.0195
1.08
Additional Reach Parameters
E/C type
MY-7 (UT 1 Upstream)
Pattern
Profile
Profile surveys during the stream monitoring period are not required, unless evidence of bed and/or bank instability is observed and the data is requested by the IRT.
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Baseline (UT 1 Upstream)MY-1 (UT 1 Upstream)MY-2 (UT 1 Upstream)MY-3 (UT 1 Upstream)MY-5 (UT 1 Upstream)
Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Parameter
Cross Section 9 (UT 1 Upstream)Cross Section 10 (UT 1 Upstream)
Pool Riffle
Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Major Hill Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project Number 100015
Parameter
Cross Section 5 (UT 1 Upstream)Cross Section 6 (UT 1 Upstream)Cross Section 7 (UT 1 Upstream)Cross Section 8 (UT 1 Upstream)
Riffle Pool

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix D
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Table 13. Major Hill Water Quality Data – Major Hill Restoration Site

Preconstruction Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020) Year 3 (2021) Year 4 (2022) Year 5 (2023)
Upstream Downstream Upstream Down-
stream Upstream Down-
stream Upstream Down-
stream Upstream Down-
stream Upstream Down-
stream
Parameter July 28,
2017
August
14, 2017
July 28,
2017
August
14, 2017
November
20, 2019
November
20, 2019
October
28, 2020
October
28, 2020
May 19,
2021
May 19
2021
November
8, 2022
November
8, 2022
June 29,
2023
June 29,
2023
TDS (ppm) 110.1 147 62.6 86.8 394 179 164.0 122.3 94.7 113.6 115.1 133.4 61.2 54.4
TDS (mg/l) 109.1 149 64.6 83.5 397 179 168.3 131.3 98.2 120.1 95.2 117.0 85.6 81.2
Conductivity
(µS/cm) 159.2 215 92.1 128.3 557 252 242.1 186.9 135.4 162.3 151.3 107.6 120.4 107.1
Temperature
(°C) 25.4 22.6 24.6 22.1 8 6.9 19.6 19.7 22.9 15.5 8.3 7.2 25.2 19.9
DO (mg/l) - 1.93 - 3.06 - - 5.36 7.64 5.68 7.16 6.36 7.31 4.23 6.55
DO (ppm) - 1.06 - 2.53 - - 5.42 7.72 5.71 7.25 6.16 7.13 4.10 6.26
pH 6.61 6.37 6.65 6.22 7 6.58 6.96 6.94 7.22 7.09 6.96 7.12 6.90 6.75
Station Elevation
0.4 516.94 516.6
5.4 516.66 516.7
9.8 516.38 7.5
11.0 515.82 14.1
11.4 515.46 517.9
12.4 515.37 40.0
13.0 515.45 1.3
13.5 515.45 1.3
14.1 515.72 0.5
15.7 515.79 26.5
17.1 516.31 2.8
21.0 516.79 1.0
26.4 517.25 C/EStream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature Riffle
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
515
516
517
518
519
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
-0.3 518.15 517.3
4.8 517.28 517.3
9.2 517.26 3.5
10.6 516.75 9.3
11.1 516.67 518.0
12.4 516.62 22.0
13.1 516.51 0.8
14.2 516.60 0.7
14.9 516.62 0.4
15.8 517.30 24.6
19.3 517.56 2.4
23.7 517.90 1.0
C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
516
517
518
519
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
0.2 520.9 520.1
3.7 520.4 520.1
6.2 520.1 8.4
7.2 519.7 12.5
8.2 518.5 NA
9.0 518.5 NA
9.6 518.4 1.7
10.2 518.6 1.6
11.0 518.8 0.7
12.0 519.6 NA
14.7 519.7 NA
19.0 520.1 1.0
22.4 520.2 C/E
Major Hill
Cape Fear, 0303002
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Site
Watershed:
XS ID
Feature
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Date:
Field Crew:
Pool
Bankfull Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Low Bank Height:
LTOB Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
5/16/2023
Perkinson
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
518
519
520
521
522
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
0.4 521.09 520.6
4.7 520.84 520.5
7.8 520.15 5.8
8.9 519.96 12.7
10.0 519.73 521.7
10.7 519.71 40.0
11.6 519.59 1.1
11.9 519.48 1.1
12.4 519.54 0.5
13.4 520.10 28.0
16.8 520.54 3.1
21.0 520.63 1.0
22.6 520.78 C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
519
520
521
522
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
0.4 525.18 524.5
4.6 524.61 524.6
6.4 524.18 7.1
7.8 523.85 12.7
8.4 523.40 525.7
8.8 523.34 40.0
9.4 523.35 1.2
9.9 523.40 1.3
10.4 523.44 0.6
11.1 523.86 23.0
13.5 523.92 3.1
16.2 524.34 1.08
19.7 524.77 C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
523
524
525
526
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
0.6 525.9 524.9
4.2 525.3 524.8
5.9 525.1 9.1
7.1 524.6 9.5
8.1 522.9 NA
9.3 522.9 NA
9.8 523.2 2.0
10.7 523.3 1.9
11.6 523.5 1.0
12.0 524.4 NA
15.8 524.8 NA
21.8 524.9 1.0
C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
522
523
524
525
526
527
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
-0.5 529.9 529.5
4.5 529.6 529.5
7.0 529.5 11.7
7.9 528.9 10.1
9.1 527.3 NA
9.8 527.3 NA
10.8 527.3 2.2
12.3 527.6 2.2
13.5 527.9 1.2
14.3 529.2 NA
17.3 529.6 NA
20.8 530.1 1.0
C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
526
527
528
529
530
531
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
0.3 530.21 529.6
4.3 529.98 529.6
8.3 529.56 3.0
9.9 529.07 6.5
10.4 528.69 530.6
10.9 528.69 23.0
11.5 528.67 1.0
12.4 529.18 0.9
15.1 529.85 0.5
21.1 530.37 14.3
22.7 530.32 3.5
0.93
C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
528
529
530
531
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
-0.1 539.2 539.1
5.1 539.1 539.2
8.3 538.5 4.9
9.2 538.2 11.5
10.2 537.9 NA
10.7 537.9 NA
11.3 538.2 1.2
12.2 538.9 1.3
15.0 539.2 0.4
18.6 539.1 NA
20.2 539.2 NA
1.06
C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 9, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
537
538
539
540
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 9, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB
Station Elevation
-0.5 541.19 541.0
3.6 541.11 541.0
6.2 541.05 3.5
8.2 540.40 12.4
9.3 540.51 541.6
10.0 540.53 40.0
10.7 540.42 0.6
11.5 540.35 0.7
13.1 540.81 0.3
16.7 540.79 44.0
19.4 541.00 3.2
1.07
C/E
Site Major Hill
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 10, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/16/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Stream Type
Low Bank Height:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
540
541
542
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Major Hill, UT 1, XS - 10, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 9/19/18
MY-01 9/10/19
MY-02 9/11/20
MY-03 3/15/21
MY-05 5/5/23
MY 05 LTOB
MY 00 TOB

