20140335 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report 2016_20170119

YEAR 1 (2016) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRINGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No. 96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT No. 5791
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030002
Data Collection — May -October 2016
PREPARED FOR:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
December 2016

YEAR 1 (2016) MONITORING REPORT
AYCOCK SPRINGS
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DMS PROJECT No. 96312
FULL DELIVERY CONTRACT No. 5791
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030002
Data Collection — May -October 2016
PREPARED BY:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
AND
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
218 SNOW AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603
December 2016

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Streams.........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Wetland Hydrology..................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN........................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Stream.......................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Vegetation.................................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Site LoCation
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Figure 3. Remedial Action Plan
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Table lOa- 1Oe. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table l 1a-111. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graph
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Groundwater Hydrology Data
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Table of Contents page i
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) encompasses approximately 13 acres located
roughly 1.5 miles north of Elon and Gibsonville in western Alamance County within 14 -digit Cataloging
Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030010 of the Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 1, Appendix B
and Table 4, Appendix A). Prior to construction, the Site consisted of agricultural land used for livestock
grazing, hay production, and timber harvest. Streams were cleared, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically
and laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock and timber harvest activities.
Stream impacts in Travis Creek also occurred due to a breached dam that impounded water during storm
events. In addition, streamside wetlands were drained by channel incision, soil compaction, the loss of forest
vegetation, and land uses. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts,
and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
Positive aspects supporting mitigation activities at the Site include the following.
• Streams have a Best Usage Classification of WS -V, NSW
• Located in a Targeted Local Watershed and within the NCDMS Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance
Local Watershed Planning (LWP) Area
• Travis Creek is listed on the NCDENR 2012 303(d) list for ecologicalibiological integrity
• Immediately south and abutting the Site is a property identified in the Little Alamance, Travis, &
Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008) as a target property for wetland
restoration and streambank enhancement/conservation
• Immediately west of the Site is a large tract associated with Guilford County open space
Based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities Report 2009 (NCEEP 2009) and the Little
Alamance, Travis, & Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008), Targeted Local Watershed
03030002030010 is not meeting its designated use of supporting aquatic life. Agricultural land use appears
to be the main source of stress in the Hydrologic Unit, as well as land clearing and poor riparian management.
This project will meet the eight priority goals of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Local Watershed Plan
(LWP) including the following.
1) Reduce sediment loading
2) Reduce nutrient loading
3) Manage stormwater runoff
4) Reduce toxic inputs
5) Provide and improve instream habitat
6) Provide and improve terrestrial habitat
7) Improve stream stability
8) Improve hydrologic function
The following six goals were identified by the Stakeholder group of the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP
Phase I assessment which address the water quality impacts and watershed needs in all of the Little Alamance,
Travis, Tickle watersheds in 2006.
1) Increase local government awareness of the impacts of urban growth on water resources
2) Strengthen watershed protection standards
3) Improve water quality through stormwater management
4) Identify and rank parcels for retrofits, stream repair, preservation, and/or conservation
5) Assess aquatic health to identify stressors that are the most likely causes of poor biological conditions
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 1
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

6) Meet requirements of outside funding sources for implementation of projects
The following table summarizes the project goals/objectives and proposed functional uplift based on
restoration activities and observations of two reference areas located in the vicinity of the Site. Goals and
objectives target functional uplift identified in the Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance LWP and based on
stream/wetland functional assessments developed by the regulatory agencies.
Project Goals and Objectives
Project GoaFOb'ective How Goal/Objective will be Accomplished
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Restore Stream Stability
Providing proper channel width and depth, stabilizing channel banks,
providing gravel/cobble substrate, planting a woody riparian buffer, and
removing cattle
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
Dominated Streams
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation restoring
overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying compacted soils, and
planting woody vegetation
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Raising the stream bed elevation and rip compacted soils
Im rove Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Increase Thermoregulation
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, planting with
woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
retention, and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
Increase Energy Dissipation of
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, and planting
with woody vegetation
Restore Habitat
Restore In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
Restore Stream -side Habitat
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Project construction was completed April 6, 2016 and planting was completed April 8, 2016. Site activities
included the restoration of perennial and intermittent stream channels, enhancement (Level II) of perennial
stream channel, and re-establishment of riparian wetlands. Priority I restoration of intermittent channels at
the Site is imperative to provide significant functional uplift to Site hydrology, water quality, and habitat, in
addition to restore adjacent streamside, riparian wetlands. A total of 3581.1 Stream Mitigation Units
(SMUs) and 0.5 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) are being provided as depicted in the
following table.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

* Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters
of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam
footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to the stream channel on jurisdictional
wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve
the violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches
and wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
In addition, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of
UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio (1.5:1). On-site visits conducted with USACE representatives determined that
the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives. From a
mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria related to goals
and objectives.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina
Stream
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Stream Mitigation Type
Ratio Mitigation
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
Units
Restoration
3147
90
1:1 3237
Restoration (See Notes below)"
122
1:5:1 81.3
Enhancement Level II)
657
--
2.5:1 262.8
TOTAL
3804
212
3581.1
Riparian Wetland
Wetland Mitigation Type
Acreage
Ratio
Mitigation Units
Riparian Re-establishment
0.5
1:1
0.5
Riparian Enhancement
1.5*
--
TOTAL
2.0
0.5
* Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters
of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam
footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to the stream channel on jurisdictional
wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve
the violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches
and wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
In addition, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of
UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio (1.5:1). On-site visits conducted with USACE representatives determined that
the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives. From a
mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria related to goals
and objectives.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Project Goal/Objective I Stream Success Criteria
Im rove Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years will be
documented during the monitoring period.
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -
Restore Stream Stability
built measurements to determine channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology.
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Convert stream channels from unstable G- and F -type
channels to stable E- and C- type stream channels.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Two overbank events will be documented, in separate years,
during the monitoring period and documentation of an elevated
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
groundwater table (within 12 inches of the soil surface) for
greater than 10 percent of the growing season during average
climatic conditions.
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
Dominated Streams
conditions of gravel and cobble.
Im rove Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections
2.3 and 2.2)
Increase Thermoregulation
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2).
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Criteria (Section 2.2
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Documentation of two overbank events in separate monitoring
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
I years and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria Section 2.2)
Restore Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
Restore In -stream Habitat pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
conditions of gravel and cobble, and attaining Vegetation
Success Criteria Section 2.2)
Restore Stream -side Habitat Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria Section 2.2)
Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring years.
Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems per acre in year 5,
and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. In addition, planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in
each plot at year 7 since this Site is located in the Piedmont. Volunteer stems may be considered on a case-
by-case basis in determining overall vegetation success; however, volunteer stems should be counted
separately from planted stems.
Wetland Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for wetland re-establishment should relate to project goals and objectives.
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes wetland success criteria related to
goals and objectives.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 4
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective I Wetland Success Criteria
Im rove Hydrology
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and attaining
Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore A ro riate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Im rove Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
Criteria.
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Documentation of two overbank events in separate monitoring
years, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore Habitat
Restore Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
According to the Soil Survey of Alamance County, the growing season for Alamance County is from April
17 — October 22 (USDA 1960). However, the start date for the growing season is not typical for the Piedmont
region; therefore, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using data from
February 1 - October 22 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity. This will be confirmed
annually by soil temperatures and/or bud burst. The growing season will be initiated each year on the
documented date of biological activity. Photographic evidence of bud burst and field logs of date and
temperature will be included in the annual monitoring reports.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 10 percent of the monitored period
(February 1 -October 22), during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions,
groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of
reference). These areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal
as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2016 (Year 1)
__
April 17* -October 22
19 days
(198 days)
2017 (Year 2)
2018 (Year 3)
2019 (Year 4)
2020 (Year 5)
*Gauges were installed on May 5 during year 1 (2016), so April 17 was used as the start of the growing season (MRCS).
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in tables and figures within
this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports
can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan
(formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 5
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from NCDMS upon
request.
051 N Y INDIC Ci IZI�/
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the latest guidance by US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) in April 2003 (Stream Mitigation Guidelines) will be followed and are briefly outlined below.
Monitoring data collected at the Site should include reference photos, plant survival analysis, channel
stability analysis, and biological data, if specifically required by permit conditions.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years (years 1-7). Riparian vegetation
and stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with measurements
completed in years 1-3, year 5, and year 7. Monitoring reports for years 4 and 6 will include photo
documentation of stream stability and wetland hydrology monitoring data. If monitoring demonstrates the
Site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been identified, Restoration Systems (RS) may propose to
terminate monitoring at the Site and forego monitoring requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will
only be provided through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (NC IRT). Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc (AXE). Annual monitoring
reports of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected.
2.1 Streams
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections and substrate on riffles and pools.
Data to be presented in graphic and tabular format will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3)
average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth ratio, 6) bank height ratio, and 7) entrenchment ratio.
Longitudinal profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring demonstrates channel bank or bed
instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along reaches of concern to
track changes and demonstrate stability.
Visual assessment of in -stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the
channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. In addition, visual assessments of the
entire channel will be conducted in years 1-3, 5, and 7 of monitoring as outlined in NCDMS Monitoring
Requirements and Reporting Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Areas of concern will be
depicted on a plan view figure identifying the location of concern along with a written assessment and
photograph of the area.
Year 1 (2016) Stream measurements were performed October 17-18, 2016. As a whole, monitoring
measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross-sections as compared to as -built data. The channel
geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions as set forth in the detailed mitigation plan and as
constructed.
Immediately after construction, before ground cover was fully established, multiple heavy rain events (2+
inches) caused some sedimentation in the streambed. This aggradation can be seen in several Year 1 (2016)
cross-sections, however it is expected that the stream will naturally transport the sediment, and the
aggradation is not of concern at this time.
The year 1 (2016) measurements for cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT -1 show stream bed erosion when
compared with as -built data. Stream bed erosion was noted shortly after as -built measurements were taken,
and were the resulted of the above mentioned rain events. It is evident bed material used during construction
in this area was finer than it should have been. Two riffles show bed erosion, totaling approximately 50 feet
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 6
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

in length (approximately 1 percent of the project length). The area has remained stable throughout the year.
RS has created a remedial action plan for this area that will be implemented during late winter of 2016/2017
(Section 3.0).
Across the site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No stream areas of concern
other and then the two riffles noted above were identified during year 1 (2016) monitoring. Tables for year
1 data and annual quantitative assessments are included in Appendix D.
2.2 Vegetation
After planting was completed on April 8, 2016, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and additional Site
modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (10 -meter by 10 -meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species
density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented
by photograph.
Year 1 (2016) stem count measurements were performed on October 13, 2016 and indicate an average of 332
planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site; therefore, the Site is technically meeting
vegetation success criteria. However, with monitoring data and on-site observations, it is clear planted stem
density across the site is low. Six of the fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on
planted stems alone. When including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and
red maple (Acer rubrum) in plot 5; green ash and American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) in plot 12;
and American elm (Ulmus americana) and box elder (Acer negundo) in plot 13, plots 5, 12, and 13 were
above success criteria. Low stem survival can be attributed to multiple factors, most notablely the initial site
planting occurring very close to the beginning of the growing season, vigorous herbaceous completion, and
sporadic rain events which left upland areas of the site dry for extended periods of the growing season. A
remedial action plan has been developed and will be implemented before the end of 2016. Year 1 (2016)
vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C.
2.3 Wetland Hydrology
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
were performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, a surface water
gauge has been installed in Tributary 3 to monitor flow regime of the tributary. Approximate locations of
gauges are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix A).
Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy
jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, an on-site rain gauge will document
rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and floodplain crest
gauges will confirm overbank flooding events. All groundwater gauges were successful in year 1 (2016)
(Appendix E).
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan has been developed in order to address stream and vegetation problem areas observed
during Year 1 (2016) monitoring (Figure 3, Appendix Q. A completion report will be provided to NCDMS
once the work has occurred.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