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data

Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence
Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure D1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Groundwater Gauge Graphs

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 14A. UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence – Major Hill Restoration Site
UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020) Year 3 (2021) Year 4 (2022) Year 5 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 99 158 136 149 233
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes 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 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 Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of
flow No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other:

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

UT1 Upstream Channel Evidence (January 12, 2023)

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
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
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Major Hill Stream Flow Gauge UT1 Upstream
Year  5 (2023 Data)
233 Days

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 14B. UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence – Major Hill Restoration Site
UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020) Year 3 (2021) Year 4 (2022) Year 5 (2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 52 236 285 216 249
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes 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 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 Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of
flow No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Other: Bankfull event
documented.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

UT1 Downstream Channel Evidence (January 12, 2023)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
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
R
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Major Hill Stream  Flow Gauge  UT1 Downstream
Year  5 (2023 Data)
249 Days

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence Method Photo
(if available)
March 19, 2019 January 13, 2019 A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 1.10 inches of
rain was documented on January 13, 2019 at an on-site rain gauge. 1
March 19, 2019 February 23, 2019
A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 2.74 inches of
rain was documented between February 22-23, 2019 at an on-site
rain gauge.
2
June 27, 2019 April 13, 2019
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after 4.11
inches of rain was documented between April 12-13, 2019 at an
on-site rain gauge.
--
September 9, 2019 July 24, 2019 A bankfull event likely occurred after 3.02 inches of rain was
documented between July 23-24, 2019 at an on-site rain gauge. --
September 9, 2019 August 1, 2019 A bankfull event likely occurred after 1.96 inches of rain was
documented on August 1, 2019 at an on-site rain gauge. --
April 13, 2020 April 13, 2020
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
approximately 2.31 inches of rain was recorded at an on-site rain
gauge
3
January 31, 2021 January 31, 2021
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
approximately 1.19 inches of rain was recorded at an on-site rain
gauge
4
March 11, 2021 February 15, 2021
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed along the top of
bank and floodplain of UT-1 indicating a bankfull event occurred
after 2.93 inches of rain was documented between February 11
and 15, 2021.
5
March 16, 2022 March 16, 2022 A trail camera captured the stream at bankfull after 1.47 inches of
rain was documented on March 16, 2022 at an on-site rain gauge. 6
August 2, 2022 July 27, 2022
Wrack piles were observed along the top of bank and floodplain of
UT-1 indicating a bankfull event occurred after 1.73 inches of rain
was documented on July 27, 2022.
7
February 12, 2023 February 12, 2023
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
approximately 1.63 inches of rain was recorded at an on-site rain
gauge.
8
April 7, 2023 April 7, 2023
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
approximately 1.19 inches of rain was recorded at an on-site rain
gauge.
9
June 19, 2023 June 19, 2023
A bankfull event was documented via trail camera after
approximately 2.95 inches of rain was recorded at an on-site rain
gauge.
10

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo 1
Photo 2

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo 3
Photo 4

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Photo 5

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo 6
Photo 7

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo 8
Photo 9

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Photo 10

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix E
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data – Major Hill Restoration Site
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020) Year 3 (2021) Year 4 (2022) Year 5 (2023) Year 6
(2024)
Year 7
(2025)
1 No/14 days*
6.0 percent
Yes/136 days
57.9 percent
Yes/74 days
31.4 percent
Yes/93 days
39.4 percent
Yes/95 days
40.3 percent
2 No/19 days*
8.1 percent
No/19 days
8.0 percent
No/21 days
8.9 percent
Yes/44 days
18.6 percent
Yes/50 days
21.3 percent
3 Yes/25 days
10.6 percent
Yes/235 days
100 percent
Yes/226 days
95.8 percent
Yes/204 days
86.4 percent
Yes/190 days
80.9 percent
4 Yes/34 days
14.5 percent
Yes/72 days
30.5 percent
Yes/60 days
25.4 percent
Yes/155 days
65.7 percent
Yes/85 days
36.2 percent
5 Yes/119 days
50.6 percent
Yes/135 days
57.4 percent
Yes/53 days
22.5 percent
Yes/77 days
32.6 percent
Yes/51 days
21.7 percent
6 Yes/77 days
32.8 percent
Yes/44 days
18.7 percent
Yes/80 days
33.9 percent
Yes/81 days
34.3 percent
Yes/100 days
42.6 percent
* These gauges did not meet success criteria due to a data shuttle failure that resulted in the loss of data. Based on
rainfall and hydrology data that was not lost, all gauges would have likely met success criteria had the loss of data not
occurred.

32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
77
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
So
i
l
 Te
m
p
 °F
Date
Major Hill Soil Temperature
Year  5  (2023 Data)
March 1:
54.08°F
March 21:
46.59°F
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

A
m
o
u
n
t

i
n

I
n
c
h
e
s
Figure D1: Major Hill
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30-70th percentile data from WETS Station: Burlington Alamance Regional Airport, NC
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
)
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 1
Year  5 (2023 Data)
October 22
Growing Season 
End
95 Days ‐40.3%
March 1
Growing Season
Start
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
)
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 2
Year  5 (2023 Data)
October 22
Growing Season 
End
50 Days ‐21.3%
March 1
Growing Season
Start
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
)
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 3
Year  5 (2023 Data)
October  22
Growing Season 
End
190 Days ‐80.9%March 1
Growing Season
Start
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
)
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 4
Year  5 (2023 Data)
October  22
Growing Season
End
March 1
Growing Season
Start
85 Days ‐36.2%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
)
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 5
Year  5 (2023 Data)
October 22
Growing Season
End
51 Days ‐21.7%
March 1
Growing Season
Start
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
)
Major Hill Groundwater Gauge 6
Year  5 (2023 Data)
October 22
Growing Season
End
March 1
Growing Season
Start 100 Days ‐42.6%

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix F
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Appendix F.
Benthic Data

Benthic Results
Habitat Datasheets
PA ID NO 56918 56919
STATION Major Hill Major Hill
UT1U UT1D
DATE 6/13/2023 6/13/2023
SPECIES T.V.F.F.G.
PLATYHELMINTHES 1 1
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae FC
Musculium lacustre FC 2
Pisidium sp.6.6 FC
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.8.7 CG 3 1
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta CG
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae CG
Lumbriculus sp.CG
Hirudinea P
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae P 2
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae P
Helobdella sp.P 1
ARTHROPODA
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia sp.
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Cyclopidae
Mesocyclops edax
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp.8.4 CG 4
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.7.2 CG 1 6
PA ID NO 56918 56919
STATION Major Hill Major Hill
UT1U UT1D
DATE 6/13/2023 6/13/2023
SPECIES T.V.F.F.G.
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Aeshna umbrosa P
Anax junius P
Coenagrionidae P
Corduliidae
Somatochlora sp.8.9 P
Libellulidae P
Libellula vibrans 9.4 P
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.6
Plecoptera
Perlidae P
Perlesta sp.2.9 P 1
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.9.5 P
Corixidae PI 2
Hesperocorixa sp.PI
Notonectidae
Notonecta sp.P
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Chauliodes rastricornis P
Sialidae P
Sialis sp.7 P 2 2
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.6.6 FC
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche sp.2.5 SH 1
PA ID NO 56918 56919
STATION Major Hill Major Hill
UT1U UT1D
DATE 6/13/2023 6/13/2023
SPECIES T.V.F.F.G.
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae P
Neoporus sp.5 1
Thermonectus sp.P
Hydrophilidae P
Tropisternus sp.9.3 P
Diptera
Chaboridae
Chaoborus albatus P
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.4 P
Chironomus sp.9.3 CG 5 1
Conchapelopia sp.8.4 P
Cryptochironomus sp.6.4 P 1
Microtendipes pedellus gp.3.9 CG 1
Natarsia sp.9.6 P
Paratendipes albimanus/duplicatus 5.6 2
Procladius sp.8.8 P 2
Psectrotanypus dyari 10 P
Tanytarsus sp.6.6 FC 1
Zavrelimyia sp.8.6 P 1 1
Culicidae FC
Anopheles sp.8.6 FC 2 1
Culex sp.FC
Psychodidae CG 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 204038 204046
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 16 20
EPT INDEX 0 2
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned Values 8.39 6.24

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

Appendix G.
Riparian Buffer Year 5 (2023) Monitoring Report

RIPARIAN BUFFER MY5 (2023) MONITORING REPORT

MAJOR HILL MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina

DMS Project ID No. 100015
Full Delivery Contract No. 7193
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01472
DWR No. 17-0921
RFP No. 16-006990

Cape Fear River Basin – Haw River Arm
Cataloging Unit 03030002

Prepared for:

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

February 2024

This project with conforms with the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295,
effective November 1, 2015 and the Jordan Lake Buffer Protection Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0267 & 15A NCAC 02B
.0268)

MY5 (2023) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: Table of Contents
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table of Contents
1.0 MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY ............................................................................................1
2.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................................2
3.0 RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN ..........................................2
3.1 Riparian Area Restoration Activities ........................................................................................ 2
3.1.1 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................... 2
3.1.2 Planting ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities .................................................. 4
3.3 Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities .................................................................................... 5
3.4 Marsh Treatment Area ............................................................................................................ 5
4.0 ANNUAL MONITORING ............................................................................................................5
4.1 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Performance Standards ........................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 6
4.4 Maintenance and Management .............................................................................................. 7
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 10

Tables
Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes ................................................................................................................. 1
Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets ...................................................................................................... 3
Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation ............................................................................................ 4
Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 5
Table 5. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals ................................................................................................... 7
Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species ...................................................................................................... 8
Table 7. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data ………………………………………………………………………………………………9

Attachments
Attachment 1
Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Year 5 (2023) Planted Stem Height Data

MY5 (2023) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: Page 1
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
MITIGATION PROJECT SUMMARY
The Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses 16.7
acres along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch. The Site is located approximately 3.5
miles southeast of Snow Camp and 6 miles north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the
Chatham County line. Project attributes are included in the following table.

Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name Major Hill
Hydrologic Unit Code 3030002050050
River Basin Cape Fear
Geographic Location (Lat, Long) 35.873206, -79.360906
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG) (2789, 896), (2514, 756), (3143, 270), (3150, 920)
Total Credits (BMU) 402,837
Types of Credits Riparian Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, & Preservation
Mitigation Plan Date Apr-18
Initial Planting Date Dec 2018-Jan 2019
Baseline Report Date Mar-19
MY1 Report Date Nov-19
MY2 Report Date Jan-21
MY3 Report Date Jan-22
MY4 Report Date Nov-22
MY5 Report Date Feb-24

The Site drainage area is primarily composed of pasture, forest, agricultural land, and sparse residential
property. Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of the upstream land surface.

Before construction, Site land use consisted of pasture, hayfields, disturbed forest, and agricultural land
used for livestock grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, and
stream banks were eroded vertically and laterally and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs.
Riparian zones in the upper reaches of UT 1 were primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that was
sparse and disturbed due to livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land-management activities. The
downstream reaches of UT 1 and all of UT 3 were primarily wooded with livestock disturbance to stream
channels. UT 2 was the lone tributary not subject to continuous, unrestricted livestock access. Riparian
areas immediately adjacent to UT 2 were forested with a fence to protect this area from livestock access.

The riparian areas were restored in concurrence with the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
(NC DMS Project ID 10015, SAW-2017-01472) and involved restoring riparian buffers adjacent to restored
streams to help reduce non-point source contaminant discharges to downstream waters in the Haw River
sub-watershed of Jordan Lake. All riparian areas were assessed by DWR (Katie Merritt and Sue
Homewood) during a site visit on February 20, 2018, to determine the Site's viability for buffer mitigation.