3.1 Stream
The observed degradation in and adjacent to cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT -1 encompasses approximately
50 linear feet of stream (1 percent of the project length). As noted above, bed material placed during
construction was too fine. All of UT -1 used bed material harvested on-site. It is uncommon for us not to
catch too fine of material during the harvesting and placing of bed material however it does happen. In this
case, it appears that an oversight did occur and too fine of material was used along this stretch. Fine materials
washed from the riffle during heavy rainfall events, resulting in minor bed scour and a small, less than 6 inch
head cut beginning to develop at the top of riffle. Suitable sized channel bed material is proposed to be
installed at the proper elevation in two riffles within UT -1. Bed material will be installed such that bank toe
protection is provided and planting with willow stakes will occur. Bank toe protection designates that channel
bed material will extend up the lower one-third of the bank. The riffle will be monitored by established cross-
sections 9 and 10. This work will occur in winter of 2016/2-17 and will be done by hand in order to minimize
impact within the conservation easement.
3.2 Vegetation
Multiple factors are contributing to poor vegetative success; a later than desired initial bare -root planting,
heavy herbaceous competition primarily from fescue (Site was previously a cattle pasture), and sporadic rain
events which left upland areas of the site dry for extended periods of the growing season. On site observation
do indicate a greater survival of planted species within riparian areas. Uplands areas of the site are where
survival rates were low.
The remedial action plan is to supplement the bare -root planting over 4.27 acres with 840 additional trees
(590 1 -gallon and 250 3 -gallon species). Figure 3 (Appendix C) details the areas which will receive remedial
planting along with density and number of species being placed into vegetation plots. Working with Carolina
Silvics, RS has acquired and scheduled to re -planted identified areas in December of 2016. Insuring the
highest degree of transplant survival. Species of trees will include willow oak, northern and south red oak,
and pin oak. Mapped areas to be replanted are based on field observations.
The goal of the remedial action plan is to increase planted stem density across the remedial area site by 100
to 200 stems per acre. Although some vegetation plots are currently meeting success criteria, areas adjacent
to them are not; these areas will still require supplemental planting. Stems added to vegetation plots will be
flagged during planting and included in the year 2 (2017) annual monitoring report vegetation data. Once
the replant has been completed, a final remedial planting figure will be provided.
It should be noted that RS is not proposing to bring up the density of vegetation plot 13 to success standards.
This plot is within an existing wooded area and has a number of large natural recruit species (boxelder and
American elm). An on-site determination will be made if any additional planted stems are warranted for this
area. For now, we have proposed two additional stems be added to plot 13.
An herbicide treatment will be applied in order to suppress competition between the planted stems an
herbaceous species such as fescue (Festuca sp.). This treatment is expected to occur in March/April 2017
and will be a one-time application.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Engineer
Research and Development Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, 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 Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS 2009). Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document—library/get—file?uuid=
864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley.. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

I_ ' ' ►I O w1
PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Directions to the Site from Interstates 40/85 in Burlington/Eton, NC:
- Exit onto University Drive (1-40/85 Exit 140) and travel north (toward Elon) \ --
�------ r <_� �.,t�\� `" Z +.. > - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
,t �� p - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
tL I 1 U i>
\- r ��—• i z -' - Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) Axiom ri v:(Inr+4 n!, In(,.
�.\�� J o: + m - Travel north for 0.7 mile and Site is on the right
—'- -- -; r..ln_ �', ,O Ci Prepared
ILLr
,
-
'z CLN
\ i + � to -• -
W E
o
P
I _
S -,)pyrlght:© 2013 National Geographic Society, >
abed o, a = . _ I� 87
I� 1 Project:
•,e
4,
iAaantau
Sdrmessl?o `tel. I �`—
Aycock Springs
Stream and
7#IR u� c l
I
ARemahaw Wetland
tr
87
I Lakeview Mitigation
.., - Site
�� •
Mar ganfnwn y
ansv�le �3ila3onvile rf: 4 E. 3� V
w
9urin an 9.
It 4t lisw-River .l' cane \ Aycock Springs x
ELan C Ile �'"
W r
I Stream and Wetland
V11r�tsett 5a_ *Graham I : _ -
rwu�ran Mitigation Site 1
�,;� Alamance County, INC
mar%ce s77 .r' I ` - {V,�mb %Y,=M1 <`��2,. �_ f —Jr#' " Title:
36 127271 N
-79.525214 W La
Cane r ,,� Project
YiGI
i GreErt LzT Mounts saXS 8113,'; .. k _.. - - -- Location
I - . i1j� /� f •
I I . ' Irl" I � J • -'• `.i�
----, lSno'r: Camp , 1, {�.-
'.i I - 7 I '1}` u�lk �r+:I SIS ,,. .} r I _ r -'-- �, _tI • •:. ~~' �} �
rt. J y' ti ,' Notes:
\S Y
i
H I
t L r
.: i Rti
' I-------------------------J I' ; +; ? i r1- 1. 'i_'� �.� 4 �les� 7+ o- r Background Imagery sources
py 'g T' , fs
Co rl ht:0 2014 DeLorme -` -
,.;� l ,'`*� I .., � ",� II. � � •1: .. r � provided by ESRI Data and
- n-.. ...rip. i,..._. ..\... 1'_ '�5
,
. 100
Physical Ma of the United
ps
f 1
created by the
.. - _X, -',• c< .. ?� r ` . r � , Eloi, � . 1 .}• U.S. Park (upper inset).
C 3l, _ Cwc 2. Delorme World Basemap
L _ T �,
.- l
y
F 'Y
- '�'\�- rf ��: : ,. •-: ?= "-e : < � � digital mapping (2010, lower
BURLINGTON
9 i inset).
, 3. Burlington, INC (1980)
Sr
,
Lake Burlington, INC (1969)
Gibsonville, INC (1970), and
:x ,-�I .; , - -:3 -, � ..• - _. ei '�_ : , "�` Ossipee, NC (197 0) 7.5-
• r
minute topographic
�.{''' quadrangles provided by the
Inti
'1 � -- ' •= U.S. Geological Survey.
AV
L �
} f J
r WHITSETT t �'r'/: I- I ,•
•a ,
I A y.
•
i
. 't. to ----'---•-•- � �'
A
`
1 .
70
Drawn b SGD
r-
- k
Date: May 2016
Legend + k As Shown
Scale:
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site :�>s _ _ ( a - Project No.: 14-006
`-
'
County lines I
- ' FIGURE
I
1 0.5 0 1 2 3
Miles - ,� •': ,
Copyright ©201'3 National Ga-riaphl,cYSbciety'i=cubed

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream Stream Riparian Wetland
Nonri arian Wetland
Restoration Enhancement Re-establishment
Re-establishment
3237 344.1 0.5
--
Projects Com onents
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Comment
Approach
Ratio
Credits
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
1317-24=
241f of UT 1 is located outside of
UT 1 Station 10+04 to 23+21
1173
PI
Restoration
1293
1:1
1293
easement and is not credit generating
UT 2 Station 10+00 to 16+75
723
PI
Restoration
675
1:1
675
* * * The upper 122 linear feet of
channel is in a violation area and is
UT 3 Station 10+00 to 11+22
147
PI
Restoration
122
1.5:1
8 3
generating credit at a reduced ratio of
1.5:1
UT 3 Station 11+22 to 12+12
16
PI
Restoration
90
1:1
90
****The upper 107 linear feet of
UT 4 Station 10+00 to 14+13
448
PI
Restoration
413-107=
1:1
306
channel is in a violation area and is not
306
credit generating
The upper 20 linear feet of Travis
Travis Creek
578-20—
Station 10+00 to 15+78
578
EII
558
2.5:1
223.2
Creek is within a powerline easement
and is not credit generating
Travis Creek
274
PII
Restoration
209
1:1
209
Station 15+78 to 17+87
Travis Creek
Station 17+87 to 18+86
99
EII
99
2.5:1
39.6
Travis Creek
936
PI
Restoration
664
1:1
664
Station 23+71 to 30+35
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Aycock Springs Miti ation Site
**Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
***Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to streams draining to Jordan
Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1. On-site visits conducted
with USACE representatives determined that the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
**** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States. Fill resulted
from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to
the stream channel on jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve the
violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches and wetland areas associated with the
violation area have been removed from credit generation — UT 4 begins credit generation at Station 11+07).
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage) Nonriparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
3237
0.5 --
Enhancement (Level 1)
122
-- --
Enhancement (Level II)
657
--
Enhancement
--
1.5**
Totals
4016
--
Mitigation Units
3581.1 SMUs
0.5 Riparian WMUs 0.00 Nonri arian WMUs
**Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
***Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to streams draining to Jordan
Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio of 1.5:1. On-site visits conducted
with USACE representatives determined that the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
**** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States. Fill resulted
from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to
the stream channel on jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve the
violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches and wetland areas associated with the
violation area have been removed from credit generation — UT 4 begins credit generation at Station 11+07).
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Deliver
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-005568)
--
October 2013
DMS Contract No. 5791
--
February 2014
Mitigation Plan
October 2014
May 2015
Construction Plans
--
June 2015
Construction Earthwork
--
April 6, 2016
Planting
--
April 8, 2016
As -Built Documentation
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 2016
December 2016
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
Project Name
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Project County
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Project Area (acres)
Worth Creech
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
919-755-9490
Designer and Monitoring Provider
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Project River Basin
Raleigh, NC 27603
Cape Fear
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Information
Project Name
Aycock Springs Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
15
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
36.127271°N, 79.525214°W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 -digit)
03030002030010
NCDEQ Sub -basin for Project
03-06-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
26-3008
Project Drainage Area Percentage
Impervious Area
of
<2%
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table (continued)
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Travis Cr UT I/UT2 UT 3
UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
1550 1966 212
413
Valley Classification
alluvial
Drainage Area (acres)
3008
68
26
119
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
--
30.75/25.5
26.75
27.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg 5/6-, Eg 5-, and Fc 5 -type
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
IV I IV III III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Cecil, Helena, Mixed Alluvial Land, Severely
Gullied Land, Worsham
Drainage Class
Well -drained, moderately well -drained, poorly
drained, variable, poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric and Hydric
Slope
0.0023 0.0249 1 0.0153 1 0.0093
FEMA Classification
AE Special Hazard Flood Area
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
42% forest, 53% agricultural land, <5% low
density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock
Reference Channel)
65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low
density residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
< 5%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetlands
Wetland acreage 1.6
Wetland Type Riparian
Mapped Soil Series Worsham and Mixed Alluvial Land
Drainage Class Poorly drained
Hydric Soil Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Groundwater, stream overbank
Hydrologic Impairment Incised streams, compacted soils, livestock
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation Applicable?
Resolved? Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 401 Yes
Resolved 404 Permit
Waters of the United States -Section 404 Yes
Resolved 401 Certification
Endangered Species Act No
-- CE Doc.
Historic Preservation Act No
-- CE Doc.
Coastal Zone Management Act No
-- NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes
In progress CLOMR/LOMR
Essential Fisheries Habitat No
-- NA
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Tables 5A -5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs - Travis Creek
Assessed Length 2128
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota aas
Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
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
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
9
9
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
9
9
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
9
9
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
9
9
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
9
9
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
9
9
100%

Table 513 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs UTI
Assessed Length 1317
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota aas
Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
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
1
50
96%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
44
45
98%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
43
44
98%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
44
44
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
44
44
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
44
44
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
100%

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

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

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

Table 6
etation Condition Assessment
Aycock Springs
Planted Acreage' 11.9
Easement Acreaae' 13.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
4. Ongoing Invasive Species Management Areas'
Management of Chinese privet and multiflora rose is active and ongoing along Travis Creek.
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
A high rate of planted stem mortality was observed throughout the planting area, causing low
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
none
0
11.90
100.0%
stem density sitewide.
A high rate of planted stem mortality was observed throughout the planting area, causing low
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
none
0
11.90
100.0%
stem density sitewide.
Total
0
11.90
100.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
11.90
1 100.0%
Easement Acreaae' 13.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
4. Ongoing Invasive Species Management Areas'
Management of Chinese privet and multiflora rose is active and ongoing along Travis Creek.
1000 SF
none
2
2.38
17.9%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries.
= 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,
csociated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
= 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
e 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
nger (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
dgement 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
ich 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
Aentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Ilkley 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
ound 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
r 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
and 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
embolized 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.

Aycock Springs
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2016
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2016
(continued)
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Figure 3. Remedial Action Plan
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1 Yes
43
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes
5 No*
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 No
9 No
10 No
11 Yes
12 No*
13 No*
14 No
*These plots did not meet success criteria based on planted stems only; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and red maple (Acer rubrum) in plot 5; green ash and American
beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana) in plot 12; and American elm (Ulmus Americana) and box elder (Acer negundo)
in plot 13, plots 5, 12, and 13 were above success criteria.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
10/26/2016 11:20
database name
RS-Aycock_2016-v2.3.l.mdb
database location
\\AE-FILE\Share\Business\Pro'ects\14\14-006 Ac ock Springs Detailed\YEAR-01\CVS
computer name
CORR12-PC
file size
56627200
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
14-006
project Name
Aycock Springs
Description
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (s m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
14
2016 Year 1 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0001
Pnol-S P -all T
14.006-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0003
14.006-01-0004
14.006-01-0005
14.006-01-0006
14.006-01-0007
14.006-01-0008
Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
8
8
8
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
10
10
8
8
8
4
4
4
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
2 2
21
2
2
1
1
1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
31
526.11
13
1
0.02
3
526.1
13
3
526.1
5
21
202.31
5 6
1
0.02
21 31
202.31 242.81
10
101
11
9
91
12
5
5 10
17
17
22
9
9 9
6
6 6
1 1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
51 51 6 51 51 61 31 31 4 51 51 7 21 21 2 31 31 3
404.71 404.71 445.21364.21 364.21 485.61202.31 202.31404 7 6881 6881 890.3 364.21 364.21 364.2 242.81 242.81 242.8
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
DMS Project Code 14.006. Project Name: Aycock Springs
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
14.006-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
I
14.006-01-0011
14.006-01-0012
14.006-01-0013
14.006-01-0014
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T
I
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
5
5
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
9
9
9
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry Shrub
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
7
7
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
3
3 3
2
2
2
1
1
1
52
52
52
57
57
57
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1 1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
5
5
13
3
3
S
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
S
5
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1 1
1
1
11
4
4
4
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2 2
3
3
3
1
1
1
6
6
6
18
18
18
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
21
2
2
2
21
2
1
1
1
1
11
111
11
62
62
62
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
6
31
242.8
6 6
1
0.02
3 3
242.8 242.8
7
41
283.3
7 7
1
0.02
41 4
283.3 283.3
12
121
14
7
71 9
2
2 9
7
7 7
115
115 141
205
2051 216
1 1 1 1 14 14
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.35
51 511 6 41 41 51 21 21 4 61 61 6 15 15 20 14 14 16
485.6 485.6 566.6 283.3 283.3 364.2 80.94 80.94 364.2 283.3 283.3 283.3 332.4 332.4 407.6 592.6 592.6 624.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

N Replant Area 1:
Density: 120 trees in 0.47 ac - 250 Trees / Ac.
2 new planted stems added to veg plot 13-
A
-J
Prepared for:
I 14 Replant Area 2:'`
Density: 150 trees in 0.72 ac - 200 Trees / Ac.
3 new planted stems added to veg plots 12 & 14
1A
4.
1 13 , Replant Area 6:
ri S
r' `+ 4Y ` Density: 310 trees in 1.55 ac - 200 Trees/ Ac.
5 new planted stems added to veg plot 2 * Ml wl
' L No new planted stems added to veg plot 1 1 k" Project:
12t':i'
Aycock Springs
Stream and
Wetland
Mitigation
Site
a
i Eti AtV� , v Replant Area 3: r " i, ',
l 4
25 trees in 0.29 ac - 80 Trees /Ac. + # i' ic~
Density: t �{
L s4 2 new planted stems added to veg plots 10 r 4t`l Alamance County, INC
` Title:
�r 3
10
Remedial
Action Plan
Replant Area 5: 5
Density: 75 trees in 0.32 ac -' 230 Trees / Ac. Ali—y Add bed material of suitablew''
5 new planted stems added to veg plot 5 size that is free of fines. ,A Notes:
1. Background Imagery source:
-� tt 2014 aerial photography
6 provided by the NC OneMap
r' Program (online, supported by
c is° the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council).
4
r
M
Replant Area 4: � ,
Density: 160 trees in 0.92 ac -' 200 Trees / Ac. t
c. 0� 4 new planted stems added to veg plots 8 & 9_' ` t
` � Drawn b KRJ
t•
Legend t� , 2 new planted stems added to veg plot 2 Y '
Conservation Easement- 13.2 ac N $ 3 R Date: NOV 2016
d.:.
Streams
Scale: 1:2400
" r Project No.: 14-006
Streambed Repair Area;
Supplemental Planting Area = 4.27 ac. t p,
n, t FIGURE
CVS Plots meeting success criteria during MY1 (2016)
CVS Plots not meeting success criteria during MY1 (2016) lka'A. IL
-. _._'.� a.�LY „arii. i'a .auar�adi::..: 1�kr�...uS�,..d��.r�uu+-Yca I}�ea. r.,. .-..,..s Q_. c`...... ._. W. -.:. •_.. .. :.:: .... ,.. ..,. :: s:.:
300 150 0 300 600

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a-e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -l. Monitoring Data
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.94
4.5
594.95
6.6
594.95
8.4
594.95
10.2
594.15
11.3
593.78
12.9
593.11
14.0
592.57
14.9
592.51
16.7
592.01
18.4
591.93
20.4
592.04
22.3
592.23
23.6
592.19
25.0
592.11
26.2
592.28
28.1
592.40
29.7
592.50
31.3
592.75
32.4
593.42
33.3
593.7
35.5
594.0
37.2
594.3
39.0
594.4
41.9
594.8
43.8
595.0
46.3
595.4
593
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
40.0
Bankfull Width:
26.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.5
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
17.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -1, Riffle
597
-----------------------------------------------------------------
596
ti
m
595
0
---------------------------------------------- -------------
594
W
593
- - - -Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
592
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.99
1.2
595.23
2.0
595.04
3.8
594.34
4.7
593.95
6.0
593.56
7.0
593.13
8.1
592.78
9.7
592.60
11.1
592.59
12.5
592.58
13.6
592.52
14.8
592.51
15.5
592.68
16.5
592.81
17.6
592.67
18.8
592.71
19.7
592.47
20.4
592.47
21.1
592.46
22.0
592.7
22.9
592.6
23.6
593.3
24.4
593.9
25.1
594.1
26.3
594.3
27.2
594.7
28.4
595.1
30.3
595.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
47.4
Bankfull Width:
26.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
598
-------------------------------------------------------------
597
ti
m
596
0
595
W
594
- - - -Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
593
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
592
0 5 10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.2
3.7
595.1
6.7
595.0
9.4
594.8
11.7
594.6
14.1
594.1
15.8
593.7
16.9
593.5
18.1
593.2
18.9
592.9
20.0
592.7
20.5
592.6
21.3
592.3
22.2
591.6
23.3
591.5
25.0
591.5
26.3
591.5
27.8
591.5
28.9
591.6
29.8
592.0
30.7
592.4
31.6
592.8
32.8
593.5
34.4
594.1
36.3
594.4
38.1
594.7
39.5
595.1
40.8
595.3
42.3
595.3
44.9
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Bankfull Elevation:
595.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
55.8
Bankfull Width:
33.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
595
594
0
593
Cts
-Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
592
MY -00 4/6/16
591
MY -01 10/18/16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.56
1.4
595.56
2.5
595.13
4.0
594.64
5.5
594.10
6.5
593.58
7.6
593.13
8.2
592.95
9.0
593.13
10.1
592.98
11.9
593.09
12.4
592.69
13.3
592.76
14.3
592.93
15.1
592.93
17.4
592.92
18.5
592.97
19.1
593.25
20.1
593.42
21.2
593.38
22.0
593.3
23.5
593.5
25.2
594.0
26.2
594.5
27.8
595.0
28.8
595.2
30.3
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
44.6
Bankfull Width:
27.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.9
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/G