The Site is protected with a permanent conservation easement. Riparian restoration, enhancement, and
preservation area widths adjacent to restored streams extend out to a maximum of 200 feet from the top

MY5 (2023) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: Page 2
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
of stream banks with a minimum width of 50 from the top of banks. Riparian buffer enhancement and
preservation credits generated on this Site are allowed pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o). No riparian
restoration areas less than 20 feet wide, measured perpendicularly from the top of banks, are used to
generate riparian buffer credit.

Riparian Buffer Mitigation Credit was not generated in areas generating wetland mitigation credit.

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Credit determination for this Site follows the North Carolina consolidated buffer mitigation rule 15A
NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015 (see Table 2 on the following page and Figure A,
Attachment 1).

RIPARIAN RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT, & PRESERVATION PLAN
This Site was also proposed as a stream and wetland mitigation project; therefore, the restoration of
riparian areas was accomplished through the goals and methods outlined by the Major Hill Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Plan. All applicable federal, state and local permits or authorizations were acquired
to implement the mitigation plan.

Primary goals focused on 1) improving water quality, 2) enhancing flood attenuation and hydrology, 3)
improving aquatic resources, and 4) restoring riparian habitat. Completed mitigation provides floodplain
connectivity, floodplain resistance, stream stability, sediment transport, surface and subsurface
storage/retention, in-stream habitat, riparian habitat and structure, thermal regulation, floodplain
biogeochemical processing, and pollutant filtration/removal of pollutant sources. The riparian area will be
restored through the revegetation of native plant communities.

Riparian Area Restoration Activities

Site Preparation
Soil grading occurred during stream restoration activities. Topsoils were stockpiled during construction
activities and spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade was established. The replaced topsoil will
serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration to provide nutrients and aid in the survival
of planted species.

Farm Pond Removal
To complete the stream and wetland restoration activities and subsequent riparian buffer restoration, the
removal of a small farm pond, ~0.58 acres, occurred. Stream, wetland, and riparian area restoration within
the abandoned pond included 1) notching the dam to dewater; 2) removal of the dam to the elevation of
the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that is unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4)
backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil suitable for channel construction (as necessary); 5)
excavation of the design channel, 6) stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and
7) installation of structures.

MY5 (2032) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 3
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
RIPARIAN BUFFER (15A NCAC 02B.0295) If Converted to Nutrient
Offset
Location Jurisdictional
Streams
Restoration
Type
Reach ID/
Component
Buffer
Width (ft)
Creditable
Area (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
(x:1)
% Full
Credit
Final
Credit
Ratio
(x:1)
Riparian
Buffer
Credits
(BMU)
Convertible to
Nutrient Offset
(Yes or No)
Nutrient
Offset: N
(lbs)
Nutrient
Offset: P
(lbs)
Rural Subject &
Nonsubject Restoration 1 0-100 213,290 1 100% 1.00000 213,290.000 Yes 11129.775 716.842
Rural Subject &
Nonsubject Restoration 2 101-200 40,976 1 33% 3.03030 13,522.094 Yes 2138.186 137.715
Rural Subject Enhancement 3 0-100 341,433 2 100% 2.00000 170,716.500 No 0.000 0.000
SUBTOTALS 595,699 397,528.594 13,267.960 854.558

ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION
AREA 198,566
Location Jurisdictional
Streams
Restoration
Type
Reach ID/
Component
Buffer
Width (ft)
Creditable
Area (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio
(x:1)
% Full
Credit
Final
Credit
Ratio
(x:1)
Riparian
Buffer
Credits
(BMU)

Rural Nonsubject Preservation 4 0-100 25,614 5 100% 5.00000 5,122.800
Rural Nonsubject Preservation 5 101-200 2,814 5 33% 15.15152 185.724
SUBTOTALS 28,428 5,308.524
TOTALS 624,127 402,837.117
*Area eligible for preservation may be no more than 25% of total area, where total area is back-calculated with the equation R+E/0.75.
*Buffers must be at minimum 20' wide for riparian buffer credit, buffers must be 50' wide for nutrient offset credit
*When preservation areas exceed the total eligible preservation area, select the areas with the best credit ratios as the creditable areas.

MY5 (2032) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 4
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Planting
Bare-root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forests were initially planted
at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Species in the streamside assemblage
and Marsh Wetland Treatment Areas were planted at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on
4-foot centers. The following table summarizes planted bare-root stems within the Site.

Table 3. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Species
Piedmont/Low
Mountain
Alluvial Forest
Dry-Mesic
Oak/Hickory
Forest
Marsh
Treatment
Wetland
Streamside
Assemblage Total
Acres 1.1 5.5 0.01 1.5 8.11
Alnus serrulata 5 20 25
Asimina triloba 200 200
Betula nigra 100 200 300
Carpinus caroliniana 600 600
Cephalanthus
occidentalis 5 20 25
Cercis canadensis 500 500
Cornus amomum 95 5 800 900
Diospyros virginiana 450 450
Fraxinus americana 100 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 150 750 900
Liriodendron tulipifera 75 75
Nyssa sylvatia 600 600
Platanus occidentalis 120 780 900
Quercus nigra 110 790 500 1,400
Quercus phellos 100 700 400 1,200
Salix nigra* 400* 400
Sambucus canadensis 11 14 25
TOTALS 750 3,740 26 4,084 8,600
Stems/Acre 682 680 2600 2722 1060
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted; all other planted species were planted as bare root plants.

Riparian Buffer Enhancement via Cattle Exclusion Activities
Riparian buffer enhancement included permanently protecting the existing riparian buffer from livestock
via exclusionary fencing, cutting, clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the
functionality of the riparian buffer. These areas are defined primarily as disturbed mixed hardwoods.
Buffer credits sought in the enhancement area are allowed under 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6). The
enhancement area extends a maximum of 200 feet from the top of the bank with a minimum width of 20
from the top of stream banks.