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
4.0
595.4
5.7
594.9
6.7
594.7
7.5
594.5
8.2
594.2
9.1
593.8
10.3
593.3
11.2
592.8
12.1
592.3
13.0
592.3
13.8
591.8
14.8
591.7
15.8
591.7
17.0
591.6
18.3
591.6
19.8
591.9
21.0
592.1
21.9
592.8
22.6
592.9
24.0
592.9
26.9
593.6
28.3
594.1
30.2
595.0
31.2
595.4
32.7
595.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
58.1
Bankfull Width:
26.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
596
----------------------------------------------- ---
595-
594
0
593
Cts
• BanMil
• Flood Prone Area
592
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.02
3.1
595.75
4.9
595.19
6.3
594.32
7.6
593.93
9.3
593.75
12.1
593.67
13.6
593.56
15.9
593.51
17.2
593.51
17.9
593.13
18.6
593.45
19.0
593.12
19.7
593.33
21.1
593.04
22.4
593.33
23.9
593.52
24.9
594.02
25.9
594.54
27.7
595.35
28.8
595.9
30.1
596.3
31.2
596.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
50.6
Bankfull Width:
27.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.8
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
2.8
595.9
4.2
595.7
5.6
595.4
7.4
594.9
8.9
594.6
10.1
593.7
10.9
593.4
11.6
593.2
12.6
592.9
13.1
593.0
13.8
593.4
14.6
593.7
15.6
593.7
17.1
593.5
18.2
593.6
19.4
593.4
20.8
593.4
22.5
593.3
23.9
593.1
24.9
593.2
25.7
593.5
26.5
594.3
27.7
594.7
29.0
595.2
30.5
595.7
32.2
595.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
45.8
Bankfull Width:
27.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
f_ s
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596
595
m
0 594
W593
•Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
592
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.41
1.6
596.41
2.7
596.07
3.8
595.63
4.8
595.40
5.9
594.73
6.8
594.46
7.6
594.01
8.4
593.61
9.3
593.64
10.7
593.31
11.9
593.17
13.3
593.40
15.0
593.55
16.7
593.61
17.9
593.63
20.2
593.86
21.5
594.18
22.5
594.34
24.9
594.12
26.2
594.5
27.2
595.0
29.0
595.6
31.2
596.7
32.5
597.3
34.6
597.6
594MY-00
4/6/16
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
57.4
Bankfull Width:
28.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.4
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type 777
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
600
599
.............................................................
598
E
597
0
----------------------------------------------
-------
596
ti
595
• Bankfull
W
• Flood Prone Ates
594MY-00
4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
593
592
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.4
2.4
596.2
4.7
595.5
6.9
594.7
7.8
594.3
8.8
594.0
9.5
593.4
10.4
593.0
12.1
593.0
14.3
592.8
16.2
592.7
18.0
592.7
19.6
592.8
22.0
593.0
23.3
593.3
24.2
593.6
25.3
593.9
27.3
594.7
29.3
595.3
30.9
595.8
33.0
596.4
34.1
596.6
35.3
596.7
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
63.1
Bankfull Width:
29.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
598
597
--- ------------ --'-
'
596..................................
m
0 595
W594
_ _ _ •sanMil
• Flood Prone Area
593
MY -00 4/6/16
592
MY -01 10/18/16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.5
597.5
3.4
597.1
7.2
596.4
11.1
595.7
14.4
595.3
16.5
594.6
17.3
594.4
18.9
594.2
20.7
593.9
22.8
593.8
25.0
593.7
26.6
593.5
28.4
593.0
29.9
592.8
31.7
592.8
33.8
592.8
35.4
593.3
37.0
594.2
38.2
595.2
40.0
596.0
41.3
596.6
42.9
597.0
44.8
597.2
47.8
597.7
49.7
597.9
51.8
598.1
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
91.0
Bankfull Width:
38.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -10, Pool
599
598
597
m
596
0
595
W
- - --Bankfull
594
- - - -Flood Prone Area
593
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
592
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.58
2.3
597.20
3.8
596.69
5.5
596.59
7.3
596.01
9.6
594.94
11.2
594.29
12.3
593.45
13.1
592.97
14.1
593.03
15.0
593.27
16.0
593.12
17.7
593.33
19.2
593.56
20.6
593.83
21.9
594.03
24.0
594.15
25.2
594.14
27.0
594.00
28.0
593.86
28.9
594.0
30.2
594.3
31.6
595.0
33.6
595.9
35.4
596.7
38.0
596.9
40.2
596.9
42.1
597.0
W
595
-Flood Prone Ates
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
66.6
Bankfull Width:
29.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
13.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -11, Riffle
601
600
-
599
ti
m
m
598
o
597
______________________________________________
�
596
� _ _ • Bankfull
W
595
-Flood Prone Ates
594
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
593
592
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.46
3.6
598.50
6.2
597.83
8.7
597.29
10.4
596.64
12.2
596.08
13.7
595.16
15.4
594.74
17.8
594.55
19.5
594.60
21.0
594.59
22.0
594.24
23.4
594.24
24.7
594.40
27.2
594.76
28.0
595.02
29.3
595.18
30.5
595.46
32.9
596.36
34.9
597.23
36.1
597.8
37.7
598.5
39.7
598.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
66.4
Bankfull Width:
29.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.3
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/G

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/17/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.6
1.4
597.6
3.9
596.8
5.4
596.5
7.1
595.8
8.1
595.5
9.4
594.7
10.3
594.1
11.2
594.2
11.8
594.4
13.0
594.5
14.3
594.6
16.1
594.8
17.7
594.9
18.3
595.1
20.2
595.2
21.7
595.4
22.9
595.6
24.2
596.0
26.0
596.6
27.4
597.1
28.7
597.4
30.2
598.0
32.2
598.6
34.6
598.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
50.3
Bankfull Width:
26.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -13, Pool
600
599
598
m___________________________________
597
0
596
Cy 595
_ - •Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
594
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
593
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
599.22
1.7
599.06
4.2
Watershed:
6.6
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
M
9.2
595.68
XS ID
595.15
Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
595.22
r S
595.11
15.0
Feature
15.5
Riffle
16.7
594.95
18.1
595.13
Date:
595.32
10/17/2016
595.58
20.8
595.75
.O,
595.59
22.7
595.33
23.7
595.54
! ""
595.51
25.0
595.3
25.7
595.3
27.0
595.6
28.4
596.2
30.3
597.1
32.8
598.6
34.5
599.2
Stream Type
C/G
Station
Elevation
0.0
599.22
1.7
599.06
4.2
597.82
6.6
596.80
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
599.22
1.7
599.06
4.2
597.82
6.6
596.80
7.7
596.27
9.2
595.68
10.7
595.15
12.7
595.22
13.8
595.11
15.0
594.92
15.5
594.92
16.7
594.95
18.1
595.13
18.9
595.32
20.1
595.58
20.8
595.75
21.7
595.59
22.7
595.33
23.7
595.54
24.5
595.51
25.0
595.3
25.7
595.3
27.0
595.6
28.4
596.2
30.3
597.1
32.8
598.6
34.5
599.2
SUMMARY DATA
604
Bankfull Elevation:
599.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
92.4
Bankfull Width:
32.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
603.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
W / D Ratio:
11.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
37.4 599.7
604
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -14, Riffle
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - -
------------ -- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
- - -
-- -- --
603
602
601
600
�
0
599
lelol
ti
598
•Bankfull
-Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/166
MY -01 10/18/16
596
595
594
593
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Station (feet)
35 40

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
591.33
-1.4
591.33
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
590.80
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
590.70
5.9
590.70
Feature
590.67
Riffle
590.60
8.0
590.67
8.6
590.78
9.4
590.89
..:•
591.22
11.1
591.59
12.7
591.68
f
y
�.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
593
w 592
5
_--------------------------------
------------
ti
W 591
Bankfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -0l 10/18/16
590
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-5.0
591.33
-1.4
591.33
1.5
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-5.0
591.33
-1.4
591.33
1.5
591.44
3.0
591.19
3.7
591.04
4.5
590.80
5.3
590.70
5.9
590.70
6.8
590.67
7.4
590.60
8.0
590.67
8.6
590.78
9.4
590.89
10.2
591.22
11.1
591.59
12.7
591.68
14.0
591.84
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.7
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banki'ull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
A cock Springs
591.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.6
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.7
Riffle
1.0
_
i. . _.
Station
Elevation
-0.1
591.73
1.4
591.52
r
2.8
591.52
3.4
591.40
p ` i
4.1
591.12
5.0
591.04
5.9
591.00
7.0
590.87
7.9
590.90
8.6
590.91
9.5
590.96
10.3
591.10
Stream Type
C/E
11.1
591.34
12.2
591.49
13.6
591.49
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
593
w 592
5
o
--------------------------------�
ti
W 591
- -- • Bankfull•
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
590
0 2
4 6
8
10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
9.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Watershed:
Feature
Cape
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.2
591.0
5.7
590.6
6.6
590.6
7.2
590.7
7.5
590.9
8.4
591.0
9.1
591.1
10.1
591.4
11.1
s
12.1
591.9
14.1
592.1
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
593
592
------------
--------------------------------
--------
x
0
kl $91
Baokfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
590
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.2
1.8
592.2
2.7
592.0
3.6
591.7
4.5
591.2
5.2
591.0
5.7
590.6
6.6
590.6
7.2
590.7
7.5
590.9
8.4
591.0
9.1
591.1
10.1
591.4
11.1
591.6
12.1
591.9
14.1
592.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.8
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
591.99
2.1
Watershed:
2.9
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
10/18/2016
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
591.07
6.2
Feature
7.2
Riffle
8.0
591.04
8.6
591.05
9.2
591.39
9.9
591.65
10.5
591.96
11.5
592.24
12.9
592.31
x,
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
593
w 592 _
_______________
_________-.
d
0
Bankfall
W 591
_ _ _ Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
590
0 2
4 6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.3
591.99
2.1
591.67
2.9
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.3
591.99
2.1
591.67
2.9
591.47
3.8
591.44
4.5
591.29
5.2
591.07
6.2
591.09
7.2
590.97
8.0
591.04
8.6
591.05
9.2
591.39
9.9
591.65
10.5
591.96
11.5
592.24
12.9
592.31
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.5
Bankfull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banki'ull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
592.37
1.6
592.38
2.3
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
w
Watershed:
591.39
Cape Fear, 0303002
591.45
7.2
591.24
7.7
591.08
8.2
591.08
8.8
r�
XS ID
591.42
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
591.63
11.3
;r
Feature
592.28
Riffle
592.41
13.8
592.44
i
a
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
594
----------------------------------------------------------
593
d
-----------------------------------------------
0 592
------
ti
W
- -- • Bankfall
591
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-my10/18/16
590
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
592.37
1.6
592.38
2.3
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
592.37
1.6
592.38
2.3
592.23
3.7
591.85
4.7
591.43
5.5
591.39
6.3
591.45
7.2
591.24
7.7
591.08
8.2
591.08
8.8
591.57
9.3
591.42
10.3
591.63
11.3
592.06
12.3
592.28
12:9
592.41
13.8
592.44
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.9
Bankfull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
15.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
M
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
10/18/2016
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Am
Feature
Riffle
-.
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.79
Bankfull Elevation:
592.7
1.1
592.82
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
2.0
592.82
Bankfull Width:
7.5
2.8
592.53
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.1
3.7
592.36
` 5
4.7
592.35
Max Depth at Banki'ull:
0.4
5.3
592.29
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
5.9
592.29
W / D Ratio:
29.6
6.5
592.36
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.0
7.4
592.28
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
8.0
592.27
8.8
592.57
Stream Type C/E
10.0
592.65
11.5
592.65
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
594
593 ---------------------------------------------------------
--------- -------------------------------
0
ti
� � � • Bankfull
W 592
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10//18/16
591
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Flood Prone Width:
90.0

Site
A cock Springs
593.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.6
iTt' 1, XS - 7, Riffle
0.3
W / D Ratio:
�,.
Feature
12.5
_ Riffle
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.1
593.27
1.3
593.12
a
2.1
592.97
2.8
592.81
a
3.4
592.73
4.1
592.66
4.7
592.57Depth
5.3
6.2
592.67
592.57
' '
._'
7.1
592.49
*'
7.7
592.71
8.7
593.04
Stream Type_MMLC/E
10.0
593.30
11.6
593.14
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
594
d
5
593 ----- ---------------------------------
-------------
---- Bankfull
ti
W
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
592
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.0
592.4
5.6
592.3
6.1
592.3
6.8
592.3
7.3
592.4
8.0
592.9
8.9
593.2
11.5
593.3
_'-
k:
V
.:
1s. 3
-
nr°
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
594
0 593
ti
�l
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
1.5
593.3
2.4
593.2
3.2
593.0
4.2
592.5
5.0
592.4
5.6
592.3
6.1
592.3
6.8
592.3
7.3
592.4
8.0
592.9
8.9
593.2
11.5
593.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.1
Bankfull Width:
8.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
�.
1.0
ta
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.95
1.3
594.78
2.1
594.68
2.9
594.53
3.6
594.47
4.2
594.22
4.9
593.89
5.5
593.66
6.1
593.66
6.8
593.67
7.2
593.90
8.1
594.67
Stream Type
C/E
9.2
594.94
11.2
594.86
Aycock Springs, UT 1,
XS - 9, Riffle
596
w 595
0
BanklIall
W 594
_ _ Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
593
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.1
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.9
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
595.7
1.5
Watershed:
Feature
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
= "
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 10, POOI
594.4
x•�
viw'
594.4
6.7
594.1
7.4
594.2
8.2
594.3
8.5
594.4
9.4
595.3
10.4
595.5
11.6
595.7
12.4
595.9
y.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
596
595
0
W594
----Baokfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
593
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2
4
6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.7
1.5
595.6
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.7
1.5
595.6
2.9
595.3
3.6
595.0
4.3
594.4
4.9
594.4
5.6
594.4
6.7
594.1
7.4
594.2
8.2
594.3
8.5
594.4
9.4
595.3
10.4
595.5
11.6
595.7
12.4
595.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.4
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
A cock Springs
596.09
1.5
Watershed:
2.4
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
f
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
iTt' 1, XS -11, Riffle
595.19
5.3
Feature
6.0
_ Riffle
6.9
595.27
7.8
595.51
8.6
596.01
9.8
596.16
11.4
596.16
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -11, Riffle
597
d
5
0 596
Bankfull
kV
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
595
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.09
1.5
596.02
2.4
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.09
1.5
596.02
2.4
595.87
3.4
595.51
3.9
595.27
4.5
595.19
5.3
595.32
6.0
595.40
6.9
595.27
7.8
595.51
8.6
596.01
9.8
596.16
11.4
596.16
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
14.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS -12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.74
1.1
597.75
2.3
597.31
2.8
597.04
3.3
597.04
4.1
596.95
4.5
596.96
5.0
597.01
6.1
597.21
8.0
597.38
8.9
597.59
9.8
597.59
11.0
597.59
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
599
w 598
d
5
W 597
596 +
0
e
e•
I
A
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -12, Riffle
2 4 6
Station (feet)
/ Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
8 10 12

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Watershed:
Perkinson, Keith
Cape
597.6
6.2
597.2
7.1
597.0
7.4
596.9
7.8
596.9
8.0
596.9
8.8
597.4
9.4
597.8
10.1
598.1
11.8
598.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -13, Pool
599
;-1598 --- -----------------------------------
0
W597
--«eankfall
- - - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 12/18/16
596
0 2
4
6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.2
1.4
598.2
2.8
597.8
3.9
597.8
4.8
597.7
5.5
597.6
6.2
597.2
7.1
597.0
7.4
596.9
7.8
596.9
8.0
596.9
8.8
597.4
9.4
597.8
10.1
598.1
11.8
598.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
8.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
598.35
2.0
598.30
3.1
598.00
3.8
597.75
4.7
597.68
5.8
597.69
6.4
597.62
7.1
597.65
7.5
597.85
8.6
598.33
9.7
598.42
11.4
598.50
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
6.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.9
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
599
597
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -14, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
602.07
1.7
601.89
2.6
Watershed:
Date:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.3
601.14
XS ID
601.27
UT 1, XS - 15, Riffle
601.06
7.1
,'�
7.8
Feature
8.4
Riffle
9.3
601.44
10.0
601.68
11.3
601.66
-�
t.
i,
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS -15, Riffle
603
w 602 MMU
5 --------------
----------------------------------------
-
0
ti
W 601
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
600
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
602.07
1.7
601.89
2.6
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
602.07
1.7
601.89
2.6
601.76
3.3
601.23
4.2
601.23
5.3
601.14
6.2
601.27
6.7
601.06
7.1
600.89
7.8
600.89
8.4
601.06
9.3
601.44
10.0
601.68
11.3
601.66
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banki'ull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
602.24
2.1
602.14
Watershed:
602.05
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
601.71
UT 1, XS -16, Riffle
601.72
k Y'•
1
8.5
601.74
9.0
601.67
9.8
601.74
Feature
602.00
Riffle
602.23
12.5
602.32
fir"sem"
-
.�
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -16,
Riffle
603
d
5
0 602
-- _ • Bankfull
ti
_ _ _ • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
601
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
602.24
2.1
602.14
3.1
602.05
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
602.24
2.1
602.14
3.1
602.05
3.8
601.67
5.0
601.63
5.8
601.71
6.6
601.72
7.3
601.83
8.5
601.74
9.0
601.67
9.8
601.74
10.4
602.00
11.3
602.23
12.5
602.32
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
602.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.6
Bankfull Width:
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
602.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
26.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
603.75
2.2
603.67
Watershed:
603.64
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
602.80
UT 1, XS - 17, Riffle
602.71
8.0
602.69
Feature
602.84
Riffle
602.90
°+ice
603.18
12.2
603.41
13.6
603.41
1
7
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 17,
Riffle
605
604
ti
W 603
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
602
0 2
4 6
8
10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
603.75
2.2
603.67
3.4
603.64
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
603.75
2.2
603.67
3.4
603.64
4.7
603.21
5.4
602.96
6.2
602.80
7.0
602.71
8.0
602.69
8.9
602.84
9.9
602.90
11.1
603.18
12.2
603.41
13.6
603.41
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
603.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
8.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
604.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
605.9
:,.•
3.4
Watershed:
7.2
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
.`
ALI
Perkinson, Keith
Max Depth at Bankfull-
XS ID
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
UT 1, XS -18, Riffle
W / D Ratio:
15.2
y A
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Riffle
Station
Elevation
0.1
606.14
1.3
606.17
2.4
605.94
3.0
605.73
, a
4.0
605.40
4.7
605.24
5.1
605.26
6.2
605.24
7.0
605.38
8.2
605.42
-
9.6
605.94
10.9
606.38
Stream Type C/E
11.5
606.59
12.5
606.55
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
607
d
5
0 606
• Bankfull
ti
kV
- Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
605
0 2
4
6 8
10
12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
606.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull-
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
6.7
605.9
8.0
605.9
8.9
605.8
10.1
605.8
10.5
606.2
11.3
606.8
12.9
607.3
13.5
607.6
15.2
607.6
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
608
607
------------
-----------------------------
---------------
0
W606
---• Bwkfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
605
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
607.4
1.8
607.2
3.6
606.8
4.6
606.3
6.0
606.3
6.7
605.9
8.0
605.9
8.9
605.8
10.1
605.8
10.5
606.2
11.3
606.8
12.9
607.3
13.5
607.6
15.2
607.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.4
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
607.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Watershed:
8.5
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.7
UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Riffle
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.0
607.41
1.4
607.44
+
2.5
607.47
3.5
607.15
-+�
4.2
606.98
4.7
606.75
6.0
606.75
7.1
606.74
8.2
606.65
9.6
606.67
11.0
607.25
12.2
607.70
Stream Type C/E
13.3
607.88
Aycock
Springs, UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
609
w 608 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - °-------------------------------------
5
0
ti
---• Bankfull
W 607
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
606
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Watershed:
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Cape
Fear, 0303002
'.`
UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
7.
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
6.3
609.3
6.7
608.2
7.5
608.3
7.9
608.5
8.7
608.7
9.7
608.9
10.6
608.9
11.4
609.0
12.3
609.2
13.3
609.6
14.3
y
16.0
609.6
k r
Stream Type
GE
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
611
610
---------
-------------------------
0 609
ti
W
---- Bwkfull
608
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
607
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4
6
8 10
12 14 16 18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
610.2
2.2
610.1
4.0
609.8
5.0
609.7
5.7
609.3
6.3
609.3
6.7
608.2
7.5
608.3
7.9
608.5
8.7
608.7
9.7
608.9
10.6
608.9
11.4
609.0
12.3
609.2
13.3
609.6
14.3
609.6
16.0
609.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
609.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.9
Bankfull Width:
8.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
611.47
2.3
Watershed:
3.6
Cape Fear, 0303002
v.
10/18/2016
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
610.61
7.4
Feature
8.1
Riffle
9.3
611.19
10.7
611.37
11.4
611.50
12.1
611.49
R
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
613
w 612
5
0
___
ti
---.Bankfull
kV 61 1
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
610
0 2
4 6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
611.47
2.3
611.40
3.6
611.18
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
611.47
2.3
611.40
3.6
611.18
4.3
610.86
5.5
610.64
6.6
610.61
7.4
610.59
8.1
610.61
9.3
611.19
10.7
611.37
11.4
611.50
12.1
611.49
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
611.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
Bankfull Width:
7.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
612.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
612.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Watershed:
Bankfull Width:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
Feature
W / D Ratio:
Riffle
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
-0.5
613.06
1.4
613.02
2.9
612.59
3.9
612.15
5.2
611.89
6.2
611.90
6.9
611.87
7.7
611.87
8.5
611.84
9.1
612.19
9.9
612.49
10.8
612.48
Stream Type C/E
12.0
612.46
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
614
-----------------------------------------------------------
w 613
5
------------
----------------------------
---• Bankfull
kV 612
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
611
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
612.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
612.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
613.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
613.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Watershed:
Bankfull Width:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
10/18/2016
�-
XS ID
Max Depth at Bankfull:
UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
Riffle
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
-
0.0
613.42
�=
2.1
613.25
3.2
613.00
3.9
612.89
ti {
4.4
612.70
- ..�
5.0
612.51
5.5
612.50
6.9
612.50q
-•
7.4
612.53"
iw
8.6
612.80
9.3
612.96
10.1
613.17
Stream Type C/E
11.5
613.27
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
614
d
5----------
----------------------------
0 613
� � � • Bankfull
ti
kV
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
612
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
613.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
613.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
613.9
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
1.4
593.5
2.6
593.3
3.5
592.9
4.2
592.8
4.9
592.7'
5.4
592.9Depth4�
E
6.5
593.0
7.7
593.3{`
8.9
593.4x'Fp
_ +.
10.3
593.4
Stream Type GG
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
594
-----------------------------------
-----�`�--
0 593
ti
�l
---• Bankfull
-- — Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
592
MY-01 10/18/16
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.1
Bankfull Width:
6.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
iJT' 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Max at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
yf
Station
Elevation
h1047
0.0
594.03
=a
1.5
594.02
s`
2.4
594.05
3.3
593.97
3.8
593.74
4.8
593.83Depth
5.8
6.8
593.73Depth
593.76
�+
-_
7.8
593.89
yi
k1b
.
9.0
594.26
i _ -
ti
10.9
594.19
Stream Type C/F
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
595
w--------------------------------------------------
-----
5
594
------------------------
------------------
ti
W
- -- - Bankfiill
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
593
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
iJT' 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.1
Bankfull Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
_ Riffle
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
594.64
1.3
594.84
2.7
594.77
3.4
594.53
4.2
594.50
5.0
594.30
5.5
594.33
6.4
594.55
7.3
594.62
8.3
594.92
9.2
594.99
10.4
594.84
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.4
Bankfull Width:
5.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
17.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
596
594 +
0
k T- !4>'
s .. .
ai
9
�k na
Stream Type CB
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankfidl
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
M
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.3
UT
0.2
W / D Ratio:
36.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
f
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.40
2.0
595.40
3.1
595.24
3.7
595.13,,
..p
4.4
595.13
5.2
594.93
1,
5.8
595.07Depth=s
r
6.9
595.02
7.8
595.10
9.0
595.29
10.3
595.42
12.0
595.14
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 4,
Riffle
596
w
0 595
Bark
kV
Flood
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
594
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
0.9
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banki'ull:
0.3
Mean at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
36.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2, XS - 5, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.6
UT
0.4
W / D Ratio:
r,.
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation'?
+'
0.0
597.14
1.3
597.14
2.4
596.94
3.5
4.5
596.67
596.68
, , y
r r
5.5
596.68Depth
6.3
596.54Depth
7.4
596.67aA,
8.3
596.68
'?=
9.3
597.19
10.0
597.09
10.9
597.06
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
598
d
597
ti
W
- - _ • Bankfull
_ • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
596
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
21.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Watershed:
A cock Springs
Ca e Fear, 0303002
597.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
XS ID
Bankfull Width:
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
_ Riffle
0.2
W / D Ratio:
35.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
-0.1
597.96
1.2
597.95
2.4
597.86
2.9
597.64
3.8
597.66
4.9
597.59
5.6
597.61
6.6
597.64
7.4
597.59
8.4
597.70
9.6
597.89
11.3
597.85
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -
6, Riffle
599
d
5 ----------------------------------------------------------------
0 598
ti
� � � • Bankfull
W
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
597
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.4
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.4
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
35.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