MY5 (2032) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 5
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

A small portion of UT-3 generates riparian buffer enhancement credit from only one side of the stream.
Before construction, cattle had access to the entire area; however, the only access point was from the
pasture on the northern side of the stream, the parcel owned by Mr. Lamm. Once fencing was installed
to prevent cattle access from Mr. Lamm's parcel to the stream, cattle were no longer able to access the
south side of the stream. This action will result in compliance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (o)(6), which
states that the permanent exclusion of grazing livestock must be done such that the livestock are fenced
out of the stream and its adjacent buffer. The southern parcel, which is not a part of the conservation
easement, is owned by the Caviness family and is a single-family home.

Riparian Buffer Preservation Activities
Riparian buffer preservation includes permanently protecting existing riparian buffers from cutting,
clearing, filling, grading, and any similar activities that would affect the functionality of the riparian buffer.
Areas specified for Preservation at the Site, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295, are defined primarily
as mixed hardwoods, with a number of high-value species and over 200 species total per acre. They are
areas where livestock was fenced out before construction – these areas had little or no historical livestock
access.

Marsh Treatment Area
A marsh treatment area was constructed to intercept surface waters draining through agricultural areas
before discharging into UT1. The marsh treatment area is excluded from credit calculations.

ANNUAL MONITORING
Monitoring
Eight vegetation monitoring plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within the Site as per guidelines
established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008); this covers 3.4%
of the area generating riparian buffer restoration credit. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually in the
fall (between September and November), prior to the loss of leaves for a period of five monitoring years
following planting. Parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. Visual
observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by
photograph. In addition, inspections for beaver and other potential nuisance species will occur throughout
the monitoring period.

The following table outlines riparian buffer monitoring for this project; monitoring parameter descriptions
follow.

Table 4. Riparian Buffer Monitoring
Required Parameter Quantity Frequency Notes
Yes Vegetation
Eight (8) plots
located across all
restored buffer
zones.
Annual
Vegetation will be monitored for five years or until
performance standards are met. Visual monitoring of the
site will be done all five years. Analysis of vegetation will
be recorded using level 2 CVS Monitoring protocol.
Yes Project
Boundary NA Annual Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.

MY5 (2032) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 6
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Performance Standards
Performance standards were established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development and the maintenance of diffuse flow through the riparian
buffer in accordance with North Carolina Division of Water Resources Administrative Code 15A NCAC
02B.0295 (Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers).
Performance standards are dependent upon the density and growth of at least four native hardwood tree
species where no one species is greater than 50% of the stems. After five years of monitoring, an average
density of 260 woody stems per acre, including planted shrubs (silky dogwood and blueberry), must be
surviving, and diffuse flow maintained. 15A NCAC 02b .0295 (2)(E) dictates that monitoring for planted
stems would also include the health of planted stems. Level 2 CVS monitoring protocol requires the vigor,
a determinant of health, of a monitored stem be recorded. If requested, RS will make available during the
monitoring years, planted stem health, e.g. vigor.

Results and Discussion
In early January 2020, a winter-time visual assessment of the Site was performed, and it was determined
that although Year 1 (2019) vegetation data, including random transects, showed a high density of trees,
a light supplemental planting would help ensure the long-term success in several areas. On January 31,
2020, three areas that visually exhibited low stem density and/or poor vigor were supplementally planted.
During the supplemental planting effort, approximately 370 stems were planted across 1.20 acres
(approximately 300 stems per acre). As the planting was designated for visual purposes and was not an
effort to increase stem density data, no stems were planted within permanent vegetation plots. The
following table lists species included in the supplemental planting list. Preparation included the
application of 100 lbs of lime, 50 lbs of fertilizer, and 3 lbs of seed to stabilize bare areas (see Figure A for
planting areas).

2020 Supplemental Planting Species List
Species Number of Stems
Tag Alder (Alnus serrulata) 20
Chinkapin (Castanea pumila) 20
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) 50
Hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii) 20
Crab Apple (Malus angustifolia) 50
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra) 100
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 50
Shumard Oak (Quercus shumardii) 50
Total 370

Based on the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 354 hardwood tree stems
per acre (excluding livestakes, shrubs, pines, and vines) in year 5 (2023). In addition, all but two permanent
plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone. Plot 1 meets success criteria when including
naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Additionally, two temporary vegetation
transects also met success criteria. The following Table 5 summarizes riparian buffer success criteria and
Table 6 summarizes all permanent vegetation plot data by species, plot, and year. Table 7 summarizes all

MY5 (2032) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 7
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
temporary vegetation plot data by species and transect. Vegetation plot photographs are included in
Appendix B of the Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Year 5 (2023) Annual Monitoring Report.

Table 5. Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
Plot # Success Criteria
Met?
MY 5 (2023)
Planted Stems/Ac
MY 5 (2023)
All Stems/Ac
1 No 202 769
2 Yes 283 324
3 Yes 405 405
4 No 162 162
5 Yes 283 283
6 Yes 486 486
7 Yes 445 445
8 Yes 567 607
T-1 Yes -- 648
T-2 Yes -- 445
Average Planted
Stems/Acre Yes 354 457

2023 Maintenance and Management
Restoration Systems continues to monitor fescue throughout the Site. Based on permanent and random
vegetation monitoring plots and visual observations, planted stems are establishing within areas where
fescue was a concern.

On September 27, 2023, RS Staff members discovered an encroachment area measuring .04 acres on the
site's south side shown on Figure 2 (Appendix B). An existing cattle fence was not relocated to boundary
corners during construction. On December 02, 2023, the fence was relocated to outside of the easement.
On December 05, 2023, a supplemental planting of twenty 3-gallon pots of mitigation plan approved
species including of 5 Black gum (Nyssa Sylvatica), 5 Water Oak (Quercus nigra), and 10 Willow Oak
(Quercus phellos) were planted within the encroached area, see Easement Inspection MY5 (2023) Photo
Log.
Table 6. Total Stems by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 17.009.  Project Name: Major Hill
PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 23
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 111 111222222222333777
Betula nigra river birch Tree 111 111111333333333444666999
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 111333444 222 111111111111111111111101010141414555
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 2 2 2 222444333444555888141414
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 222111
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 112111111111111 444991088888109910999555
Fraxinus ash Tree 111111111111111111111
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 333 111444555555555555555
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 16 111111 111 55195512558558444333
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 111111111111111555
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 111222222444101010
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 111222 444445445555778777
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 111111111222333232323
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 111444333333111121212121212121212121212202020101010
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 222333 111555334141415151515131314121212161616181818
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1
Unknown Shrub or Tree 666
5519778101010444777121212111111141415707086727282727280757579103103109129129129
444444444444444666555888131313141415141415141414151517161616
202.3 202.3 768.9 283.3 283.3 323.7 404.7 404.7 404.7 161.9 161.9 161.9 283.3 283.3 283.3 485.6 485.6 485.6 445.2 445.2 445.2 566.6 566.6 607 354.1 354.1 435 364.2 364.2 414.8 364.2 364.2 404.7 379.4 379.4 399.6 521 521 551.4 652.6 652.6 652.6
Color for Density
MY4 (2022)
8
0.20
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P‐all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
17.009‐01‐0008
Annual Means
MY5 (2023)MY3 (2021) MY2 (2020) MY1 (2019) MY0 (2019)
Current Plot Data (MY5 2023)
17.009‐01‐0003 17.009‐01‐0004 17.009‐01‐0005 17.009‐01‐000617.009‐01‐0001 17.009‐01‐0002 17.009‐01‐0007
1
0.02
8
0.20
8
0.20
8
0.20
8
0.20
8
0.20

MY5 (2023) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 9
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Table 7. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data

Species 50m x 2m Temporary Plot (Bearing)
T-1 (10⁰) T-2 (345⁰)
Carpinus caroliniana 5
Diospyros virginiana 8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 6
Platanus occidentalis 2 1
Quercus nigra 1
Quercus pagodas 3 1
Total Stems 16 11
Total Stems/Acre 648 445

MY5 (2023) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G: page 10
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

REFERENCES

Jordan Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules 15A NCAC 02B .0267, 15A NCAC 02B .0268, and 15A
NCAC 02B .0295

Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Level 1-2 Plot Version 4.2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

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

MY5 (2023) Riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix G.: Page 11
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024

ATTACHMENT 1

Figure A. Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Figure B. Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Year 5 (2023) Planted Stem Height Data

1
2
2
4
6
5
7
8
1
3
NCCGIA, NC 911 Board, Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user
community
­
0 140 280 420 56070Feet
Riparian Buffer Asset Map
Major Hill Mitigation Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
FIGUREDwn. By:
Date:
Project:
KRJ
Nov 2023
17-009
A
Legend
Easement
New Fencing Installed for Cattle Exclusion
Existing Fencing Left in Place for Cattle Exclusion
Fencing Removed/Reworked for Cattle Exclusion
Stream Asbuilt TOB-TOB
@ Marsh Treatment Area
^_Plot Origins
CVS Plots Meeting Success Criteria MY5
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria MY5
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria MY5
2020 Supplemental Planting Area
Wetland Restoration
Wetland Enhancement
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Type
TOB - 100 ft. Restoration (1:1) - 213,290 sq ft
101 ft. - 200 ft. Restoration (1:1 but 33% credit per Rule) - 40,976 sq ft
TOB - 100 ft. Enhancement (2:1 Cattle Ex. per Rule) - 341,433 sq ft
TOB - 100 ft. Preservation (Non-Subject Stream 5:1) - 25,614 sq ft
101 ft. - 200 ft. Preservation (Non-Subject Stream 5:1 and 33% Credit per Rule) - 2,814 sq ft
Non Credit Generating (Less than 20 ft.)
TOB to 50 feet
100 foot line
150 foot line
200 foot line
U
T
-
1
U
T
-
2
U
T
-
1
U T -3
U
T-3
No credit is being
generated within the
Marsh Treatment Area.
This area is located
outside of the
easement and is
not generating credit.
NCCGIA
­
0 140 280 420 56070Feet
Riparian Buffer Planting Map
Major Hill Mitigation Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
FIGUREDwn. By:
Date:
Project:
KRJ
Feb 2019
17-009
B
Legend
Easement
Stream Asbuilt TOB-TOB
Stream Side Assemblage = 1.5 ac
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest = 1.1 ac
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest = 5.5 ac
Marsh Treatment Wetland = 0.01 ac
U
T
-
2
U
T
-
1
U
T
-
1
U T -3
U
T-3
Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH (cm) Vigor
1 Liriodendron tulipifera 7.3 1.3 240 0.2 3
1 Carpinus caroliniana 9.2 4.1 251 0.25 2
1 Quercus 6.6 4.7 151 0.25 4
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1.6 3.8 118 0.25 3
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 6.7 9.7 110 0.1 4
2 Quercus phellos 2.9 0.5 360 3 4
2 Carpinus caroliniana 4.8 3.4 160 0.25 4
2 Carpinus caroliniana 7.1 6.5 69 3
2 Platanus occidentalis 10.0 7.1 230 1.5 4
2 Nyssa sylvatica 4.5 8.0 0 0
2 Quercus phellos 1.6 5.9 280 2 4
2 Diospyros virginiana 7.8 2.6 165 0.5 4
2 Carpinus caroliniana 7.5 4.6 114 4
3 Carpinus caroliniana 2.4 1.4 340 2 4
3 Quercus phellos 5.3 1.4 260 1.5 4
3 Carpinus caroliniana 8.1 1.3 71 4
3 Carpinus caroliniana 6.8 2.7 110 4
3 Quercus phellos 10.0 3.0 120 0.5 4
3 Carpinus caroliniana 6.3 5.3 50 3
3 Cercis canadensis 4.2 10.0 10 4
3 Cercis canadensis 1.3 10.0 35 4
3 Diospyros virginiana 1.3 8.1 770 1.5 4
3 Quercus phellos 1.7 5.3 200 0.5 4
4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7.6 0.9 86 4
4 Betula nigra 7.6 3.3 61 4
4 Asimina triloba 8.3 8.2 0 0
4 Quercus nigra 6.2 8.0 60 4
4 Diospyros virginiana 2.4 7.2 131 0.1 4
5 Quercus nigra 0.3 1.0 240 2.5 4
5 Platanus occidentalis 2.8 0.1 370 5 4
5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2.1 3.7 265 2 4
5 Diospyros virginiana 5.1 4.3 50 4
5 Quercus nigra 5.5 1.2 100 4
5 Quercus nigra 7.5 8.0 110 4
5 Quercus nigra 0.2 6.5 225 0.25 4
5 Betula nigra 2.5 7.2 0 Missing
6 Quercus nigra 2.2 0.3 190 0.25 4
6 Carpinus caroliniana 3.0 2.7 95 3
6 Diospyros virginiana 0.9 3.4 205 1 4
6 Quercus phellos 6.5 0.8 205 1.5 4
6 Carpinus caroliniana 8.4 2.4 200 1 4
6 Quercus nigra 9.8 3.9 210 1.5 4
6 Platanus occidentalis 7.6 4.8 310 4 4
6 Fraxinus americana 9.0 7.0 380 2.5 4
6 Fraxinus americana 6.8 7.2 285 2 4
6 Fraxinus americana 4.6 8.0 290 2.5 4
6 Quercus nigra 0.5 8.1 230 0.5 4
6 Platanus occidentalis 2.2 6.7 320 2 4
Year 5 (2023) Planted Stem Height Data
Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH (cm) Vigor
7 Platanus occidentalis 2.6 2.5 0 Missing
7 Quercus phellos 4.8 0.9 340 2.5 4
7 Quercus phellos 5.3 3.0 390 5 4
7 Betula nigra 5.7 4.9 290 1.75 4
7 Quercus nigra 7.6 3.5 193 0.25 4
7 Quercus phellos 8.8 1.2 290 2.75 4
7 Asimina triloba 8.5 6.1 340 4.5 4
7 Quercus phellos 6.3 7.1 360 3.75 4
7 Quercus nigra 8.8 8.5 380 4.5 4
7 Quercus nigra 1.2 6.9 250 2 4
7 Quercus phellos 1.7 5.1 240 1.75 4
7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3.6 8.2 340 2.75 4
8 Diospyros virginiana 4.3 1.5 165 0.25 4
8 Fraxinus 4.8 3.2 150 0.25 4
8 Diospyros virginiana 1.3 4.6 160 0.25 4
8 Cercis canadensis 7.3 0.4 40 4
8 Fraxinus americana 9.9 2.9 130 0.1 4
8 Betula nigra 7.3 2.8 110 4
8 Quercus nigra 5.1 5.0 195 0.25 4
8 Carpinus caroliniana 7.5 5.7 95 4
8 Cercis canadensis 9.8 6.0 50 4
8 Quercus phellos 7.4 6.2 280 1.5 4
8 Diospyros virginiana 7.2 7.6 225 1 4
8 Quercus phellos 8.4 8.7 190 0.5 4
8 Fraxinus americana 5.0 8.5 92 4
8 Diospyros virginiana 3.0 7.1 172 0.5 4
8 Quercus phellos 1.7 9.2 151 0.25 4
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix H
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina February 2024
Appendix H.
Easement Inspection Response
Figure 3. Map of Record Overview
NC DMS Comment Response
NC DMS Email Correspondence
Map of Record
Easement Inspection MY5 (2023) Photo Log
PTI EIP
MORGAN
2272528.55WHITE OAK2271528.55WHITE OAK2270528.29WHITE OAK2272528.55WHITE OAK2271528.55WHITE OAK2270528.29WHITE OAK
EIP
EIP
LAMM
PETTY
ROCK
EIP
L
3
7
L3
6
L35L3
4
35
34
33
32
31
1.78 ACRES
EASEMENT AREA 3
CONSERVATION
D.B. 3143, PG. 270
CONSERVATION
7.60 ACRES
EASEMENT AREA 1
101549.83AXE STK
2428553.54AXE1
2419556.03102.5782418555.84AXE22417555.53106.065
L
2
5
L1
38
1
LAMM
L2
2
L
2
9
L28
L27
L2
6
26
27
28
L4
22
CONSERVATION
1.25 ACRES
EASEMENT AREA 2
MORGAN
D.B. 2514, PG. 756
2284519.44NEW CL PI2284519.44NEW CL PI
1627511.34
EA
L2
1
L
2
0
L19L18L17
L
1
6
L1
5
L6
L5
6
5
16
17
18
19
20
21
LAMM
TOP RISERTOP=543.38'TOP RISERTOP=543.38'
2463543.38TOP RISER
L
2
4
L
2
3
L3
4
23
24
25
L2
2
3
PROPOSED 10'
ACCESS EASEMENT
EIP
CHALACHANIS
D.B. 2995,
& BITTNER
PG. 517
LAMM
D.B. 2789, PG. 896
PTI
L
4
1
L4
0
L
3
9
38
37
12
L
1
4
L
1
3
L
1
2
L
1
1
L
1
0
L8
L7
14
7
8
11
13
EIP
3049
46
4544
L63
L62
L61
L52 L48 L46
L45
L44 L43
L42
L33
L3
2
L3
1
L3
0
29
L
9
9
10
CONSERVATION
1.00 ACRES
EASEMENT AREA 4
LAMM
P.B. 77, PG. 230
LAMM
D.B. 2789, PG. 896
PROPOSED 40'
ACCESS EASEMENT
42 43L59
L
5
8
L54
CONSERVATION
3.84 ACRES
EASEMENT AREA 6
L60
L53
L66
L65L64 48
47
L50
L49
L47
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AREA 5
CROSSING
CENTERLINE
41
40
L57
L5
6 PTI
39
L5
5
L51
RICE
PROPOSED 30'
ACCESS EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
0.38 ACRES
EASEMENT AREA 7
EIP
21
P.B. 67,
PG. 488
D.B. 3572,
CAVINESS
PG. 716
PG. 105
JENKINS
D.B. 3158,
D.B. 2789, PG. 896
LAMM
P.B. 77, PG. 230
22
P.B. 67,
PG. 488
LAMM
EXISTING 20'
ACCESS EASEMENT
PER P.B. 72, PG. 284
D.B. 2789, PG. 896
P.B. 77, PG. 230
EIP
EIP
LAMM
15
OAK TREE
EIP
ROCK
L67
L
3
8
36
WILLIARD ENTERPRISES, LLC
D.B. 846, PG. 123
WILLIARD ENTERPRISES, LLC
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE : [phone]
FAX : [phone]
This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no warranty. Restoration Systems, LLC expressly
disclaims responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise out of the use or misuse of this
map. It is the sole responsibility of the user to determine if the data on this map is compatible with the user’s
needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to
obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law.
SCALE:
DATE: Dec - 2023
PROJECT: Boudary Ins.
Major Hill Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
NCDMS Contract # 7193. NCDMS Project ID 100015.
RFP # 16-006990
COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 SPLAS FEET
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
(c) 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers
Copyright: (c) 2011 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom

1 in = 292 ft
Easement Corner 1
Fence Consturcted +/-18" in easement.
Fence will remain in place due to property and
large trees in-line constraints
Figure 3: Map of Record
Overview
Legend
Easement
Stream TOB
Encroachment Area (.04 acres)
Encroachment Area (.04 acres)
-Relocate Fence (12/02/2023)
-Plant 20 three-gallon containerized
trees (12/05/2023)
Easement Corner 2 - Iron Present,
No Monunment Identified
Property corner = no monument need

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix H
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina December 2023
Response to Easement Boundary Inspection Year 5 (2023) Comments
Major Hill Mitigation Site (DMS #100015)
Cape Fear River Basin 0303002, Alamance County
Contract No. 100015

Comments Received (Black Text) & Response (Blue Text)

Danielle L. Mir, Eastern Project Manager, NC DEG Division of Mitigation Services

1. There were no conservation easement signs anywhere along the fence line.
Response: Easement signs were installed at all easement corners and within easement boundary
lines longer than 200 feet.

2. North side of fence corner falls about 12”-18” inside easement. The fence needs to be moved
outside of the easement.
Response: The fence built inside the easement at easement corner 1 will remain in place due to
property constraints and large trees in-line of the property boundary. Please NC DMS Email
Correspondence (Appendix H).

3. Cap does not have the survey number stamped which corresponds to the coordinates.
Response: Survey cap 1 was determined to be appropriately stamped. See Easement Inspection
MY5 (2023)se Photo Log (Appendix H).

4. There is not a 3 ¼ inch aluminum cap on this corner.
Response: Easement corner 2 is a property corner identified as an existing iron pipe, see Map of
Record (Appendix H).

From:Mir, Danielle
To:Merritt, Josh
Cc:Holz, Raymond; Dow, Jeremiah J
Subject:RE: [External] RE: Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (100015) - Property Boundary Issues
Date:Monday, September 25, 2023 4:45:44 PM
Attachments:image003.png
image004.png
image001.png
image002.png
Hello Josh,

FYI. I just spoke with our property person, he let me know that there is another property owner near that corner that I marked red in the parcel’s that I labeled A & B. . If the property mark is right
on the parcel boundary, the fence cannot go outside the easement into another person’s property. Since you will have a surveyor out to put a seal on the plates and verify, it may be helpful to
make sure and mark that there is a different parcel. (The Easement shape and county parcel may not be all georeferenced properly since much of the project looks to be in parcel B – this is a quick
overlay with nc one map)

Parcel A = Andrew M Tinnin (104203)
Parcel B = Andrew M Tinnin (104211)
Parcel C = Carol Lamim (104191)

Please let me know if you have any questions.

---
Danielle L. Mir
Eastern Project Manager
NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Cell: 919-896-0012 Off: 919-707-8949
[e-mail]

From: Merritt, Josh <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:47 PM
To: Mir, Danielle <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holz, Raymond <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] RE: Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (100015) - Property Boundary Issues

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab.

Hey Danielle,

Thank you for your update and phone call. RS will work on resolving your noted issues.

We will coordinate with you on another site visit this Fall once the boundary has been thoroughly inspected and all issues are resolved.

Thanks again,
Josh M.

Joshua Merritt
Project Manager
(M): 919.830.9232

From: Mir, Danielle <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:54 PM
To: Merritt, Josh <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holz, Raymond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (100015) - Property Boundary Issues

Hello Josh,

We went to Major Hill Thursday afternoon and looked at about 25% of the boundary. We will be happy to reschedule a full boundary inspection after the following items are addressed:

Entire Property
There were no conservation easement signs anywhere along the fence line. (Please refer to the 3rd bullet of items 7, Step Three: Task 2 Payment, page 16 of the RFP below)
Placemark 1
Photo 1 – North side of fence corner falls about 12”-18” inside the easement.
The fence needs to be moved to the outside of the easement.

Photo 2 – Cap does not have the survey number stamped which corresponds to the coordinates. (Please refer to the 1st bullet of item 7, Step Three: Task 2 Payment, page 16 of
the RFP below)
Placemark 2
Photo 3 – There is not a 3 ¼ inch aluminum cap on this corner.

Please note, that we did not look at the entire site and it is advised for you all to check all boundary corners prior to us coming out. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Have a great day.
-Danielle

---
Danielle L. Mir
Eastern Project Manager
NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Cell: 919-896-0012 Off: 919-707-8949
[e-mail]

Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.
From:Mir, Danielle
To:Merritt, Josh
Cc:Holz, Raymond; Dow, Jeremiah J
Subject:100015 - Major Hill Stream and Wetland - Fence line
Date:Monday, October 16, 2023 3:54:25 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hello Josh,

After speaking with the Property Team and Stewardship the fence at Major Hill on the north end is
where it should be. The corner, that is 18” inside the easement will not need to be moved. I hope
this helps.

Have a great day.
-Danielle

---
Danielle L. Mir
Eastern Project Manager
NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Cell: 919-896-0012 Off: 919-707-8949
[e-mail]

Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties by an authorized state official.
Major Hill
Boundary Inspection MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 1: Newly Installed Conservation Easement
Sign (12/05/2023)
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 10015) Appendix H
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina December 2023
Photo 2: Newly Installed Conservation
Easement Sign (12/5/2023)
Major Hill
Boundary Inspection MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 3: Fence Constructed 12”-18” Inside Easement Due Property and
Trees In-line constraints (10/06/2023)
MY5 (2023) riparian Buffer Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix H
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC.
Alamance County, North Carolina December 2023
Photo 4: Easement Corner 1 Stamped
Appropriately (10/06/2023)
Easement Corner Cap 1
Major Hill
Boundary Inspection MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 5: Encroached Area Depicted by Horse Tape
(10/12/2023)
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix H
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC.
Alamance County, North Carolina December 2023
Photo 6: Relocated Fence and Planted Three-Gallon
Trees Flagged with Pink Flagging (12/05/2023)