T.c
y
4 rm}
1�
Stream Type C/F
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
E
0 598
ti
�l • Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
597 MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.1
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
T.c
y
4 rm}
1�
Stream Type C/F
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
E
0 598
ti
�l • Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
597 MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.1
598.4
1.2
598.4
2.3
598.1
3.2
597.9
4.3
597.5
5.0
597.4
6.1
597.5
6.8
597.5
7.8
597.7
8.8
597.9
10.1
598.1
11.4
598.2
12.7
598.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.1
Bankfull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
601.3
Watershed:
Date:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
ya
s
Station
Elevation
+
' ,
0.0
601.25
0.8
601.29
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.1
1.9
601.29
Bankfull Width:
8.3
2.7
601.05
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
3.5
600.81
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
r^,
4.4
600.92
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
51}?
5.2
600.95
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
}1 ...
5.9
600.80
W / D Ratio:
22.2
7.3
600.84
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.8
-`r•�'I
8.1
600.86
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
r .�..
PTA
9.0
600.79
10.0
601.17
C/E
10.6
601.42
11.7
601.31
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
602
----------------------------------------------------------
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
------
E
0 601
---- Bankfull
ti
W
- - - Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
600
0 2
4
6 8
10
12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.3
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.3

Site
Aycock Springs
604.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.7
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
0.5
i
g
Feature
11.4
Riffle
1.0
,f
✓
Station
Elevation
-0.2
1.6
604.64
604.82
t
at2.3
604.54
�.
3.3
604.23
4.5
604.07
5.7
604.10
7.3
604.26
8.2
604.47
9.0
604.66
"
Stream Type_MMLC/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
606
-----------------------------------------------------------
w 605
0
---- Bankf.11
W 604
Flood Prone Mea
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
603
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
10.1 604.94
Bankfull Elevation:
604.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
10.1 604.94
Bankfull Elevation:
604.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Banki'ull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Watershed:
Feature
Cape
Date:
10/18/2016
�.
Parkinson, Keith
5.6
604.7
6.4
604.8
6.9
604.6
7.4
604.6
7.8
604.7
8.6
605.2
9.4
605.4
10.4
605.8
11.5
606.1
`;:. .
Mo4
r ` }
s
s� max;.
i.
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
607
606
m
------------------
-------
7777���
605
l
---• Bankfull
- - - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
604
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Parkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.6
1.8
605.5
3.0
605.3
4.1
605.0
4.7
604.7
5.6
604.7
6.4
604.8
6.9
604.6
7.4
604.6
7.8
604.7
8.6
605.2
9.4
605.4
10.4
605.8
11.5
606.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Bankfull Width:
7.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -11, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Parkinson, Keith
4.3
605.4
5.2
605.4
5.8
605.4
6.8
605.6
7.6
605.7
8.6
605.9
9.5
606.2
10.7
606.4
i,
-
s.
- >.»
-��
k. -1111111116,1_1 Axa
Stream Type GG
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 11, Pool
607
E
0606 -----------
------------------------------
-------
ti
�l
• Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
605
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -11, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Parkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
606.2
1.3
606.3
2.5
606.1
3.1
605.9
3.7
605.7
4.3
605.4
5.2
605.4
5.8
605.4
6.8
605.6
7.6
605.7
8.6
605.9
9.5
606.2
10.7
606.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.7
Bankfull Width:
6.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
608.23
2.5
608.24
3.4
607.86
4.3
607.89
5.1
607.72
6.2
607.57
7.2
607.65
8.3
607.48
9.5
607.71
10.6
607.84
12.5
608.02
Bankfull
kV
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
607
0
2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type C/E
Bankfull Elevation:
608.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.5
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
36.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
1
41
hj _0 f 1
,w
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -12, Riffle
609
w
-----------------------------------------------------------
d
5
77�
0 608
Bankfull
kV
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
607
0
2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)

Site
A cock Springs
608.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.3
UT 2, XS -13, Riffle
0.2
W / D Ratio:
est _
Feature
11.8
_ Riffle
1.0
Station
Elevation
-0.1
608.92
1.9
608.92
2.7
608.80
rte,• -
r .
3.6
608.62
4.7
608.61
5.6
608.62
`.
6.4
608.63
a,, _-r.,
7.4
608.68
`te ,
8.9
608.71
10.1
609.10"
11.1
609.25
12.6
609.21
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -13, Riffle
610
d
0 609
-------------------------------
----
---- BanklIall
ti
W
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
608
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
608.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
7.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
609.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
34.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Watershed:
Bankfull Width:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
10/18/2016
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
0.6
l:
Mean Depth at Bankfu101e
Feature
W / D Ratio:
Riffle
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.00
1.4
597.55
2.7
597.20
3.7
596.85
4.5
596.72
5.6
596.52
6.7
596.55
7.9
596.46
;
8.9
596.24
10.3
596.49
11.0
597.18
12.4
597.53
C/E
13.7
597.82
14.6
598.12
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
599
w 598
5
----------
ti
W 597
• Flood Prone Area.
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
596
0 2
4 6 8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
l:
Mean Depth at Bankfu101e
0.3
W / D Ratio:
20.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
A cock Springs
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Watershed:
5.2
Cape Fear, 0303002
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.5
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
0.3
d
16.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
_ Riffle
1.0
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.59
1.5
597.50
3.0
597.38
4.3
596.98
6.0
596.55
7.2
596.37
9.1
596.62
9.9
596.91
10.9
597.44
12.4
597.96
13.3
598.31
14.7
598.77
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
599
w 598
5
-------
----------------------------
--------------
ti
W 597
------------------
�������������������
----------------Bankfall
-- - Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
596
0 2
4 6
8
10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.4
Flood Prone Width:
8.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
16.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
Watershed:
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Cape
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
j
4.1
595.9
4.9
595.9
5.7
595.8
6.7
596.0
7.3
596.5
8.2
597.2
9.6
597.8
10.8
598.2
12.1
598.5
t _
a
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
599
598
0 597
-�-----_ -------------------
-____________________-
ti
Bankfull
596
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
595
MY -01 10118/16
0 2
4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
596.7
1.1
596.9
1.8
596.8
2.5
596.6
3.3
596.1
4.1
595.9
4.9
595.9
5.7
595.8
6.7
596.0
7.3
596.5
8.2
597.2
9.6
597.8
10.8
598.2
12.1
598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
5.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
9.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.7
Bank Height Ratio:
XS ID
UT
�
F•
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.06
1.4
597.08
a�
2.4
596.80
2.8
596.84y.
4.0
596.73
5.0
596.73
5.8
596.74
6.6
596.67
7.2
596.71
8.2
597.12
10.5
597.36
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
599
w 598
---
5
0
�
- -- • BankCull
kV 597
--� • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
596
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
5.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.0
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
9.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
A cock Springs
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.1
-
Watershed:
Date:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
XS ID
0.2
iTi' 3, XS - 5, Riffle
28.5
's 'y. k•.f
b ,
Bank Height Ratio:
Feature
_ Riffle
Station
Elevation
i=
{
0.1
597.26
s;
1.0
597.29
°
1.7
597.08
2.8
596.88
3.6
597.06
5.3
596.71
6.4
596.78
7.0
596.93
SFr
8.4
597.56
,7. E , ,; :1
8.8
597.57
j r L.;, s:x
9.7
597.70
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS
- 5, Riffle
598
d
597 -777--��--�
ti
W
_ _ - • Bankfull
_ • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
596
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.1
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.1
Bankfull Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.12
1.1
600.09
2.4
599.92
3.6
599.69
4.9
599.35
5.8
599.10
6.6
599.20
8.0
599.23
9.2
599.20
10.3
599.22
11.5
599.20
12.3
599.18
13.3
599.61
14.1
599.97
15.1
600.07
16.5
600.05
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.1
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
26.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
601
w 600
d
5
0
ti
W 599
598 +
0
d..
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
2 4 6 8 10
Station (feet)
Bankfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
12 14 16 18

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.5
599.4
6.5
599.2
6.9
599.2
7.9
599.1
9.0
598.9
9.9
598.9
10.8
599.1
11.6
599.3
12.3
599.9
13.3
600.0
15.4
599.9
+'
shy::
f
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
601
600
---------------------------------------
----------
0
W599
Baokfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
598
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.1
1.6
600.1
3.0
599.9
3.9
599.6
4.8
599.6
5.5
599.4
6.5
599.2
6.9
599.2
7.9
599.1
9.0
598.9
9.9
598.9
10.8
599.1
11.6
599.3
12.3
599.9
13.3
600.0
15.4
599.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.4
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
10/18/2016
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
:.
Feature
Riffle
Station
Elevation
SUMMARY DATA
0.1
599.76
Bankfull Elevation:
599.8
2.2
600.03
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
3.5
599.99
Bankfull Width:
8.7
4.6
599.75
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.3
5.1
599.50
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
6.2
599.35
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
7.8
599.43
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
9.3
599.34
W / D Ratio:
`+
22.3
10.8
599.32
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
11.8
599.47
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
12.6
599.75
13.3
600.01
C/E
14.8
599.95
16.5
600.23
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
w ---------------------------------------------------------------
5
0 600
-----------
-----------------------------
-------------
W
Bankfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
599
0 2 4
6 8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith

Station Elevation �*
0.0 600.2" `� tw
2.4 600.4`"
3.8 600.3
4.6 600.1 q{ =
5.5 599.6 °
6.4 599.3
7.1 599.3°
8.4 599.2
9.3 599.2
10.3 599.7,_
11.5 599.9
13.0 600.1 Stream Type C/E
14.8 600.2
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
601
-----------------------
600
0
W599 Baokfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
598 MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station Elevation �*
0.0 600.2" `� tw
2.4 600.4`"
3.8 600.3
4.6 600.1 q{ =
5.5 599.6 °
6.4 599.3
7.1 599.3°
8.4 599.2
9.3 599.2
10.3 599.7,_
11.5 599.9
13.0 600.1 Stream Type C/E
14.8 600.2
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
601
-----------------------
600
0
W599 Baokfall
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
598 MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.2
Bankfull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
600.28
1.1
600.15
Watershed:
600.25
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
599.58
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
599.44
6.5
i
Feature
599.38
Riffle
599.51
10.7
599.79
11.6
600.11
12.8
600.24
14.4
600.22
JNf
9.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
601
__________________.--_________________________________________
d
�-
- - - - - - - - - - -
0 600
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100-
- - - - - - - - - -
ti--7-7
W
- -- • Bankfall
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
599
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
600.28
1.1
600.15
2.2
600.25
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
600.28
1.1
600.15
2.2
600.25
3.1
600.10
4.0
599.86
4.8
599.58
5.0
599.44
6.5
599.46
8.0
599.38
9.9
599.51
10.7
599.79
11.6
600.11
12.8
600.24
14.4
600.22
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.1
Bankfull Width:
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.8
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
600.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
0.5
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
0.4
W / D Ratio:
24.0
Feature
5.6
Riffle
1.0
w
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.53
+
1.3
600.69
2.9
600.57'4'
4.1
4.8
600.38
600.04
_
fi
5.4
600.03
-
6.9
599.92
rse
8.3
599.89
r "■
10.3
599.98
j
11.1
599.96
12.1
600.05
13.4
600.54
Stream Type
C/E
15.2
600.58
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS -
6, Riffle
601
--------------------------------------------
d
--------
0 600
- - - • Bankfull
ti
W
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
599
0 2 4
6 8 10
12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.9
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
24.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
A cock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
_ Riffle
Date:
_ 10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
16.2
600.80
13.0
600.43
12.0
600.21
10.6
600.15
9.3
600.16
8.0
600.09
6.2
600.26
5.5
600.10
4.6
600.59
2.9
600.95
-0.3
600.92
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
11.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.3
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
27.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
602
w 601
d
5
0
ti
W 600
599
Stream Type IC/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
-------------- ------------------------------------
---- Baaf.11
----Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4, XS - 8, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape Fear, 0303002
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
UT
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.18
0.1
601.15
...:.. <.-._
1.3
601.12
Bankfull Width:
11.1
3.7
600.82
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
4.3
600.53
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
5.0
600.47
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
6.6
600.46
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
7.5
600.38
W / D Ratio:
25.1
9.2
600.43
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.5
9.9
600.68
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
-
10.6
600.77
11.9
601.03
Stream Type C/F
12.8
601.23
14.2
601.19
Aycock
Springs, UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
602
-------------------------------------------------------------
d
------------------------------------------
- - - - - - -
0 601
---- Bankfall
W
- - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
600
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/18/2016
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9

10
10 Pebble Count,
Aycock Springs
Cape Fear
Note: UT -1 - Reach -wide
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --41-- Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item Riffle —.9-- Pool —x— Run +Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

10
10 Pebble Count,
Aycock Springs
Cape Fear
Note: UT -2 - Reach -wide
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --41-- Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item Riffle —.9-- Pool —x— Run +Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

10
10 Pebble Count,
Aycock Springs
Cape Fear
Note: UT -3 - Reach -wide
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) -41— Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item Riffle —.8-- Pool —x— Run +Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

10
10 Pebble Count,
Aycock Springs
Cape Fear
Note: i UT -4 - Reach -wide
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --41-- Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item Riffle —.9-- Pool —x— Run +Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

10
10 Pebble Count,
Aycock Springs
Cape Fear
Note: i Travis Cr - Reach -wide
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --41-- Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item Riffle —.8-- Pool —x— Run +Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

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

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

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

Table 10D. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 4
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
4.8 11.7 8.3
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
8.7
10
9.4
8
10.9
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
unavailable for this
8 70 39
15
25
18
150
150
150
70
200
150
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
project
6.3
8
5.9
6.3
3.5
5.6
4.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5 1.3 0.8
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.9 2 1.5
1.1
1.4
1.4
1
2.3
1.7
0.8
1.1
1
0.6
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7 23.4 12.4
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
16
22
19
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2 11.5 4.9
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
7.5
21.3
16
5
6
6
Bank Height Ratio
1.2 2.4 1.8
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
28
56
38
28
56
38
Radius of Curvature (ft)
and pools due to
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
17
38
28
17
38
28
Meander Wavelength (ft)
straightening activties
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
56
113
80
56
113
80
Meander Width ratio
2.4
E4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
=__
___
__=
12
35
16
Riffle slope ft/ft)
and pools due to
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
1.12%
2.60%
1.67%
0.61%
2.42%
1.28%
Pool length (ft)
straightening activties
=__
___
===
14
42
22
Poolspacing ft
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
28
75
38
28
75
38
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84(mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2
1.22
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.93%
2.58%
0.50%
0.93%
0.66%
BF slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Eg
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 10E. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs Travis Creek
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
30 51.7 41.4
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
25.7
29.6
27.7
25.2
30.3
26.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
unavailable for this
68 160 122
15
25
18
150
150
150
200
300
250
150
BF Cross Sectional Area 112
project
54.9
8
5.9
54.9
41.3
73.9
51.2
BF Mean Depth ft
1.1 1.8 1.4
0.8
1
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.1
1.9
2.1
2
1.6
2.4
2
BF Max Depth ft
3.3 1 4.1 3.7
1.1
1 1.4
1.4
1
2.3 1
1.7
2.7
3
2.8
2.3
3.4
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.7 47 32.1
8
15.1
10.1
4
4.3
4.2
12
16
14
12
16
13
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6 5.3 3.2
1.9
2.2
2.1
24.6
50
37.3
7.2
10.8
9
5
6
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1 1.1 1
1
1.8
1
1
1.5
1.3
1
1.2
1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
20
38
22.8
15.1
29.2
24.3
83
166
111
83
166
111
Radius of Curvature ft
and pools due to
11
27
16.5
8.9
19.4
13.2
55
111
83
55
111
83
Meander Wavelength (ft)
straightening activties
44
116
68.4
31
74
47.8
166
332
236
166
332
236
Meander Width ratio
2.4E
4.7
2.8
2.1
4
3.4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles
=__
___
__=
16
87
54
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
and pools due to
1.00%
5.76%
3.16%
0.00%
1.54%
0.83%
0.28%
0.64%
0.41%
0.00%
0.70%
0.19%
Pool length (ft)
straightening activties
=__
___
===
27
70
43
Pool spacing (ft)
25
69
37.2
14
39.6
32.4
83
222
111
83
222
111
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional
Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
1.05
1.2
1.22
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
NA
2.58%
0.50%
0.23%
0.10%
BF slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Fc
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 11A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (Downstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 2 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 3 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 4 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 11 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 5 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 6 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BE Width (ft)
29
29.6
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BE Width (ft)
25.9
27.7
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BE Width (ft)
26
26.7
25.2
26.2
33.7
33.2
25.5
27
26
26.7
27.3
27.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
----
----
150
150
----
----
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
41.3
40
47.5
47.4
58.7
55.8
47.2
44.6
61.4
58.1
54.9
50.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.7
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
BE Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.5
3.7
3.5
2.5
2.6
4
3.7
3
2.9
Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.8
13.4
14.5
----
----
13.8
16.3
----
----
13.6
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
5.6
6.0
5.7
----
----
5.9
5.6
----
----
5.5
5.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
1.0
1.0
----
----
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.1
27.4
26.4
27.5
34.8
34.4
26.6
28
27.6
28.2
28.7
29.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.6
2.2
1 2.1
1.9
1.7
Substrate
#
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
I ----
----
----
----
---- I I I
I ----
----
----
Parameter
XS 7 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 8 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 9 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 10 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 11 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BE Width (ft)
29
29.6
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BE Width (ft)
25.9
27.7
28.1
28.5
29.3
29.1
38.6
38.6
30.3 29.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
150
150
----
----
----
----
150 150
BE Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
60
45.8
64.6
57.4
65.9
63.1
100
91
73.9 66.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.4 2.2
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.9
2.8
3.3
3.1
3.7
3.4
4.3
4.2
3.4 1 3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
12.2
14.2
----
----
----
----
12.4 13.3
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
5.3
5.3
----
----
----
----
5.0 5.0
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
1
1
----
----
----
----
1 1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.5
29.1
29.5
29.7
30.6
30.3
40.2
40
31.8 31.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.2
1.6
2.2
1.9
2.2
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.3 2.1
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
---
----
----
---
Table 11B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (UDstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 12 Riffle (Travis Up)
XS 13 Pool (Travis Up)
XS 14 Riffle (Travis Up)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BE Width (ft)
29
29.6
26.9
26.9
32.8
32.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
150
150
BE Cross Sectional Area (112)
68.7
66.4
64.0
50.3
104.5
92.4
BE Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.9
3.2
2.9
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.5
3.9
3.3
4.8
4.1
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
10.3
11.3
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
4.6
4.6
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.4
30.8
28.8
28.1
35.0
34.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.8
3.0
2.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----

Table 11C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT -1 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 3 Pool (UT 1)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
9.3
9.2
8.8
9.3
8.4
8.4
9.3
9.7
9.6
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
----
----
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
4.7
4.6
3.7
6.7
5.6
6.2
5.5
6.6
5.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.7 1
0.7
0.6 1
0.7
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.2
1
0.9
1.1
1.1
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
18.0
16.8
23.4
----
----
14.0
17.1
14.0
15.3
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
10.2
9.7
9.7
9.3
9.4
9.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
9.4
9
9.4
8.9
8.9
9.7
10
10
10
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
---
Parameter
XS 11 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 1)
iii
'
I Pool
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
7.4
7
8
7.4
8.6
8
6.4
6.3
7.1
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
----
----
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.5
3.7
2.8
6.5
4.3
3.1
2.8
4
3.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.3
19.6
----
----
13.2
14.2
12.6
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.3
12.2
14.1
14.3
12.7
12.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.5
7.6
9.2
8.5
6.86.5
7.4
7.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
---
84 (mm)
---
----
---
Parameter
XS 11 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 13 Pool (UT 1)
XS 14 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 15 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
7.4
7
8
7.4
8.6
8
6.4
6.3
7.1
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
----
----
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.5
3.7
2.8
6.5
4.3
3.1
2.8
4
3.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.3
19.6
----
----
13.2
14.2
12.6
15.7
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.3
12.2
14.1
14.3
12.7
12.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.5
7.6
9.2
8.5
6.86.5
7.4
7.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
---
84 (mm)
---
----
---

Table 11C continued. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT -1 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 16 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 17 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 18 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 19 Pool (UT 1)
XS 20 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
9
8.3
8.5
8.1
7.1
7.2
7.6
7.7
9.1
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.6
2.6
3.9
3.6
3.5
3.4
6.5
5.4
5.3
4.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7 1
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.3
1
0.9
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
26.5
18.5
18.2
14.4
15.2
----
----
15.6
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio
10.0
10.8
10.6
11.1
12.7
12.5
----
----
9.9
10.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.4
8.7
8.3
7.4
7.4
8.2
8.3
9.4
8.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
Substrate
----
----
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 21 Pool (UT 1)
XS 22 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 23 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 24 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.3
8.2
7.2
7.5
7.6
6.8
8
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
9.3
5.9
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.2
4
3.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
14.4
16.5
18.1
14.5
16.0
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
12.5
12.0
11.8
13.2
11.3
11.7
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.5
9.2
7.5
7.8
9.3
7.0
9.3
7.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
Ej I
----
-----
----
----

Table 11D. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT -2 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
RifflePER
XS I PooPool
i Pool
Poo
MR.
XS 8
i Pool
Poo

Table 11 E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT -3 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table 11F. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT -4 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
XS 6 Riffle (UT 4)
Poo
Poo
Poo
Riffle
Dimension
MY 0
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
9.9
11.7
10.9
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
5.6
4.9
5.6
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
17.5
27.9
21.2
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.1
4.3
4.6
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
UVPMDNMEM
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4
9.0
10.2
11.9
11.1
11.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm) I
- -
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
Table 11F. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT -4 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 4)
Poo
XS 8 Riffle (UT 4)
Poo
Riffle
Dimension
MY 0
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
9.9
11.7
10.9
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
5.6
4.9
5.6
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
17.5
27.9
21.2
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.1
4.3
4.6
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
UVPMDNMEM
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4
9.0
10.2
11.9
11.1
11.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm) I
- -
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 7 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 8 Riffle (UT 4)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
9.9
11.7
10.9
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
5.6
4.9
5.6
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
17.5
27.9
21.2
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.1
4.3
4.6
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4
9.0
10.2
11.9
11.1
11.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm) I
- -
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----

/_\9»1No7►:e►
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Groundwater Hydrology Data
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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

12
10
8
Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT -3
Year 1 (2016 Data)
2
0
-2
N N N N W W W W -P, 4� -P, P. In In Ul Ui m m m J J J J Oo 00 Oo Oo t0 ID l0 ID
UUl N N N v N N W W N N N N N N W N N N N N N \ \ \ \
Um W N \ Ol \ O W Ql \ H+ l0 J \ N O W Ol N N W
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ql Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ql Ol Ql Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol I--� N N
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
3
2.5 E
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo
Collection
(if available)
Wrack, laid-back vegetation, sediment, and standing
May 5, 2016
May 3, 2016
water observed in the floodplain after 1.55 inches of rain
1
documented* on May 3, 2016 at a nearby rain gauge.
2.05 inches of rain was recorded on September 28, 2016
October 13, 2016
September 28, 2016
at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on top of bank
October 13, 2016
October 8, 2016
after 3.05 inches of rain was recorded on October 8,
2
2016 at an onsite rain gauge.
*The onsite rain gauge was installed on May 18, 2016, therefore rain data from a nearby Site (Abbey Lamm Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Site) was used to confirm this bankfull event.
Bankfull Photo 1: Wrack, laid-back vegetation,
and sediment in the floodplain of Travis Creek
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
> 4
v
J -6
v
-8
v 10
c
'o -12
0 -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 1 (2016 Data)
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 c
W W A A A A In In U, U, m m m m V J V V W M W W M lD to lD lD
N N U1N N W N F-` N W V I--� N N 0N N N N l\D N N W mN N N \ \ \ \ \
N l0 \ N lO m \ O V A N \ A N 00 \ N lD M \ \ M W O \ W O V A N F-` NOo Ln
N
0) m F-, m Ol m m m m Ol a) a) 0) Ol Q1 a) a) Ol m m m m \ \ \ m
Ol Ql Ol Ql Ol Ol Ql 61 Ol O1 O7 Ol Ol Ol Ql O7 Ql 01 Ql 01 Ql Ol m m F-) Ql
Dl 61 T
Date
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
-4
°—' -6
-8
m
3 -10
v
3 -12
° -14
l7
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2016 Data)
W W A A A A In to lJ1 In lJ1 Q� Q� Oi J V V V 00 00 00 00 00 lD lD lD lD 0 N 0 0
N N 0 F-� N N W N F\ N W V N N N 0 F-� N N N ID N NW m F-� N N -- -- -- �
N lD \ N tD m \ O V A N \ A N W \ N lD m \ \ m W O \ W O V A F. F� N N
\ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ F-+ 00 In \
N N Ol N N N Ol N N m m Ol N N a) O7 m F-) a) Ol Ol F, N a) Q7 N m N N \ \ \ m
Ql Ol Ol Ol 01 Ol Ol Ql Ol C)Ma) Ol Ql 61 Ol a)Ma) 01 Ol Ol O7 Ql N I--� F-` Ol
Ql 61 61
Date
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
0
0
1.0
0.5
0.0
E
Q

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
-4
-6
r 8
m
-3a -10
§ -12
° -14
C7
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2016 Data)
W W A A A A In In In In In O1 01 01 01 V V V V 00 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0 0 0 0 0
N N 1\J1 N N N W F\ F\-` N W V F\ N N 0 N N N N lO N NW Om F -N N � � � � �
N l0 N l0 61 O V A N A N 00 N l0 Ql Ol W O W O V A N F-� N N
m m m m m m m dl m m a) Ol M m M M m m m m \ \ \ m
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ql Q1 Ql Ol Q1 Ol Q1 Ql Ol Ol Ql Q1 61 Ol Ql Ql m F-` M Ol
Ol 01 Ol
Date
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
0
a
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 14. Groundwater Hydrology Data
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5, 2016; therefore, the growing season for Year
1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17. It is expected that all gauges would meet success criteria at the beginning
of the growing season.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina
Success Criteria
Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
I
Yes/55 days
(29.1 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
(24.3 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
(23.3 percent)
*Due to Site construction activities, groundwater gauges were not installed until May 5, 2016; therefore, the growing season for Year
1 (2016) is based on the soil survey start date of April 17. It is expected that all gauges would meet success criteria at the beginning
of the growing season.
2016 Year I Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina