20140335 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20180102

YEAR 2 (2017) 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 2017
PREPARED FOR:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
January 2018

YEAR 2 (2017) 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 2017
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
January 2018

Table of Contents
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................1
2.0
PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................
2
3.0
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................................
7
3.1
Streams..........................................................................................................................................7
3.2
Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................8
3.3
Wetland Hydrology.......................................................................................................................
9
3.4
Biotic Community Change............................................................................................................
9
4.0
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN........................................................................................................10
4.1
Stream.........................................................................................................................................10
4.2
Vegetation...................................................................................................................................10
5.0
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................10
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Site Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table lOa-b. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Table l la -11e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a -12f. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 13. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graph
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
APPENDIX F. BENTHIC DATA
Results
Habitat Assessment Data Sheets
APPENDIX G. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
APPENDIX F. INVASIVE SPECIES TREATMENT LOGS
2017 Year 2 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Monitoring Year 2 (2017), of the Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site), showed a
continued trend towards long-term stability and success of the project. In October of 2017, the NC IRT
released Yr. 1 monitoring credits as proposed without condition.
Year 2 (2017) stem count measurements were performed on July 25, 2017, and showed a Site average of
379 planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) and 494 stems per acre when including natural recruits
but excluding livestakes. Twelve of the fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on
planted stems alone. When including naturally recruited stems of box elder (Acer negundo) and elm (Ulmus
sp.), plot 13 was above success criteria.
Five additional temporary 50 -meter by 2 -meter or 25 -meter by 4 -meter vegetation survey transects were
established in 2017 in areas of replanting. Stem counts were performed in April and again in October, with
October results reporting an average density of 477 stems per acre. Bare root planting conducted after
construction continues to struggle in areas where remedial planting occurred. However, monitoring efforts,
do indicate the remedial planting has been successful. RS is not proposing additional replanting or remedial
action for vegetation at this time but will continue to use random linear vegetation plots to help assist in
vegetation monitoring efforts.
Axiom Environmental performed Year 2 (2017) stream measurements on April 191 and 20th. As a whole,
monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in the cross-sections as compared to Yr. 1 (2016) data.
The channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions as outlined in the detailed
mitigation plan and as constructed.
Immediately after construction and before ground cover established, multiple heavy rain events (2+ inches)
caused some sedimentation in the streambed. This aggradation can be seen in several of the UT -1 and UT -
2 cross-sections and noted during the 2016 monitoring year review. Both visual and physical monitoring of
the reaches did not indicate further issues, sediment transport appears to have naturalized, and adjacent
riparian areas have stabilized.
The above-mentioned rain events were also responsible for moderate bed erosion of two rifles,
approximately 30 feet in length near UT -1 cross-section 9. Streambed erosion was noted shortly after as -
built measurements were taken. RS created and implemented a remedial action plan during late winter of
2016/2017 (see Section 3.0). These repairs appeared stable during Year 2 (2017) monitoring and will
continue to be monitored during subsequent monitoring years as will sediment transport within the UT -1
and UT -2.
All in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed and no stream areas of concern were
identified during Year 2 (2017) monitoring. As part of the stream morphology analysis (Table 12a -f,
Appendix D), bank height ratios were calculated for each cross-section. This value shows the extent of
aggradation and/or down -cutting in the streambed. Several cross-sections exhibited small variation in bank
height ratio during Year 2 (2017). Results are summarized and discussed in Section 3.0 of this report and
further detailed on the specific cross-section details located in Appendix D.
During the fall/winter, monthly visual monitoring efforts revealed the establishment of a beaver dam within
the Enhancement -II reach of Travis Creek, between the outfalls of UT -3 and 4. RS is working with the
landowner on trapping resident beaver over the winter of 2017/2018 and will physically remove the dam
just before the 2018 growing season. No issues with cattle intrusion or fence failure were observed during
Yr. 2 monitoring efforts.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page I
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

2.0 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 ecological/biological integrity
• Immediately south and abutting the Site is a property identified in the Little Alamance, Travis, &
Tickle Creek Watersheds Restoration Plan (PTCOG 2008) as a target property for wetland
restoration and streambank enhancement/conservation
• Immediately west of the Site is a large tract associated with Guilford County open space
Based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities 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
6) Meet requirements of outside funding sources for implementation of projects
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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 Goal/Objective
How Goal/Objective will be Accomplished
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Planting a woody riparian buffer
Restore Stream Stability
Providing proper channel width and depth, stabilizing channel banks,
providing gravel/cobble substrate, planting a woody riparian buffer, and
removing cattle
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
Dominated Streams
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Building a new channel at the historic floodplain elevation restoring
overbank flows, removing cattle, scarifying compacted soils, and
planting woody vegetation
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Raising the stream bed elevation and rip compacted soils
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Increase Thermoregulation
Planting a native, woody riparian buffer
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Removing cattle and other agricultural inputs
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, planting with
woody vegetation, removing cattle, increasing surface storage and
retention, and restoring appropriate inundation/duration
Increase Energy Dissipation of
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Raising the stream bed elevation, restoring overbank flows, and planting
with woody vegetation
Restore Habitat
Restore In -stream Habitat
Building a stable channel with a cobble/gravel bed and planting a woody
riparian buffer
Restore 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.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
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.
Project Goal/Objective Stream Success Criteria
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Stream
Stream Mitigation Type
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
Ratio Mitigation
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -built
Restore Stream Stability
Units
Restoration
3147
90
1:1 3237
Restoration (see Notes below)**
stable E- and C- type stream channels.
122
1:5:1 81.3
Enhancement (Level II)
657
--
2.5:1 262.8
TOTAL
3804
212
3581.1
Wetland Mitigation Type
Acreage
Ratio
Riparian Wetland
existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration conditions of
Gravel/Cobble Dominated Streams
gravel and cobble.
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.
Project Goal/Objective Stream Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Floodplain Access
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years will be documented
during the monitoring period.
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Cross-sections, monitored annually, will be compared to as -built
Restore Stream Stability
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
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
monitoring period and documentation of an elevated groundwater table
(within 12 inches of the soil surface) for greater than 10 percent of the
owin season during average climatic conditions.
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from pre-
UTs from Sand/Silt Dominated to
existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration conditions of
Gravel/Cobble Dominated Streams
gravel and cobble.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 4
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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.
Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections 2.3 and
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
2.2
Increase Thermoregulation
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2).
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in separate
Pathogens, Particulates (Sediments),
Dissolved Materials (Nutrients), and Toxins
monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section
from the Water Column
2.2)
Increase Energy Dissipation of
Documentation of two overbank events in separate monitoring years
Overbank/Overland Flows/Stormwater
and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Runoff
Restore Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from pre -
Restore In -stream Habitat
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
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Structure
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.
Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Wetland Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page S
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
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 Burst
Monitoring Period Used
10 Percent of
Documented
for Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2016 (Year 1)
__
April 17* -October 22
19 days
(198 days)
Bud burst on red maple (Acer
February 28 -October 22
2017 (Year 2)
rubrum) and soil temperature of 58-F
(237 days)
23 days
documented on February 28, 2017
2018 (Year 3)
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)
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from NCDMS upon
request.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 6
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

3.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) April
2003 guidance (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.
3.1 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 2 (2017) Stream measurements were performed April 19-20. As a whole, monitoring measurements
indicate minimal changes in the cross-sections as compared to as -built and Year 1 data. The channel
geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions as set forth in the detailed mitigation plan and
as constructed.
Immediately after construction and before ground cover established, multiple heavy rain events (2+ inches)
caused some sedimentation in the streambed. This aggradation can be seen in several of the UT -1 and UT -
2 cross-sections and noted during the 2016 monitoring year review. Both visual and physical monitoring of
the reaches did not indicate further issues, sediment transport appears to have naturalized, and adjacent
riparian areas have stabilized.
The above-mentioned rain events were also responsible for moderate bed erosion of two rifles,
approximately 30 feet in length near UT -1 cross-section 9. Streambed erosion was noted shortly after as -
built measurements were taken. RS created and implemented a remedial action plan during late winter of
2016/2017 (see Section 3.0). These repairs appeared stable during Year 2 (2017) monitoring and will
continue to be monitored during subsequent monitoring years as will sediment transport within the UT -1
and UT -2.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

As part of the stream morphology analysis (Table 12a -f, Appendix D), bank height ratios were calculated
for each cross-section. This value shows the extent of aggradation and/or down -cutting in the streambed.
Several cross-sections exhibited small variation in bank height ratio during Year 2 (2017). These are
summarized and discussed in the table below:
XS #
Reach
BHR
Notes
2
Travis Cr
1.04
4
Travis Cr
1.04
5
Travis Cr
Sediment deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to
instability.
7
Travis Cr
Sediment deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to
instability.
11
Travis Cr
1.06
12
Travis Cr
1.03
13
Travis Cr
Sediment deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to
instability.
8 and 9
UT 1
Cross sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material
repair. Additional bed material was added by hand in this reach.
13
UT 1
Point bar development appears stable after years 1 and 2 monitoring.
Sediment transport appears to be natural and has stabilized during years 1
16
UT 1
and 2 monitoring. No problems appears to be occurring in this reach.
No problems have been noted in this reach. Elevated BHR results from
17
UT 1
1.14
shallow channel depth.
No problems have been noted in this reach. Elevated BHR results from
18
UT 1
1.33
shallow channel depth.
19
UT 3
Point bar development appears stable after years 1 and 2 monitoring.
21
UT 4
Point bar development appears stable after years 1 and 2 monitoring.
23
UT 5
1.17
No problems have been noted in this reach. Elevated BHR results from
shallow channel depth.
Across the site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No stream areas of concern
were identified during Year 2 (2017) monitoring. Tables for annual quantitative assessments are included
in Appendix D.
3.2 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. For quantitative vegetation sampling, 14
sample plots (10 -meter by 10 -meter) were installed within the Site 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 2 (2017) stem count measurements were performed on July 25, 2017 and indicate an average of 379
planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site; therefore, the Site is meeting vegetation
success criteria. Twelve of the fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted
stems alone. When including naturally recruited stems of box elder (Acer negundo) and elm (Ulmus sp.),
plot 13 was above success criteria. Year 2 (2017) vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Year 1 (2016) vegetation data showed clearly that bare root planting did not take well and success criteria
were not being met. In a proactive approach, RS worked with Carolina Silvics, on developing a remedial
action plan in the late fall of 2016. During the week of December 20th, 2016, RS implemented that plan by
planting 1,030 containerized trees, consisting of 755 1 -gallon pots and 275 3 -gallon pots. Specific species
planted included the following: Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occiendentalis, Quercus
falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra. The remedial planting
plan report detailing location of planting and density is provided in Appendix G.
Five additional temporary 50 -meter by 2 -meter or 25 -meter by 4 -meter vegetation survey transects were
established in 2017 in areas of replanting. Stem counts were performed in April and again in October, with
October results reporting an average density of 477 stems per acre. Bare root planting conducted after
construction continues to struggle in areas where remedial planting occurred. However, monitoring efforts,
do indicate the remedial planting has been successful. RS is not proposing additional replanting or remedial
action for vegetation at this time but will continue to use random linear vegetation plots to help assist in
vegetation monitoring efforts.
3.3 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). 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). 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 2 (2017) (Appendix E).
3.4 Biotic Community Change
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored. In -stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during the monitoring period.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ protocols found in the Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects (NCDWQ 2001). Biological sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates will be used to compare preconstruction baseline data with postconstruction restored
conditions.
Two benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations will be established within restoration reaches.
Postrestoration collections will occur in the approximate location of the prerestoration sampling. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples will be collected from individual reaches using the Qual-4 collection method.
Sampling techniques of the Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs, and
visual searches. Preproject biological sampling occurred on June 26, 2014; postproject monitoring will
occur in June of monitoring years 2-5.
Identification of collected organisms will be performed by personnel with North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) or by a NCDWR certified laboratory. Other data collected will include D50
values/NCDWR habitat assessment forms. Biological sampling for year 3 (2017) occurred on June 15,
2017. The samples were sent to Pennington and Associates, a NCDWR certified laboratory, for
identification and analysis. The results and Habitat Assessment Dataforms are included in Appendix F.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

4.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan was developed in order to address stream and vegetation problem areas observed
during Year 1 (2016) monitoring. 20107 monitoring efforts of the remedial actions yielded favorable
results. Vegetation establishment is treading towards meeting Year 7 success criteria and sediment
transport appears to have naturalized across the Site.
The completed remedial action report can be found in Appendix G.
4.1 Stream
The observed degradation in and adjacent to cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT -1 encompasses approximately
12 linear feet and 15 linear feet of stream, respectively (<1 percent of the project length). As noted above,
bed material placed during construction was too fine. All of UT -1 used bed material harvested on-site.
The material used along these stream reaches was too fine and washed from the riffles during heavy rainfall
events, resulting in minor bed scour and a small, less than 6 inch head cut beginning to develop at the top of
riffle. Suitable sized channel bed material was installed on February 23, 2017 at the proper elevation in the
two riffles within UT -1. Bed material was installed 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.
4.2 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
observations do indicate a greater survival of planted species within riparian areas. Upland areas of the site
are where survival rates were low.
The remedial action plan supplemented the bare -root planting over 5.44 acres with 1030 additional trees
(755 1 -gallon pots and 275 3 -gallon pots). The remedial action plan figure (Appendix G) details the areas
that received remedial planting along with density and number of species being placed into vegetation
plots. Working with Carolina Silvics, RS acquired and re -planted identified areas during the week of
December 20', 2016. Species of planted tree included Betula nigra, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus
occiendentalis, Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris, Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra.
It should be noted that vegetation plot 13 is located within an existing wooded area and has a number of
large natural recruit species (box elder and American elm).
5.0 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.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 10
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS 2009). Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document—library/get—file?uuid=
864e82e8-725 c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupId=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, NC
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
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 11
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX A
PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

I
= 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;
i.' D - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
0 D - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
oz - Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) Aximi F n rc;in 'gym, 1. I n[.
o: + m M - Travel north for 0.7 mile and Site is on the right
Oo r .. Prepared for:
LL 0
0 ... ..... -
(� ri ht:© 2013 Nations o '
S PY 9 9LP c Soc „ty, r + -
abed t -i = c 77
+ y ) Project:
0 • i
------ L.reen 5i I
Mountain ed'inmtP.
n j . Aycock Springs
�•••'� �'
S tream and
r, .7! ` ' �� Wetland
1. z .. 87
Mitigation
�.; Site
IN,Aycock Springs
Graham i Stream and Wetland
ou N
i -
I
Alamance County, :.. � C
Y
Mitigation Site _ -
5 -
�v
- � Title:
3 t r
36.127271 N - L
-79.525214 W
J -- �- ;� � +•r Project
- � � I' _ :.._- _ -�- ,_ • _ •# _ - -- _ Location
I.74
am� �. rI'�_ L f- Jr!• -f• _.!' •'.�',- -
-----� _„ �� I ��� �; � I'' �-•.f,•:.",. ' } �, , is ♦ `� �' ':
f` r �- c7' =! ^'. r Notes:
-------------------------J t , '} ;;';
�'ltl: ?' _ --il F, ���Fv:.. ' - rV { Background Imagery sources
Copyright:© 2014 DeLorme GIBSONVILLE + �.
;.,Vn., (provided by ESRI Data and
_ �.. I � - 100 �` 1 ��L� �i _�: ° �-w•'_ .. � .. _- � _ � - �- r Maps):
1. Physical Map of the United
States (2009) created by the
e10r
'.��` .;' cet �.,.C�ti'.' -. .v, ...•. J�_,�r- -�:�. z .�_ �_ �-. �? ;•*.� L�.9 �. V` ,.../. Ii
r'ntl�;
U.S. Park Service(upper ins
et
).
2. Delorme World Basemap
. ... inset).digital mapping (2010, lower BURLINGTON
. " , 3. Burlington, NC (1980),
�' `' P y
Lake LC
Gibsonv lle,gNC, N (1970),
019a9d,
�, ' �.� ._� •: j , I _ ►m='.�;+ , Ossipee, NC (1970) 7.5-
� "; .�•• � � � ' ELON _ � r-�= minute topographic
- !` ';l -. . _ =` �• =� d a _ =` — �<<.` ':.:i�,.i:. ; �t�. _..�' ' J • f quadrangles provided by the
-'. �''
I �` U.S. Geological Survey.
WHIT SET T
Is
6.
.. J Drawn by: SGD
3: x Date: May 2016
Legend g , _. ` 3 't Scale: As Shown
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site . ` rf `: ,•r' - . ` o �- `?� r Project No.: 14-006
----I County lines -1
N.
FIGURE
FIGURE
Miles d��
` Copyr.i,ght,:©,201'3 Natio^nal G.e.ogr..aphicSociety==eube'dy
N
WE
I
= 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;
i.' D - Travel north for 2.8 miles and merge with NC 100
0 D - Continue on University Drive (NC 100) for 0.5 mile and turn left onto Manning Street (SR 1503)
oz - Travel northwest for 0.8 mile and turn right onto Gibsonville-Ossipee Road (SR 1500) Aximi F n rc;in 'gym, 1. I n[.
o: + m M - Travel north for 0.7 mile and Site is on the right
Oo r .. Prepared for:
LL 0
0 ... ..... -
(� ri ht:© 2013 Nations o '
S PY 9 9LP c Soc „ty, r + -
abed t -i = c 77
+ y ) Project:
0 • i
------ L.reen 5i I
Mountain ed'inmtP.
n j . Aycock Springs
�•••'� �'
S tream and
r, .7! ` ' �� Wetland
1. z .. 87
Mitigation
�.; Site
IN,Aycock Springs
Graham i Stream and Wetland
ou N
i -
I
Alamance County, :.. � C
Y
Mitigation Site _ -
5 -
�v
- � Title:
3 t r
36.127271 N - L
-79.525214 W
J -- �- ;� � +•r Project
- � � I' _ :.._- _ -�- ,_ • _ •# _ - -- _ Location
I.74
am� �. rI'�_ L f- Jr!• -f• _.!' •'.�',- -
-----� _„ �� I ��� �; � I'' �-•.f,•:.",. ' } �, , is ♦ `� �' ':
f` r �- c7' =! ^'. r Notes:
-------------------------J t , '} ;;';
�'ltl: ?' _ --il F, ���Fv:.. ' - rV { Background Imagery sources
Copyright:© 2014 DeLorme GIBSONVILLE + �.
;.,Vn., (provided by ESRI Data and
_ �.. I � - 100 �` 1 ��L� �i _�: ° �-w•'_ .. � .. _- � _ � - �- r Maps):
1. Physical Map of the United
States (2009) created by the
e10r
'.��` .;' cet �.,.C�ti'.' -. .v, ...•. J�_,�r- -�:�. z .�_ �_ �-. �? ;•*.� L�.9 �. V` ,.../. Ii
r'ntl�;
U.S. Park Service(upper ins
et
).
2. Delorme World Basemap
. ... inset).digital mapping (2010, lower BURLINGTON
. " , 3. Burlington, NC (1980),
�' `' P y
Lake LC
Gibsonv lle,gNC, N (1970),
019a9d,
�, ' �.� ._� •: j , I _ ►m='.�;+ , Ossipee, NC (1970) 7.5-
� "; .�•• � � � ' ELON _ � r-�= minute topographic
- !` ';l -. . _ =` �• =� d a _ =` — �<<.` ':.:i�,.i:. ; �t�. _..�' ' J • f quadrangles provided by the
-'. �''
I �` U.S. Geological Survey.
WHIT SET T
Is
6.
.. J Drawn by: SGD
3: x Date: May 2016
Legend g , _. ` 3 't Scale: As Shown
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site . ` rf `: ,•r' - . ` o �- `?� r Project No.: 14-006
----I County lines -1
N.
FIGURE
FIGURE
Miles d��
` Copyr.i,ght,:©,201'3 Natio^nal G.e.ogr..aphicSociety==eube'dy

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
81.3
generating credit at a reduced ratio of
1.5:1
UT 3 Station 11+22 to 12+12
16
PI
Restoration
90
1:1
90
****The upper 107 linear feet of
UT 4 Station 10+00 to 14+13
448
PI
Restoration
413-107=
306
1:1
306
channel is in a violation area and is not
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
2017 Year 2 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 Mitigation 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).
2017 Year 2 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).
2017 Year 2 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
Stream
Monitoring
Complete
Vegetation
Monitoring
Complete
All Data
Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No.
16-005568)
--
--
--
October 2013
DMS Contract No. 5791
--
--
--
February 2014
Mitigation Plan
--
--
October 2014
May 2015
Construction Plans
--
--
--
June 2015
Construction Earthwork
--
--
--
April 6, 2016
Planting
--
--
--
April 8, 2016
As -Built Documentation
April 6, 2016
April 13, 2016
April 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
October 18, 2016
October 13, 2016
October 2016
December 2016
Supplemental Planting
--
--
--
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
April 19-20, 2017
July 25, 2017
October 2017
November 2017
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.
Piedmont
218 Snow Avenue
Cape Fear
Raleigh, NC 27603
03030002030010
Grant Lewis
03-06-02
919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
2017 Year 2 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%
2017 Year 2 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
UT 1/UT2 UT 3
Travis Cr+,966
UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
1550 212
413
Valley Classification
alluvial
Drainage Area (acres)
3008
68
1 26 119
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
--
30.75/25.5
1 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
Nonh dric and Hydric
Sloe
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
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX B
1T/%Y81.11W.-NIRSf RSU191a187%W.11
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Tables 5A -5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

� •� �� ` ' y .iklCAl Enlirpnn9Bnl&I, IlIC.
OPrepared for:
n
`
14- ew` W, - k �'�. �r"I'' ! ,s",s6 � Aycock Springs
l` R>s,, .i Stream and
Wetland
A
2%.
11kS R rx r.r Mitigation
ss fs`
2� Site
xsr
R � M 'i a.,
P Re
1 15
V 3 5
5-2
e ` h
4 4� Alamance County, NC
G
•� Ttle:
'" v 1 •'�y �,. '. � g � .. +S,
x XsI
s -9R q^ii s"1
F j}
0 s., 3
zR Current Conditions
-
• Plan View
-2R 4' Notes:
X
1. Background Imagery source:
2014 aerial photography
I rM, 6 provided by the NC OneMap
_...•`. �...,., a Program (online, supported by
the NC Geographic Information
' ua -•� ' . Coordination Council).
Legend
Conservation Easement - 13.2 ac
Streams Lr'
' In -stream Structures XsaR 9 x +oi°: Vi'µ*'
- Wetland Restoration Area �s.* ! y i�l '
Cross Sections r, 7
L +5 :..,• T.� :�• x F Drawn b KRJ
Lys
CVS Plots meeting success criteria during MY2 (2017) � ye.• �.,� � Y , L �� � '� .. �y.
Date: OCT 2017
CVS Plots not meeting success criteria during MY2 (2017)
50 m x 2 m and 25 m x 4 m Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria During MY2 (2017) Scale: 1:2400
o Groundwater Gauges �+ s Project No.: 14-006
e Stream Gauge 1 `
Constructed Crossings TVti FIGURE
Active Invasive Species Management Areas4..@ ,
Beaver Dam rs a' `,.. 'r+ .A '
y. .
300 150 0 300 600 x t
Feet,.ti
a�: * . e 4 • R 6CCC
`
N
q�
►Ir %s R 14
Fj. XSbR
R.:+%SVP
"13 5 N
� •� �� ` ' y .iklCAl Enlirpnn9Bnl&I, IlIC.
OPrepared for:
n
`
14- ew` W, - k �'�. �r"I'' ! ,s",s6 � Aycock Springs
l` R>s,, .i Stream and
Wetland
A
2%.
11kS R rx r.r Mitigation
ss fs`
2� Site
xsr
R � M 'i a.,
P Re
1 15
V 3 5
5-2
e ` h
4 4� Alamance County, NC
G
•� Ttle:
'" v 1 •'�y �,. '. � g � .. +S,
x XsI
s -9R q^ii s"1
F j}
0 s., 3
zR Current Conditions
-
• Plan View
-2R 4' Notes:
X
1. Background Imagery source:
2014 aerial photography
I rM, 6 provided by the NC OneMap
_...•`. �...,., a Program (online, supported by
the NC Geographic Information
' ua -•� ' . Coordination Council).
Legend
Conservation Easement - 13.2 ac
Streams Lr'
' In -stream Structures XsaR 9 x +oi°: Vi'µ*'
- Wetland Restoration Area �s.* ! y i�l '
Cross Sections r, 7
L +5 :..,• T.� :�• x F Drawn b KRJ
Lys
CVS Plots meeting success criteria during MY2 (2017) � ye.• �.,� � Y , L �� � '� .. �y.
Date: OCT 2017
CVS Plots not meeting success criteria during MY2 (2017)
50 m x 2 m and 25 m x 4 m Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria During MY2 (2017) Scale: 1:2400
o Groundwater Gauges �+ s Project No.: 14-006
e Stream Gauge 1 `
Constructed Crossings TVti FIGURE
Active Invasive Species Management Areas4..@ ,
Beaver Dam rs a' `,.. 'r+ .A '
y. .
300 150 0 300 600 x t
Feet,.ti
a�: * . e 4 • R 6CCC

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 -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
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
o
100/o
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 Morpholocly Stability Assessment
Reach ID Aycock Springs UT1
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 -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
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
45
45
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
44
44
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
44
44
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
44
44
100%
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
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
100%

Table 5C Visual Stream Morpholocly 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 -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
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
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%.
6
6
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
6
6
100%

Table 5D 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-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
$
$
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
$
$amm
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
0
100%
100%
scour and erosion
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%
0
0
100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
Structures
1E
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
100%
1 1
15%.
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
1 1
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

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-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
9
9
100%
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
$
$
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
8
8
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
$
$amm
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
0
100%
100%
scour and erosion
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%
0
0
100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
Structures
1E
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
100%
5 5
15%.
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
5 5
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 6
etation Condition Assessment
Aycock Springs
Planted Acreage 11.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De fiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaqe 13.3
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,
ssociated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those w
the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are sligh
longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in t
judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by W
such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, t
potentially 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
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat Ie,
for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that w
found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
ThresholdDe
fiction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
4. Ongoing Invasive Species Management Areas
Management of Chinese privet and multiflora rose is active and ongoing along Travis Creek. 2017 invasives
1000 SF
none
2
2.38
17.9%
management has improved vegetation condition in this area, however treatment is ongoing.
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,
ssociated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those w
the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are sligh
longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in t
judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by W
such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, t
potentially 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
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat Ie,
for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that w
found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Aycock Springs
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2017
Plot 5 7
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2017
(continued)
IG
—�Yf 4r1•.-. 1 .�Vr ee:
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
x
s
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table IOa-b. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data
2017 Year 2 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
86%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
No
10
Yes
11
Yes
12
Yes
13
No*
14
Yes
*This plot did not meet success criteria based on planted stems only; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of elm (Ulmus sp.) and box elder (Acer negundo) this plot was above success criteria.
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 8. CVS Veeetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
9/6/2017 15:22
database name
RS -Aycock 2017-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
S:\Business\Projects\14\14-006 Acyock Springs Detailed\2017 YEAR-02\CVS
computer name
KEENAN-PC
file size
1 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.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor 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
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems
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 (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0001
14.006-01-0002
14.006-01-0003
14.006-01-0004
14.006-01-0005
14.006-01-0006
14.006-01-0007
14.006-01-0008
14.006-01-0009
Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
11
2
2
2
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry Shrub
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
1
1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
10
101
6
6
6
4
4
41
1
1 1
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
3
4
1
1
6
1
1
11
1
1
3
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1 1
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1 1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
Ulmus alata
Iwinged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
17
17
21
8
81
11
91
91
15
9
9
14
101
101 10
161
16 18
9
9 9
8
8
10
5
5 5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
5 5 6 4 4 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
688 688 849.8 323.7 323.7 445.2 364.2 364.2 607 364.2 364.2 566.6 404.7 404.7 404.7 647.5 647.5 728.4 364.2 364.2 364.2 323.7 323.7 404.7 202.3 202.3 202.3
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. Planted and Total Stems (continued)
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 (MY2 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0010
14.006-01-0011
14.006-01-0012
14.006-01-0013
14.006-01-0014
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
9
9
5
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
51
5
5
5
9
9
9
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
1
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry Shrub
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
49
49
49
52
52
52
57
57
57
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
10
10
31
5
5
13
3
3
5
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
9
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
7
7
7
5
5
5
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1 1
1
1
9
9
9
6
6
6
18
18
18
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
11
11
11
13
13
13
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
7
7
7
11
11
11
62
62
62
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
2
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
ITreeI3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
10
101
14
10
101
10
81
81 9
31
31
15
91
91 10
1311
1311 171
115
1151 141
2051
205 216
1 1 1 1 1 14
14 14
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35
0.35 0.35
6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 3 3 6 4 4 4 17 17 23
15 15 20 14 14 16
404.71 404.71 566.6 404.7 404.71 404.71 323.71 323.71 364.2 121.4 121.41 6071 364.21 364.21 404.71378.71 378.71 494.31332.41
332.41 407.61 592.61 592.61 624.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 10a. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data — April 2017
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Temporary
Plot 1
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 2
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 3
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 4
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 5
2m x 50m
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
Tree
1
3
6
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
2
3
3
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
1
Quercus l rata
Overcup, oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree
1
1
2
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
3
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
3
Stem Count
Size (Ares)
Size (Acres)
Species count
Stems per acre
12
9
13
9
12
1 1 1 1
1
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
0.0247
7 6 7 3
6
1 485.8 1 364.4 1 526.3 1 364.4 1
485.8
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 10b. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data — October 2017
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Temporary
Plot 1
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 2
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 3
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 4
2m x 50m
Temporary
Plot 5
2m x 50m
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
Tree
1
3
6
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
2
3
3
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
8
2
Quercus l rata
Overcup oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
3
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
3
Stem Count
Size (Ares)
Size (Acres)
Species count
Stems per acre
18
10
12
8
11
1 1 1 1
1
0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247
0.0247
7 6 6 2
6
1 728.7 1 404.9 1 485.8 1 323.9 1
445.3
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l la -e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12a -f. Monitoring Data
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

91 Aft
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -1, Riffle
597
----------
596
595
5- - - - - - - - - - - - - \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- f - - - - - - - -
594
W 593----l'_kShc
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
592 MY -01 10/18/16
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
91 Aft
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -1, Riffle
597
----------
596
595
5- - - - - - - - - - - - - \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- f - - - - - - - -
594
W 593----l'_kShc
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
592 MY -01 10/18/16
Elevation
0.0
594.96
4.5
595.00
6.6
595.04
8.2
595.03
9.6
594.39
10.7
594.00
12.1
593.46
13.2
592.84
14.0
592.61
14.5
592.49
15.3
592.32
17.3
592.05
19.4
592.13
21.1
592.07
21.7
592.23
23.4
592.12
24.2
592.39
25.1
592.28
26.0
592.27
27.3
592.49
28.1
592.4
29.5
592.3
30.8
592.5
31.5
592.7
32.0
593.1
33.7
593.7
35.4
593.9
37.0
594.4
40.3
594.8
42.6
594.8
46.4
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
40.1
Bankfull Width:
26.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.4
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
17.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
594.99
0.9
595.11
Watershed:
595.18
Cape Fear, 0303002
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
593.75
Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
593.51
7.6
592.89
Feature
592.71
Riffle
592.58
13.9
592.52
15.0
592.61
16.1
592.54
. .
592.52
18.3
592.58
21.4
592.41
22.6
23.2
592.91
24.2
593.63
25.4
594.06
26.3
594.3
27.7
594.8
28.6
595.0
30.3
595.1
Stream Type CIE
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
598
597
596
5
0 595
W 594
---•sank5ill
•Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
593
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
592
0 5
10
15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.99
0.9
595.11
1.8
595.18
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.99
0.9
595.11
1.8
595.18
3.2
594.60
4.1
594.26
5.4
593.75
6.5
593.51
7.6
592.89
9.4
592.71
12.9
592.58
13.9
592.52
15.0
592.61
16.1
592.54
16.4
592.52
18.3
592.58
21.4
592.41
22.6
592.44
23.2
592.91
24.2
593.63
25.4
594.06
26.3
594.3
27.7
594.8
28.6
595.0
30.3
595.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
47.9
Bankfull Width:
26.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
14.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.04

f ;t
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
595
594 - Af,
0
593 ---• Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
592 MY-00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
f ;t
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
595
594 - Af,
0
593 ---• Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
592 MY-00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.2
8.0
594.9
10.2
594.7
12.3
594.5
14.4
594.0
16.7
593.5
18.0
593.2
19.0
593.0
20.3
592.6
21.5
592.3
22.4
592.0
23.6
591.9
25.1
591.8
26.1
591.5
26.8
591.4
27.5
591.5
29.3
591.5
30.1
591.9
31.1
592.3
31.8
592.6
33.4
593.5
35.8
594.1
38.5
594.8
40.4
595.2
42.7
595.3
44.8
595.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
57.2
Bankfull Width:
35.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.61
0.9
595.57
1.7
595.60
3.1
594.82
4.5
594.46
5.5
594.00
6.3
593.57
7.4
593.25
8.1
592.96
11.4
593.10
12.3
592.69
13.4
592.88
14.7
592.92
15.7
593.11
19.0
593.19
19.5
593.44
19.9
593.49
21.0
593.39
21.7
593.36
22.8
593.38
23.9
593.5
25.1
594.0
26.6
594.7
28.1
595.2
29.2
595.3
30.4
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:1597.9
5.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:3.8
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:0.0
Max De th at Bankfull:.6
Mean De th at Bankfull:.7
W / D Ratio•
6.0
Entrenchment Ratio:.7
Bank Height Ratio:04
i
Stream Type :ism=

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
is
Perkinson, Keith
Watershed:
593.8
Cape
593.4
10.8
592.9
11.6
592.4
12.2
592.1
13.3
592.2
14.1
592.5
14.9
592.6
15.2
592.7
16.2
592.6
17.0
592.6
U4 AIMILg.'
592.5
19.7
592.6
20.7
592.7
21.1
592.7
22.4
592.7
23.5
592.8
24.4
593.0
25.2
593.0
26.0
593.5
27.6
593.9
28.9
594.4
29.9
594.9
30.9
595.51
32.5
595.48
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
596
��������--------------------------------------
��•
595
594
0
� 593
� � � • Bankfull
ti
W
�_
• Flood Prone Area
592
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
0 5
10
15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment Deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
2.9
595.3
4.5
595.3
6.3
594.8
8.0
594.2
8.9
593.8
9.8
593.4
10.8
592.9
11.6
592.4
12.2
592.1
13.3
592.2
14.1
592.5
14.9
592.6
15.2
592.7
16.2
592.6
17.0
592.6
18.6
592.5
19.7
592.6
20.7
592.7
21.1
592.7
22.4
592.7
23.5
592.8
24.4
593.0
25.2
593.0
26.0
593.5
27.6
593.9
28.9
594.4
29.9
594.9
30.9
595.51
32.5
595.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
F26.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Deth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Watershed:
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Cape
Fear, 0303002
xj xy Y
rJ
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
7.7
593.95
9.8
593.74
••l
593.64
12.5
593.64
13.5
1� ''� - v
'i r
593.38
17.2
593.31
18.3
jI
19.7
593.08
21.0
593.22
21.8
593.32
22.7
593.39
23.8
593.57
24.5
593.99
25.2
594.43
26.6
595.0
27.7
595.5
28.8
596.1
30.0
596.4
7.
.�
596
------------------------------------------------
----
ti
� � � • Bankfull
595
•Flood Prone Area
R
Y'•-
594
x
MY -00 4/6/16
..
MY-Ol 10/18/16
593
MY -03 4/20/17
592
-,
0 5 10
15 20 25
30
35
Station (feet)
Stream Type C E
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.02
2.4
595.89
4.0
595.54
5.6
594.85
6.7
594.11
7.7
593.95
9.8
593.74
11.6
593.64
12.5
593.64
13.5
593.45
15.6
593.38
17.2
593.31
18.3
593.13
19.7
593.08
21.0
593.22
21.8
593.32
22.7
593.39
23.8
593.57
24.5
593.99
25.2
594.43
26.6
595.0
27.7
595.5
28.8
596.1
30.0
596.4
.�
596
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
50.3
Bankfull Width:
26.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
31.0 596.5-
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
600
599
598
597
.�
596
------------------------------------------------
----
ti
� � � • Bankfull
595
•Flood Prone Area
594
MY -00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
593
MY -03 4/20/17
592
0 5 10
15 20 25
30
35
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Watershed:
Feature
Cape
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
9.0
594.6
9.9
593.9
10.6
593.5
;;.
593.4
12.5
593.3
13.6
593.3
14.9
593.4
17.3
593.4
17.9
593.5
19.2
593.5
20.4
593.4
21.8
593.4
22.8
593.3
23.8
593.2
24.7
593.2
25.5
593.6
26.5
594.2
28.5
595.1
29.5
595.4
30.3
595.8
31.1
595.8
32.2
595.7
%r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596
---------------------------------------------
595
5
0 594
�
-- - • Bankfull
ti
__ _ •Flood Prone Area
W
MY-00 4/6/16
592
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
0 5
10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment Deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
2.4
596.0
4.0
595.9
5.7
595.4
7.9
594.9
9.0
594.6
9.9
593.9
10.6
593.5
11.8
593.4
12.5
593.3
13.6
593.3
14.9
593.4
17.3
593.4
17.9
593.5
19.2
593.5
20.4
593.4
21.8
593.4
22.8
593.3
23.8
593.2
24.7
593.2
25.5
593.6
26.5
594.2
28.5
595.1
29.5
595.4
30.3
595.8
31.1
595.8
32.2
595.7
1.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.39
1.8
596.27
3.1
595.95
4.7
595.30
6.2
594.72
6.7
594.39
8.3
593.45
9.3
593.62
10.7
593.33
12.5
593.15
13.4
593.31
14.7
593.24
16.1
593.37
17.5
593.52
19.3
593.61
20.0
593.80
20.7
594.00
21.8
594.20
22.8
594.12
23.8
594.08
25.3
594.2
25.7
594.3
26.5
594.7
28.1
595.3
30.4
596.3
32.3
597.1
33.1
597.4
34.6
597.5
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:1599.4
6.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:8.3
Bankfull Width:
8.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600
Flood Prone Width:0.0
Max De th at Bankfull:.1
599
Mean De th at Bankfull:.0
W / D Ratio•
4.0
Entrenchment Ratio:.2
Bank Height Ratio:.0
Stream Type d1ijillir C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
600
599
598
597
0
596
�l
595
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
594
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
593
MY -02 4/20/17
592
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
8.9
594.0
9.6
593.5
10.7
593.0
13.4
592.8
14.7
592.8
16.2
6.
17.4
592.8
18.6
593.0
20.1
593.1
21.4
593.3
22.9
593.5
23.6
?'
24.3
593.8
25.7
594.0
26.6
+
27.4
594.7
28.8
595.2
30.5
595.6
32.1
596.1
33.8
596.5
35.4
596.7
Yc
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
598
597
X596 -----------------------------------------------
-----
5
0 595
Bankfull
594
W
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
593
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
592
0 5
10 15
20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.4
2.1
596.1
4.9
595.5
7.0
594.7
7.9
594.4
8.9
594.0
9.6
593.5
10.7
593.0
13.4
592.8
14.7
592.8
16.2
592.7
17.4
592.8
18.6
593.0
20.1
593.1
21.4
593.3
22.9
593.5
23.6
593.7
24.3
593.8
25.7
594.0
26.6
594.3
27.4
594.7
28.8
595.2
30.5
595.6
32.1
596.1
33.8
596.5
35.4
596.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
60.8
Bankfull Width:
29.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -10, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
16.4
594.7
18.0
594.3
fr
594.2
20.8
594.0
22.7
594.0
24.4
593.8
25.8
593.7
27.0
593.4
28.6
593.3
29.8
593.1
31.2
593.1
32.9
593.0
33.6
592.9
34.3
593.0
34.9
593.2
36.0
593.7
38.1
595.3
40.4
596.2
43.1
597.1
46.3
597.7
48.7
597.8
51.5
598.1
-
- _
_rte
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 10, Pool
599
598
597
`.°� 596
0
595
Bankfull
ti
W 594
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
593
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
592
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.5
6.5
596.6
10.5
595.8
13.2
595.4
14.8
595.2
16.4
594.7
18.0
594.3
19.8
594.2
20.8
594.0
22.7
594.0
24.4
593.8
25.8
593.7
27.0
593.4
28.6
593.3
29.8
593.1
31.2
593.1
32.9
593.0
33.6
592.9
34.3
593.0
34.9
593.2
36.0
593.7
38.1
595.3
40.4
596.2
43.1
597.1
46.3
597.7
48.7
597.8
51.5
598.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
V39.1
Flood Prone Area Elevafion:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.1
Mean De that Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
10.3
594.66
11.6
594.14
12.5
593.22
y.
593.20
14.7
593.22
15.5
592.99
16.9
Yr
19.3
593.35
20.9
593.47
22.2
593.50
24.0
593.66
24.7
593.92
26.2
593.90
27.8
593.90
29.6
594.16
31.0
594.6
32.9
595.5
35.7
596.7
36.5
596.8
38.9
597.0
597
� 596
,�
� � � • Bankfull
W
595
.-
MY -00 4/6/16
594
MY -01 10/18/16
593
riY-02 a/tom
592
0 5 10
15 20 25 30
35
40
45
Station (feet)
Stream Type C/E
Station
Elevation
0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.58
2.6
597.36
4.2
596.69
6.3
596.38
7.9
595.75
10.3
594.66
11.6
594.14
12.5
593.22
13.5
593.20
14.7
593.22
15.5
592.99
16.9
593.33
19.3
593.35
20.9
593.47
22.2
593.50
24.0
593.66
24.7
593.92
26.2
593.90
27.8
593.90
29.6
594.16
31.0
594.6
32.9
595.5
35.7
596.7
36.5
596.8
38.9
597.0
597
� 596
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
69.6
Bankfull Width:
30.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.2
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
- - - - - - -
4.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.06
41.9 597.0
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -11, Riffle
601
600
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
599
598
m
m
�
597
� 596
,�
� � � • Bankfull
W
595
•Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
594
MY -01 10/18/16
593
riY-02 a/tom
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:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.46
4.0
598.22
7.2
597.59
9.7
596.71
11.9
595.98
14.3
594.95
15.6
594.71
17.2
594.47
18.4
594.64
20.3
594.47
21.4
594.38
22.4
594.41
23.4
594.25
24.6
594.33
25.4
594.48
26.4
594.57
27.4
594.83
28.8
595.12
30.7
595.41
32.2
596.02
34.3
597.0
36.2
597.9
37.4
598.4
39.6
598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
67.9
Bankfull Width:
29.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.3
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.03
Stream Type C,/F.

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -13, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
9.1
594.9
10.2
594.3
0
594.3
11.7
594.3
12.6
594.6
a.,
594.7
14.4
594.6
15.8
594.7
17.8
595.0
18.8
595.2
20.6
595.2
{. V
595.2
22.9
595.4
23.9
595.9
+G, .
596.3
27.3
597.0
28.8
597.5
31.1
+
32.9
598.5
34.6
598.8
.±
fir. e
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
600
599
598
5 597
0
596
Bankfull
ti
W 595
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
594
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
593
0 5
10 15
20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment Deposition in
pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.6
2.4
597.3
5.0
596.4
6.9
595.5
8.2
595.2
9.1
594.9
10.2
594.3
10.9
594.3
11.7
594.3
12.6
594.6
13.8
594.7
14.4
594.6
15.8
594.7
17.8
595.0
18.8
595.2
20.6
595.2
21.7
595.2
22.9
595.4
23.9
595.9
25.2
596.3
27.3
597.0
28.8
597.5
31.1
598.2
32.9
598.5
34.6
598.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
51.9
Bankfull Width:
27.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/20/2017
'i ;q ,
Perkinson, Keith
10.2
595.24
11.6
595.17
12.6
595.28
13.4
595.12
14.7
594.77
15.5
594.57
17.2
594.62
18.6
594.75
�].
595.05
20.5
595.20
22.4
595.39
='gib
595.45
24.3
595.32
25.7
595.26
26.4
595.68
27.8
596.1
29.3
596.8
31.6
598.0
33.9
599.2
35.5
599.4
37.0
599.7
598
�l
sankfiill
597•Flood
Prone Area
;� a s;
596
595
MY -01 10/18/16
riY-02 a/tom
594
593
S
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)
Stream Type C/E
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
599.22
1.4
599.20
4.3
597.89
7.5
596.29
8.8
595.69
10.2
595.24
11.6
595.17
12.6
595.28
13.4
595.12
14.7
594.77
15.5
594.57
17.2
594.62
18.6
594.75
19.3
595.05
20.5
595.20
22.4
595.39
23.0
595.45
24.3
595.32
25.7
595.26
26.4
595.68
27.8
596.1
29.3
596.8
31.6
598.0
33.9
599.2
35.5
599.4
37.0
599.7
598
�l
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6
Bankfull Width:
9
E603.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605
Flood Prone Width:
.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
W / D Ratio:
10.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
603
1.0
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -14, Riffle
605
604
603
602
m 601
5
600
0
599
598
�l
sankfiill
597•Flood
Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
596
595
MY -01 10/18/16
riY-02 a/tom
594
593
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.3
591.52
1.7
591.40
2.9
591.26
3.7
591.08
4.1
590.89
4.9
590.72
5.7
590.65
6.6
590.53
7.2
590.68
7.7
590.69
8.0
590.96
8.7
590.89
9.3
591.04
10.1
591.28
10.9
591.48
11.9
591.72
12.4
591.79
14.2
591.79
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean De that Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
21.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
593
592
590 +
0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
1 -Jim,. .• i. -
------------
. Bankfiill
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
4.9
591.04
5.5
591.04
5.9
590.78
6.7
590.88
7.4
590.88
7.8
590.96
8.5
590.96
9.3
591.04
10.0
591.01
10.3
591.12
10.8
591.43
12.2
591.51
13.7
591.51
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
593
-----------------------------------------------------------
592
5
-----
------------------------------
-- Bankfull
W 591
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
590
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.62
1.2
591.63
2.5
591.54
3.3
591.36
4.2
591.03
4.9
591.04
5.5
591.04
5.9
590.78
6.7
590.88
7.4
590.88
7.8
590.96
8.5
590.96
9.3
591.04
10.0
591.01
10.3
591.12
10.8
591.43
12.2
591.51
13.7
591.51
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
4.6
591.0
5.4
590.8
5.8
590.6
6.3
590.5
6.9
590.5
7.0
590.6
7.5
590.8
8.0
590.9
8.4
590.9
9.1
591.0
9.6
591.2
10.7
591.5
11.8
591.7
12.9
591.9
14.4
592.0
jqStream
Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
593
592
------------
-------------------------------
------
0
�
� � � • Bankfull
ti
W 591
--- •Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.3
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.3
592.2
1.5
592.1
2.5
592.0
3.3
591.8
4.1
591.3
4.6
591.0
5.4
590.8
5.8
590.6
6.3
590.5
6.9
590.5
7.0
590.6
7.5
590.8
8.0
590.9
8.4
590.9
9.1
591.0
9.6
591.2
10.7
591.5
11.8
591.7
12.9
591.9
14.4
592.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:Bankfull
FN
Width:Flood
Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
4.5
591.25
4.8
591.09
5.8
591.08
6.9
590.97
7.6
590.97
8.5
591.03
9.4
591.39
10.2
591.87
11.3
592.15
12.8
592.24
s;
l
z
a�
re
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
593
---------------------------------------------------------------
592 - -----------------------------------------
----------
m
0
ti
-- � • Bankfull
�l 591
-- - • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
592.09
0.9
591.97
2.0
591.66
2.7
591.49
3.7
591.39
4.5
591.25
4.8
591.09
5.8
591.08
6.9
590.97
7.6
590.97
8.5
591.03
9.4
591.39
10.2
591.87
11.3
592.15
12.8
592.24
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.7
Bankfull Width:
9.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
:J
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
I
5.6
591.33
5.8
591.49
6.3
591.48
6.7
591.30
7.2
591.30
7.5
591.23
8.5
591.18
8.9
591.53
9.5
591.48
10.1
591.55
10.8
591.80
11.9
592.23
13.9
592.39
R'
:.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
594
____________________________________________________________
593
5
----------------------------------------------
0 592
-------
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
591
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
9
5
9
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
9
5
9
Elevation
0.0
592.40
1.9
592.33
3.0
592.12
4.0
591.76
5.0
591.40
5.6
591.33
5.8
591.49
6.3
591.48
6.7
591.30
7.2
591.30
7.5
591.23
8.5
591.18
8.9
591.53
9.5
591.48
10.1
591.55
10.8
591.80
11.9
592.23
13.9
592.39
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
52.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
.8
Bankfull Width:
.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.79
1.4
592.81
2.3
592.74
2.8
592.46
3.4
592.32
4.8
592.29
5.2
592.29
5.9
592.23
6.6
592.23
7.1
592.23
7.5
592.23
8.2
592.23
8.7
592.49
9.3
592.71
10.3
592.64
11.7
592.58
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean De that Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
20.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
594
593
591 +
0
i�
' � .. -. ... .....-r _ a. �``Y�..yLr�'3+.:' .'C17.:61N29i16.-•s.l.:..
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
2 4 6 8
Station (feet)
. Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10//18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
10 12 14

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
593.22
2.3
592.88
3.3
592.88
3.9
592.74
4.5
592.58
5.3
592.59
6.0
592.46
6.6
592.56
7.2
592.56
7.8
592.69
8.2
592.94
8.4
593.05
9.1
593.05
10.3
593.33
11.4
593.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
22.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
594
592 +
0
Stream Type lmmCB
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Watershed:
Feature
Cape
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
4.4
592.6
�.-
592.4
5.8
592.4
6.3
592.3
7.0
592.4
7.5
592.7
8.0
593.0
8.5
593.1
9.0
593.3
9.9
593.5
11.0
593.5
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
594
0 593
• Bankfull
ti
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
592
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added b hand in this reach.
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
1.7
593.3
2.8
593.2
3.4
593.0
3.9
592.7
4.4
592.6
5.3
592.4
5.8
592.4
6.3
592.3
7.0
592.4
7.5
592.7
8.0
593.0
8.5
593.1
9.0
593.3
9.9
593.5
11.0
593.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
7.2
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
91 Aycock Springs
594.84
1.0
Watershed:
1.8
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
4/19/2017
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
594.63
4.8
Feature
5.6
Riffle
6.0
594.45
7.2
594.55
8.5
594.64
9.2
594.79
11.1
594.76
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
596
----------------------------------------------------------------
595
--------------------------------------
-
0
• Bankfull
�l 594
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
593
0 2
4
6 8 10 12
Station (feet)
Note: Cross Sections 8 and 9 (UT 1) are located in the vicinity of a bed material repair. Additional bed material was
added b hand in this reach.
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.84
1.0
594.93
1.8
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.84
1.0
594.93
1.8
594.68
2.6
594.57
3.2
594.56
4.3
594.63
4.8
594.47
5.6
594.43
6.0
594.45
7.2
594.55
8.5
594.64
9.2
594.79
11.1
594.76
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
7.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
36.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS -10, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/19/2017
+,
Perkinson, Keith
4.0
594.4
5.2
594.3
5.7
594.3
6.9
594.0
7.6
594.3
8.4
594.2
8.9
594.6
9.4
595.2
10.8
595.5
12.4
595.9
Y
i*
�.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
596
595
5
0
�
� � � • Bankfull
ti
W 594
�� � •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
593
0 2
4
6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.5
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS -10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.5
595.7
1.0
595.6
2.3
595.3
3.1
595.1
3.8
594.4
4.0
594.4
5.2
594.3
5.7
594.3
6.9
594.0
7.6
594.3
8.4
594.2
8.9
594.6
9.4
595.2
10.8
595.5
12.4
595.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.5
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
6.3
595.37
6.7
595.26
7.2
595.25
7.9
595.72
8.4
596.06
9.8
596.11
11.4
596.21
-
.
- ,�-• .�- �ti..
r,
,..
IM
f
r
i
; :` F -
F
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -11, Riffle
597
5
0 596
• Bankfull
�l
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
595
0 2
4
6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.06
2.2
595.83
4.2
595.34
5.2
595.27
6.0
595.38
6.3
595.37
6.7
595.26
7.2
595.25
7.9
595.72
8.4
596.06
9.8
596.11
11.4
596.21
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
7.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
17.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.65
1.0
597.80
1.7
597.50
2.8
597.14
3.7
597.01
4.5
597.01
5.4
597.00
5.7
597.13
6.7
597.16
7.1
597.23
7.9
597.26
8.4
597.47
9.3
597.75
11.1
597.63
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
6.4
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•
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
599
m
598
5
W 597
596 +
0
Stream Type liml=
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
MY -02 4/19/17
8 10 12

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS -13, Pool
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
4.8
j
5.6
597.4
5.9
597.1
6.8
597.0
7.3
596.8
8.1
596.8
8.8
597.4
9.0
597.8
9.6
597.9
10.0
598.1
10.7
598.2
11.8
598.1
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS - 13, Pool
599
598 _______________________________________
m
- -- - Bankfall
597
• Flood Prone Area
W
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 12/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
596
0 2
4
6 8
10
12 14
Station (feet)
Note: Point bar development appears stable atter years 1 and 2 monitoring.
Station
Elevation
-0.3
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS -13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.3
598.3
1.2
598.2
1.5
598.1
2.2
597.9
3.9
597.7
4.8
597.7
5.6
597.4
5.9
597.1
6.8
597.0
7.3
596.8
8.1
596.8
8.8
597.4
9.0
597.8
9.6
597.9
10.0
598.1
10.7
598.2
11.8
598.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.7
Bankfull Width:
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Bankfull Elevation:
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 14, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.2
598.35
1.8
598.36
2.3
598.16
3.0
597.93
4.0
597.75
5.4
597.69
6.6
597.60
7.6
597.82
8.4
598.32
9.3
598.46
11.2
598.46
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS -14, Riffle
600
599________________________________________________________________
5
0
ti
_ _ _ • Bankfull
W 598
_ _ • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
597
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
6.3
Flood Prone Area Elevat
599.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
602.02
2.3
�.
Watershed:
601.50
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
601.16
UT 1, XS -15, Riffle
601.16
6.6
600.97
Feature
600.82
Riffle
601.00
8.8
- E
Date:
601.55
!MW4/19/2017
601.67
7
�y
+
-t
._
,a
;:�•::'
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS -15, Riffle
603
----------------------------------------------------------------
602 MM
5
o---------------
----------------------------------
-------
ti
-- - • Bankfull
W 601
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
600
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.2
602.02
2.3
601.83
3.2
601.50
3.7
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
602.02
2.3
601.83
3.2
601.50
3.7
601.29
5.1
601.29
5.6
601.16
6.2
601.16
6.6
600.97
7.6
600.82
8.4
601.00
8.8
601.35
9.3
601.55
11.1
601.67
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
6.3
:
Flood Prone Area Elevationa.
602.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 16, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
602.23
1.9
602.10
3.1
601.95
3.7
601.67
4.9
601.75
5.9
601.74
6.6
601.70
7.3
601.69
8.2
601.66
9.1
601.62
9.9
601.86
10.5
602.11
11.1
602.27
12.6
602.34
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
602.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
8.5
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:
25.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
603
601 +
0
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -16, Riffle
--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------z --------
-- • Bankfall
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Note: Sediment transport appears to be natural and has stabilized during years 1 and 2 monitoring.
No problems appear to be occuring in this reach.

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 17, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
603.87
2.1
603.63
3.7
603.56
4.8
603.20
5.4
602.77
6.4
602.79
7.3
602.78
8.1
602.65
9.5
602.65
9.8
602.94
10.9
603.26
11.6
603.45
13.3
603.43
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
0
Max De th at Bankfull:
][604.2
Mean De th at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio•
8
Entrenchment Ratio:
2
Bank Height Ratio:
4
605
m
604
5
ti
W 603
602 +
0
Stream Type C E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 17, Riffle
• Bankfall
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Note: No problems have been noted m this reach. Elevated BI -IR results from shallow channel depth.
16

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
606.14
1.6
Watershed:
2.4
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
4/19/2017
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
605.17
5.8
Feature
6.8
Riffle
7.2
605.34
7.7
605.45
8.5
605.47
9.2
605.90
10.2
606.28
11.6
606.65
12.5
606.62
....
1
4`
q'
!i.' :Ya it�'� Sri i
a
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 18, Riffle
607--------------------------------------------------------------
5
0 606
-
--
--- • Bankfull
ti
•Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
605
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Note: No problems have been noted in this reach. Elevated BHR results from shallow channel depth.
Station
Elevation
0.1
606.14
1.6
606.14
2.4
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
606.14
1.6
606.14
2.4
606.03
3.1
605.58
4.1
605.33
5.1
605.17
5.8
605.19
6.8
605.28
7.2
605.34
7.7
605.45
8.5
605.47
9.2
605.90
10.2
606.28
11.6
606.65
12.5
606.62
SUMMARY DATA
J.
Bankfull Elevation:
605.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
606.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
12.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.33

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Watershed:
Feature
Cape
7
.-._
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.3
606.1
6.1
606.1
7.0
606.0
7.7
605.9
8.6
605.8
9.1
605.7
9.8
605.7
10.3
606.3
11.3
606.8
12.2
607.3
13.4
607.5
15.1
607.7
-.:
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
608
607
------------
------------11) --------------------------------
0
�
� • Bankfull
ti 606
kV
-- � •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
605
0 2
4 6 8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
Note: Point bar development appears stable after years 1 and 2 monitoring.
Station
Elevation
0.1
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 19, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
607.3
1.3
607.2
2.7
606.9
3.9
606.6
4.7
606.5
5.3
606.1
6.1
606.1
7.0
606.0
7.7
605.9
8.6
605.8
9.1
605.7
9.8
605.7
10.3
606.3
11.3
606.8
12.2
607.3
13.4
607.5
15.1
607.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.3
Bankfull Width:
8.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

f
rf 1
Al
i
"i.
".,E.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
609
----------------------------------------------------------
608
5
--- -------------------------------
ti Bankf.11
kV 607 - - - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
606
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
f
rf 1
Al
i
"i.
".,E.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 20, Riffle
609
----------------------------------------------------------
608
5
--- -------------------------------
ti Bankf.11
kV 607 - - - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
606
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
607.42
2.1
607.45
3.0
607.33
4.2
607.02
5.0
606.58
5.9
606.54
7.0
606.55
8.4
606.57
9.1
606.77
9.9
606.78
10.4
606.91
11.2
607.30
12.4
607.72
12.5
607.72
13.5
607.79
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
8.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
610.1
3.5
609.6
4.9
609.5
5.9
609.2
6.5
609.1
6.8
608.4
7.3
608.4
7.8
608.6
8.7
608.8
9.5
608.9
10.4
609.0
11.6
609.0
12.5
609.4
13.9
609.7
14.9
609.8
16.3
609.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
609.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.4
Bankfull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3V.
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
611
610
m
0 609
ti
�l
608
607
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 21, Pool
---• Bankfall
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Station (feet)
Note: Point bar development appears stable after years 1 and 2 monitoring.

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
6.1
610.68
7.4
610.65
8.4
610.79
8.8
610.92
9.3
611.28
10.7
611.40
12.3
611.46
4 S
,r
$r
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 22,
Riffle
613
612
5
0
?
� � � • Bankfull
ti
kV 611
� � � •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
610
0 2
4
6 8
10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 22, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
611.55
2.3
611.37
3.4
611.15
4.1
610.78
4.7
610.76
6.1
610.68
7.4
610.65
8.4
610.79
8.8
610.92
9.3
611.28
10.7
611.40
12.3
611.46
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
611.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
7.3
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:
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
613.03
2.3
612.77
3.4
612.45
4.0
612.04
4.7
612.02
6.1
612.01
6.8
611.94
7.1
611.81
7.8
611.81
8.5
611.92
8.9
612.14
10.0
612.48
12.2
612.56
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
612.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
613.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.17
614
m
613
0
ti
W 612
611
0
2
--6
Stream Type J11111111b C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 23, Riffle
---------------------------
- - Bankfall
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
Note: No problems have been noted in this reach. Elevated BHR results from shallow channel depth.

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Ca e Fear, 0303002
F �f
UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.6
612.51
6.6
612.52
7.7
612.53
8.1
612.67
8.9
612.78
10.1
613.19
11.4
613.34
. a*.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
614
5 ---------- -
-------------------------------
----•
0 613
- - - • Bankfull
ti
�l
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
612
0 2
4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
Watershed:
Ca e Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 24, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
613.42
2.4
613.17
3.4
612.82
4.3
612.70
4.8
612.68
5.6
612.51
6.6
612.52
7.7
612.53
8.1
612.67
8.9
612.78
10.1
613.19
11.4
613.34
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
613.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
Bankfull Width:
7.6
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:
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
A cock S rin s
593.3
1.4
XS - 1, Pool
Watershed:
Ca e Fear, 0303002
592.9
Field Crew:
sonKeith
XS ID
592.7
5.4
592.9
6.5
593.0
7.7
593.3
W4/19/2017,
593.4
10.3
593.4
M
i
-�',
_
e
..
.�
Yr y;V
n
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -1, Pool
594
---
------------
--------------
--
0 593
— - - •Bankfull
•Flood Prone Area
w
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -0l 10/l8/l6
MY -02 4/19/17
592
0 2
4
6
8 10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
1.4
XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Date:
592.9
Field Crew:
sonKeith
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
592.9
6.5
593.0
7.7
593.3
8.9
593.4
10.3
593.4
SUMMARY DATA
on:
BankfulEBankfull:
593.4
BankfulSectional Area:
3.2
Bankful
6.9
Flood Pa Elevation:
NA
Flood Pdth:
NA
Max Depth ankfulL•
0.7
Mean DankfulL•
0.5
WD RNA
Entrencafio:NA
Bank Htio:
1.0

Site
Bankfull Elevation:
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
594.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max De th at BankfulL•
0.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
30.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.03
r•
1.5
594.02
-
2.4
594.05
:_ ..
3.3
593.97:;,_•..
'rs
3.8
593.74
ra•'.:.
4.8
593.83Depth
5.8
593.73
6.8
593.76
7.8
593.89
9.0
594.26
10.9
594.19
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
595
-----------------------------------------------
w
--
-- --- ---
--- --- --- - - -- --
-- --- -----
--- - - -- --
N
• BankUl
w
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
-MY-024/119!/17
594
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/ 19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
5.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max De th at BankfulL•
0.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
30.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
594.64
1.3
594.84
Watershed:
594.77
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
594.30
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
594.33
6.4
594.55
Feature
594.62
Riffle
594.92
9.2
594.99
Date:
594.84
4/19/2017
i
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
596
w
0 595
y--
---------
---------- - - - - -- - - - -
- - - -- Bankfull
w
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
594
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.1
594.64
1.3
594.84
2.7
594.77
3.4
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:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
595.40
2.0
Watershed:
3.1
Cape Fear, 0303002
3.7
+'.
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
594.93
5.8
Feature
6.9
Riffle
7.8
595.10
Date:
595.29
4/19/2017
595.42
. ._
595.14
!�
JI
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
596.0
595.5 ------ ------------------------------------------------------
Bankfull
�l 595.0
-Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
594.5
0 2
4 6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.40
2.0
595.40
3.1
595.24
3.7
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.40
2.0
595.40
3.1
595.24
3.7
595.13
4.4
595.13
5.2
594.93
5.8
595.07
6.9
595.02
7.8
595.10
9.0
595.29
10.3
595.42
12.0
595.14
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
��U5.4
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at BankfulL•
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
32.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
597.14
r1
Watershed:
2.4
Cape Fear, 0303002
3.5
ti
XS ID
Perkinson, Keith
UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
596.68
3
Feature
7.4
Riffle
8.3
596.68
Date:
597.19
4/19/2017
597.09
10.9
597.06
n µ
4 •
.�
Stream Typ C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
598
----------------------------------------------------------------
------
-- ------------------------------
- -
597
Bankfull
w
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
596
0 2
4 6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.14
1.3
597.14
2.4
596.94
3.5
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.14
1.3
597.14
2.4
596.94
3.5
596.67
4.5
596.68
5.5
596.68
6.3
596.54
7.4
596.67
8.3
596.68
9.3
597.19
10.0
597.09
10.9
597.06
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at BankfulL•
0.6
Mean Depth at BankfulL•
0.3
W / D Ratio•
24.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
597.96
1.2
597.95
2.4
Watershed:
2.9
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
4.9
597.59
XS ID
597.61
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
597.64
7.4
597.59
8.4
Feature
9.6
Riffle
11.3
597.85
Date:
4/19/2017
- a
sfY_...
ZA
,-
.,
,:..
Stream Typ C/E
Aycock
Springs, UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
599
598
--------- ---
-----------------------
--- -Bankfull
�l
-Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
597
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.1
597.96
1.2
597.95
2.4
597.86
2.9
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
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
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.1
W / D Ratio:
46.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
A cock S rin s
Watershed:
Ca e Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
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
ri -}a
k
• X.
r.
r
+�
Y, I., .
`r
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
-- - - - ------------------------------------
-----
0 598
- - - •Bankfull
,r
• Flood Prone Area
w
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
597
0 2
4
6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Site
A cock S rin s
Watershed:
Ca e Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
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:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
8.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at BankfulL•
0.8
Mean Depth at BankfulL•
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
601.25
f
601.29
Watershed:
601.29
Cape Fear, 0303002
r
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
Feature
600.92
UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
Riffle
600.95
5.9
600.80
7.3
600.84
8.1
600.86
9.0
600.79
Date:
601.17
4/19/2017
601.42
11.7
601.31
f
•:1• ;
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
602
-----------------------------------------------------------
w
2 601
y
- - - • Bankfull
�l
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
600
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.25
0.8
601.29
1.9
601.29
2.7
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.25
0.8
601.29
1.9
601.29
2.7
601.05
3.5
600.81
4.4
600.92
5.2
600.95
5.9
600.80
7.3
600.84
8.1
600.86
9.0
600.79
10.0
601.17
10.6
601.42
11.7
601.31
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
24.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Bankfull Elevation:
Aycock Springs
604.8
1. .
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
605.6
Flood Prone Width:
XS ID
90.0
Max at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
gin•.
8
-0.2
604.64
1.6
604.82
2.3
604.54
Bankfull
s :
.
3.3
604.23
4.5
604.07
5.7
604.10Depth•":
-Y...;
7.3
604.26
8.2
604.47
:-.�.
9.0
604.66
10.1
604.94
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
606
605
-----------------------------------------
---`
0
• Bankfull
W 604
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
603
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.8
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/ 19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
604.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
S rin s
605.6
1.8
Watershed:
3.0
ear, 0303002
4.1
17
Field Crew:
XS ID
:04/11
S - 10, Pool
6.4
604.8
6.9
Feature
7.4
7.8
604.7
�.,
Date:
9.4
605.4
10.4
605.8
y
606.1
it_
F'
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
607
606
• Bankfull
w6Q5
� •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
604
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.6
1.8
605.5
3.0
605.3
4.1
17
Field Crew:
on, 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:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
.0
Bankfull Width:
.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
A
Flood Prone Width:
[6�15.5
A
Max Deth at BankfulL•.Mean
Deth at BankfulL•
.5W
/ D Ratio:
A
Entrenchment Rafio:
A
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
S rin s
Watershed:
ear, 0303002
XS ID
S - 11, Pool
Feature
:114/119/2017Field
Date:
605.9
Crew:
on, 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:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
UNA]
Flood Prone Width:
Max De th at Bankfull:
Mean De th at Bankfull.•
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -11, Pool
607
0 606
— - - •Bankfull
--
-Flood Prone Area
w
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
605
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
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
31.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
607
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
w
1.9
Bankfull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
0
608.6
Flood Prone Width:
608
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
---Bankfull
0.2
W / D Ratio:
31.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -12, Riffle
609
w
---------------------------------------------------------------
0
608
-- ---- --- - - -- -- --- --- --- --- --- ---- - - - - --
---Bankfull
[�
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
607
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/19/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
608.92
1.9
608.92
2.7
608.80
3.6
608.62
4.7
608.61
5.6
608.62
6.4
608.63
7.4
608.68
8.9
608.71
10.1
609.10
11.1
609.25
12.6
609.21
12.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
c
-------------------------------------------------
y-
- - • Bankfull
w
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -13, Riffle
608.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
610
1.8
Bankfull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
609.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
0
30.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -13, Riffle
610
w-----------------------------------------------------
0
609
c
-------------------------------------------------
y-
- - • Bankfull
w
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
608
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/20/2017
1,,
t
6.6
596.55
7.5
596.44
it
596.26
9.0
596.27
9.5
596.34
10.5
596.72
12.1
597.48
13.1
597.69
•
598.11
?.i'
r.:
I -
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
599
w 598
S? ---------
----- --------
-----------------------
-----------
W 597
- � - •sankfuu
���������������
- - - - - - - -
- --��������������� ���������
���•Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
596
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.03
2.0
597.44
3.6
597.03
4.8
596.54
5.6
596.48
6.6
596.55
7.5
596.44
8.4
596.26
9.0
596.27
9.5
596.34
10.5
596.72
12.1
597.48
13.1
597.69
14.7
598.11
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

1
t _
r
a_
Stream Typ C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
599
w 598
------------------------------- ----------------
y • Bankfull
W 597
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
596
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Station
El tion
-0.2
597.59
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
1
t _
r
a_
Stream Typ C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
599
w 598
------------------------------- ----------------
y • Bankfull
W 597
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
596
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Station
El tion
-0.2
597.59
1.9
597.50
3.2
597.40
4.6
596.86
5.7
596.58
6.7
596.34
7.7
596.31
8.9
596.58
9.7
596.89
10.9
597.43
12.3
597.96
13.5
598.34
15.0
598.76
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
8.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:Ca
e Fear, 0303002
XS ID
7OPerkinson,
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.0
1.7
596.8
2.5
596.6
3.1
596.2
3.7
595.9
4.9
595.9
5.9
595.9
6.8
596.0
7.2
596.4
7.9
597.1
9.5
597.8
10.8
598.3
12.2
598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull.
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
599
598
w
0 597
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Bankfull
-Flood Prone Area
W 596 MY -004/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
595
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.0
596.68
6.1
596.62
7.3
596.62
7.8
596.85
8.8
597.10
9.5
597.26
10.7
597.29
., .�4.6�..'
1
.ey
i�•p•L
. 'y+..'.
s'
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
598
w------------------------------------------------------------
0 597
°
--
Bankfull
[�
•
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
596
0 2
4
6 8
10
12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.09
1.4
596.99
2.1
596.84
2.6
596.67
4.2
596.88
5.0
596.68
6.1
596.62
7.3
596.62
7.8
596.85
8.8
597.10
9.5
597.26
10.7
597.29
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.4
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
597.33
1.5
597.09
2.7
596.78
3.3
597.02
4.4
596.91
5.3
596.72
6.7
596.81
7.5
597.18
8.3
597.50
9.1
597.57
9.8
597.62
- - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
596
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
7.5
Flood Prone Width:
.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
t28.0
.2
W / D Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio:
.4
Bank Height Ratio:
.0
Stream Typ C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
598
------------------------------------------------------
------ --------------------------------
597
- - • Bankfiill
w
- - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
596
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.5
599.23
6.7
599.04
F
599.19
8.1
599.17
9.0
599.20
9.7
599.24
10.8
599.22
12.0
599.26
}
599.33
13.6
599.92
14.7
600.09
�.
600.06
'=
..
z,
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
601
-------------
w 600
---------
--------------------------
------------
0
• Bankfull
W 599
-Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
598
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.12
1.7
600.03
3.3
599.78
4.4
599.63
5.0
599.30
5.5
599.23
6.7
599.04
7.4
599.19
8.1
599.17
9.0
599.20
9.7
599.24
10.8
599.22
12.0
599.26
12.9
599.33
13.6
599.92
14.7
600.09
16.4
600.06
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
8.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.2
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
RPerkinson,
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.1
2.6
599.9
3.8
599.8
5.4
599.4
6.2
599.3
7.4
599.1
8.3
598.9
9.6
598.8
10.5
598.7
11.0
598.9
11.4
599.1
11.8
599.6
12.8
599.9
13.7
600.2
15.4
600.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.9
Bankfull Cross-SectionalArea:
5.8
Bankfull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
601
600
° ---------- --------------------------- ---------
e
0
• Bankfull
599 - - - • Flood Prone Area
W
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
598
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
599.86
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape Fear, 0303002
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
XS ID
599.36
8.4
599.33
10.1
599.35
11.4
599.28
12.3
599.71
13.0
599.86
14.5
599.97
16.3
600.15
_c
f ➢, .:
a
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
----------------------------------------------------------------
w
0 600
y
. - - . Bankfull
w
- - • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
599
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
599.86
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
599.86
2.5
599.92
3.9
599.98
4.7
599.75
5.6
599.39
7.1
599.36
8.4
599.33
10.1
599.35
11.4
599.28
12.3
599.71
13.0
599.86
14.5
599.97
16.3
600.15
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.4
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
S rin s
600.2
1.9
600.4
Watershed:
600.3
ear, 0303002
Field Crew:
on, Keith
XS ID
599.3
S - 4, Pool
599.2
7.7
599.2
Feature
:04/210/2017
599.1
9.6
i�
Date:
599.6
10.8
599.7
11.5
599.9
13.0
600.1
15.0
600.2
.`
:rx..
- .f
wi
R
a
.;'
.J-~y`� w iA
- {.-
■'ter
;•�..
Stream Type
7
Aycock Springs,
UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
601
------------
600
--------------------------------
e
0
• Bankfull
°i 599
- - - •Flood Prone Area
w
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
598
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.2
1.9
600.4
3.4
600.3
4.6
Field Crew:
on, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.2
1.9
600.4
3.4
600.3
4.6
600.0
5.2
599.8
6.1
599.3
6.8
599.2
7.7
599.2
8.5
599.1
9.1
599.1
9.6
599.2
10.2
599.6
10.8
599.7
11.5
599.9
13.0
600.1
15.0
600.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:Max
Deth at Bankfull:
E62
Mean Deth at BankfulL•
W / D Ratio:Entrenchment
Rafio:
Bank Height Ratio:

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Watershed:
4/20/2017
Cape
Perkinson, Keith
5.4
599.38
6.2
599.44
7.6
599.49
8.8
599.46
9.9
599.48
10.3
599.70
11.4
600.16
12.2
600.25
14.4
600.22
>,LL
y..
Stream Typ
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
--------------------------------------------------------
0600
-Bankfull
w
- - -Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
-2 0 2
4
6
8
10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
600.36
1.9
600.29
3.2
600.12
3.9
599.96
4.9
599.59
5.4
599.38
6.2
599.44
7.6
599.49
8.8
599.46
9.9
599.48
10.3
599.70
11.4
600.16
12.2
600.25
14.4
600.22
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
0.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
.8
Bankfull Width:
.8
U600.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Bankfull Elevation:
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
50.0
Max Depth at BankfulL•
0.6
.. ti
0.4
W / D Ratio:
24.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
1 r.
Station
Elevation
�r
_
-0.1
600.66
2.5
600.49
3.9
600.41
:;; -3 = c :M+ ^.�•
4.8
600.04
- -
7.1
600.01
_
8.2
599.79
9.6
599.95
11.0
599.91
12.1
600.14
13.4
600.56
15.4
600.68
Stream Typ C/E
Aycock
Springs, UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
602
601
s
0
• • • Bankfiill
�l 600
• Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
599
0 2 4
6
8 10 12 14
16 18
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.4
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
8.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.0
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at BankfulL•
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
24.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.86
2.6
600.94
4.2
600.87
4.8
600.65
5.4
600.20
6.5
600.08
7.4
600.01
8.4
599.97
10.1
600.01
11.4
600.16
12.6
600.39
13.9
600.79
15.9
600.69
599
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
602
600.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.0
Bankfull Width:
Oil;';
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
0
601.5
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
"'6'
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
602
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oil;';
k
0
- - - • Bankfull
irk, x
"'6'
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
602
--------------------------------------------------------------
601
------------- -------------------------------
0
- - - • Bankfull
�l 600
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
599
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
5.8
600.46
7.5
600.44
8.8
600.44
9.9
600.66
10.3
600.66
11.2
600.99
12.1
601.21
14.0
601.30
-
R.
WL
Stream Type C/E
Aycock
Springs, UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
602
--------------------------------------------------------------
w
-----------------------------------------
-------
2 601
,�?
• Bankfull
w
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
600
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/20/2017
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.18
1.8
601.03
3.1
600.72
4.2
600.62
4.8
600.53
5.8
600.46
7.5
600.44
8.8
600.44
9.9
600.66
10.3
600.66
11.2
600.99
12.1
601.21
14.0
601.30
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
11.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
24.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

10
10 Pebble Count,
Aycock Springs
Cape Fear
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
L
~ 40%L
a>
C
LL 30%
c
v 20%
a>
d 10%
0% _�_
0.01
Note: UT -1 - Reach -wide
..
0.1 1
Pebble Count, Aycock Springs
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --*—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item —6 Riffle Pool —*—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) --*—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item — Riffle Pool —*—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) --*—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item — Riffle Pool —*—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
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
L
~ 40%L
a>
C
LL 30%
c
v 20%
a>
d 10%
0% _�_
0.01
Note: i UT -4 - Reach -wide
0.1 1
Pebble Count, Aycock Springs
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --*—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item —6 Riffle Pool —*—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) --*—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item —6 Riffle Pool —*—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 11A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Aycock Springs UT 1
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Cedarock Park
Project Reference
Cripple Creek
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I 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 11
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelen h ft
Meander Width ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope ft/ft
Pool length ft
Poolspacing ft
Substrate
d50 (nun)
d84 (nun)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Len h (ft)Sinuosi
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope
Rosgen Classification
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
(ft/ft)
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
8 73 30 15 25 18 150 150 150 20 70 50
90
4.3 8 5.9 4.3 3 6.6
3.9
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
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
8 15.1 10.1 8 15.1 10.1 4 4.3 4.2 12 16 14 11 19
15
1.9 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.1 24.6 50 37.3 2.6 9 6.4 9 14
11.3
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
44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 47 94 66 47 94
66
2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6
4
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__ ___ __= 9 70
16
1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 2.77% 6.47% 4.16% 0.01% 4.33%
2.23%
=__ ___ __= 4 23
9
25 69 37.2 14 39.6 32.4 23 62 31 23 62
31
J-1.
1.02
1.2
1.22
1
1.1
1.37%
3.61%
2.58%
0.50%
1.2
3.35%
1.89%
Cg
E
E
E/C
E/C

Table 11B. 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 I 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 112
BF Mean Depth (ft)
BF Max Depth ft
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter ft
Hydraulic
draulic radius ft
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle sloe ft/ft
Pool length ft
Poolspacing ft
Substrate
d50 (nun)
d84 (nun)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length (11)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope
Rosgen Classification
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
(ft/ft)
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 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
__H
=__ ___ ---
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
44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 47 94 66 47 94
66
2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 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%
3.61%
2.58%
0.50%
1.27%
3.35%
3.01%
Cg
E
E
E/C
E/C
Note: UT 2 is characterized by a spring/seep, with a very small watershed. The channel was constructed with a smaller Bankfull Gross Sectional area to account for the
smaller stormwater pulses and controlled discharge. In addition, the lower reaches of the channel are low slope wetlands that elevate the width -to -depth ratio in post
construction measurements.

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

Table 111). 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
unavailable for this
project
4.8 11.7 8.3
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
8.7
10
9.4
8
10.9
8.5
Floodprone Width ft
8 70 39 15 25 18
150 150 150
70 200 150
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
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
and pools due to
straightening activties
20 38 22.8 15.1 29.2 24.3 28 56 38 28 56
38
Radius of Curvature ft
11 27 16.5 8.9 19.4 13.2 17 38 28 17 38
28
Meander Wavelength ft
44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 56 113 80 56 113
80
Meander Width ratio
2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6
4
Profile
Riffle length 11
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__ ___ __= 12 35
16
Riffle slope ft/ft
1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 1.12% 2.60% 1.67% 0.61% 2.42%
1.28%
Pool length ft
=__ ___ __= 14 42
22
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.Ed
BF slope ft/ft
=__ ==_ ==_ ===
Rosgen Classification
Eg E E E/C

Table 11E. 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
unavailable for this
project
30 51.7 41.4
8
12.1
8.1
3
6.1
4.6
25.7
29.6
27.7
25.2
30.3
26.7
Floodprone Width ft
68 160 122
15 25 18
150 150 150
200 300 250
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
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 4.1 3.7
1.1 1.4 1.4
1 2.3 1.7
2.7 3 2.8 2.3 3.4
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.7 47 32.1
8 15.1 10.1
4 4.3 4.2
12 16 14 12 16
13
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6 5.3 3.2
1.9 2.2 2.1
24.6 50 37.3
7.2 10.8 9 5 6
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1 1.1 1
1 1.8 1
1 1.5 1.3
1 1.2 1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles and
pools due to
straightening activties
20 38 22.8 15.1 29.2 24.3 83 166 111 83 166
111
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11 27 16.5 8.9 19.4 13.2 55 111 83 55 111
83
Meander Wavelength ft
44 116 68.4 31 74 47.8 166 332 236 166 332
236
Meander Width ratio
2.4 4.7 2.8 2.1 4 3.4 3 6 4 3 6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
No pattern of riffles and
pools due to
straightening activties
=__ ___ __= 16 87
54
Riffle slope ft/ft)
1.00% 5.76% 3.16% 0.00% 1.54% 0.83% 0.28% 0.64% 0.41% 0.00% 0.70%
0.19%
Pool length ft
=__ ___ __= 27 70
43
Poolspacing ft
25 69 37.2 14 39.6 32.4 83 222 111 83 222
111
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length ft
Sinuosity
1.05 1.2 1.22 1.05
1.05
Water Surface 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 12A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (Downstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 2 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 3 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 4 Riffle (Travis Down)
XS 5 Pool (Travis Down)
XS 6 Riffle (Travis Down)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
26
26.7
26.4
25.2
26.2
26.3
33.7
33.2
35.4
25.5
27
26.5
26
26.7
26
27.3
27.7
26.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
150
150
150
----
----
----
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
41.3
40
40.1
47.5
47.4
47.9
58.7
55.8
57.2
47.2
44.6
43.8
61.4
58.1
52.3
54.9
50.6
50.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.7
3.5
3.7
2.5
2.6
2.6
4
3.7
3.2
3
1 2.9
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.8
17.4
13.4
14.5
14.4
----
----
----
13.8
16.3
16.0
----
----
----
13.6
15.2
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
5.6
5.7
6.0
5.7
5.7
----
----
----
5.9
5.6
5.7
----
----
----
5.5
5.4
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.04
----
----
----
1.0
1.04
1.04
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.1
27.4
27.2
26.4
27.5
27.3
34.8
34.4
36.4
26.6
28
27.5
27.6
28.2
27.3
28.7
29.1
27.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.81.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
Substrate
d50 (nun)
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- 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
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
25.9
27.7
25.7
28.1
28.5
28.6
29.3
29.1
29.7
38.6
38.6
39.1
30.3
29.8
30.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
60
45.8
44.9
64.6
57.4
58.3
65.9
63.1
60.8
100.1
91
87.5
73.9
66.6
69.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
1.7
1.7
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.9
2.8
2.5
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.7
3.4
3.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.4
3.6
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
12.2
14.2
14.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.4
13.3
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
5.3
5.3
5.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.0
5.0
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.00
1.06
1.06
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.5
29.1
26.8
29.5
29.7
29.8
30.6
30.3
30.8
40.2
40
40.4
31.8
31.4
32.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.2
1.6
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----LtLt
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
---
Table 12B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock Travis Creek (Upstream) - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 12 Riffle (Travis Up)
XS 13 Pool (Travis Up)
XS 14 Riffle (Travis Up)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
29
29.6
29.7
26.9
26.9
27.8
32.8
32.3
31.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
----
----
----
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.7
66.4
67.9
64.0
50.3
51.9
104.5
92.4
94.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.9
3.2
2.9
3.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.3
3.2
4.8
4.1
4.5
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
13.2
13.0
----
----
----
10.295
11.29
10.76
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
5.1
5.1
----
----
----
4.6
4.6
4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.03
1.03
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.4
30.8
30.9
28.8
28.1
28.8
35.0
34.2
33.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.8
3.0
2.7
2.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
---
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
---
----
----
---
---
---

Table 12C. 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 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
9.3
9.2
9.7
8.8
9.3
9.2
8.4
8.4
9.3
9.3
9.7
9.3
9.6
9.5
9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
4.7
4.4
4.6
3.7
3.7
6.7
5.6
6.4
6.2
5.5
5.7
6.6
5.9
5.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6 1
0.7
0.6
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.3
1.2
1.3
1
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
18.0
21.4
16.8
23.4
22.9
----
----
----
14.0
17.1
15.2
14.0
15.3
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.3
10.2
9.7
9.8
----
----
----
9.7
9.3
9.7
9.4
9.5
9.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
9.4
10
9
9.4
9.4
8.9
8.9
9.8
9.7
10
9.6
10
10
9.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
---
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 7 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 8 Pool (UT 1)
XS 9 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 10 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2 MY3 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)
6.9
7.5
6.7
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.8
8.7
7.2
7.9
7.2
7.6
7.6
7
6.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
90
90
90
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
1.9
2.2
3.9
2.4
2.4
5.7
4.1
3.6
3
4.1
1.6
4.7
5.6
5.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.2 1
0.6
0.8
0.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.2
1
0.9
0.7
1.1
0.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
29.6
20.4
14.4
21.6
22.2
----
----
----
20.8
12.6
36.1
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
12.0
13.4
12.0
12.5
12.3
----
----
----
11.4
12.5
11.8
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.2
7.6
6.8
7.8
7.3
7.5
8.3
9.1
7.5
8
7.8
7.7
8
7.7
7.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
---
----
---
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 11 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 13 Pool (UT 1)
XS 14 Riffle (UT 1)
XS 15 Riffle (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2 MY3 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)
7.4
7
7.8
8
7.4
6.4
8.6
8
8.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
7.1
7.2
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.7
2.8
2.8
6.5
4.3
4.7
3.1
2.8
2.8
4
3.3
2.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5 1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4 1
0.8
0.5
1 0.6
0.5 1
0.4
1 0.4 1
0.6
0.5
1 0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.4
17.3
19.6
14.6
----
----
----
13.2
14.2
14.2
12.6
15.7
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.5
11.3
12.2
14.1 1
14.1
14.3
14.3
12.7
12.5
14.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.1
8.5
7.6
6.6
9.2
8.5
9.0
6.8
6.5
6.6
7.4
7.6
6.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
Substrate
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm) I
---
----
---
----
----
---

Table 12C 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 MY5 MY 0 MYl
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
8.5
8.1
7.4
7.1
7.2
6.7
7.6
7.7
8.1
9.1
8.5
8.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.6
2.6
2.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.6
6.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
4.4
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.3
1
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
26.5
25.8
18.5
18.2
14.8
14.4
15.2
12.5
----
----
----
15.6
16.4
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
10.0
10.8
10.6
10.6
11.1
12.2
12.7
12.5
13.4
7.2
----
----
9.9
10.6
10.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.14
1.0
1.16
1.33
---
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.4
8.7
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.0
8.2
8.3
8.7
9.4
8.7
9.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
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
9.7
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.6
6.8
7
8
7.7
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
9.3
5.9
5.4
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.2
3
4
3.2
3.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.4
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
14.4
16.5
16.1
18.1
14.5
16.3
16.0
18.5
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
12.5
12.0
12.3
11.8
13.2
12.9
11.3
11.7
11.8
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.17
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.5
9.2
10.4
7.5
7.8
7.5
9.3
7.0
7.2
9.3
7.8
7.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
---
----
- --
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
---
----
----
----

Table 12D. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT -2 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Pool (UT 2)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 3 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 6 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 7 Pool (UT 2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
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 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.5
6.3
6.9
4.8
5.6
5.5
5.7
5.3
5.8
6.4
5.7
5.4
8.4
7.7
8.5
6.9
7
6.8
8.3
9.4
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.8
2.1
3.2
1
1.1
1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1
0.9
0.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.3
1.4
1
5.1
4.1
3.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3 1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.8
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
23.0
28.5
30.3
19.1
20.1
28.0
41.0
36.1
32.4
22.8
21.2
24.9
20.7
35.0
46.2
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
18.8
16.1
16.4
15.8
17.0
15.5 1
14.1
15.8
16.7
10.7
11.7
10.6
13.0
12.9
13.2
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.9
6.5
7.2
4.9
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.4
6.0
6.5
5.7
5.5
8.6
7.9
8.6
7.0
7.0
6.9
8.8
9.5
8.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.5
Substrate
----
----
----
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 8 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 9 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 10 Pool (UT 2)
XS 11 Pool (UT 2)
XS 12 Riffle (UT 2)
XS 13 Riffle (UT 2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.6
8.3
8.3
7.4
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.8
7.6
6.2
6.4
5.6
8.3
9.2
7.7
7.2
7.6
7.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.6
3.1
2.8
4.2
3.8
4.4
5.2
4
4
3.5
2.7
2.5
3.2
2.3
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2 1
0.3
0.2
0.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
22.2
24.6
13.0
16.4
14.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
21.5
36.8
31.2
24.7
34.0
30.4
Entrenchment Ratio
10.5
10.8
10.8
12.2
11.4
11.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
10.8
9.8
11.7
12.5
11.8
12.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.8
8.5
8.6
7.7
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.2
8.0
6.6
6.6
5.8
8.6
9.3
8.0
7.3
7.7
7.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
----
----

Table 12E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Avcock UT -3 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 2 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 3 Pool (UT 3)
XS 4 Riffle (UT 3)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 3)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.5
6.9
6.7
4.7
5.2
5.2
5
5.4
5.2
7
6.8
6.9
5.3
5.6
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
11
11
20
8
8
----
----
----
20
20
20
20
20
20
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.7
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.9
3.6
3.2
3.2
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
1
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
20.7
18.7
11.6
16.9
14.2
----
----
----
22.3
24.3
28.0
23.4
28.5
28.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.6
1.6
4.3
1.5
1.5
----
----
----
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.8
3.6
3.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.8
7.1
6.9
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.7
7.1
6.9
7.0
5.7
5.8
6.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Substrate
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
---
d50 (mm)
----
d84 (mm)
--
----
----
---
---
----
----
----
Table 12F. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Aycock UT -4 - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
XS 1 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 2 Pool (UT 4)
XS 3 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 4 Pool (UT 4)
XS 5 Riffle (UT 4)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.3
9.4
8.8
8.5
9.1
9.5
8.6
8.7
8.4
8.5
10.6
10.7
8
8.3
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
----
----
----
50
50
50
----
----
----
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
3.3
3.3
6.4
5.4
5.8
4.3
3.4
3.5
6.2
5.2
5.6
4.3
4.1
3.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.5
1
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.6
1.2
1
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
26.8
23.5
----
----
----
17.2
22.3
20.2
----
----
----
14.9
16.8
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio
6.0
5.3
5.7
----
----
----
5.8
5.7
6.0
----
----
----
6.3
6.0
6.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.6
9.5
9.0
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.0
8.8
8.6
9.1
10.9
11.1
8.3
8.5
8.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm) I
----
----
---
---
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 MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
8.9
9.9
11.7
9.1
10.9
11.1
11
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
3.3
5.6
4.9
5
5.6
4.9
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
24.0
17.5
27.9
16.6
21.2
25.1
24.7
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.6
5.1
4.3
5.5
4.6
4.5
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4
9.0
9.0
10.2
11.9
9.4
11.1
11.3
11.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
---

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 13. UT3 Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 13. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Max consecutive days channel flow
37
110
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation herbaceous or otherwise
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation
and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
including h dro h es
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
Other:
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

c
10.0
8.0
6.0
Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT -3
Year 1 (2016 Data)
0.0
-2.0
N N N N W W W W P. P. P. In In In In m m m m J J J J w w w w l0 l0 1.0 1.0
N m F\-� N W v I\-� N F\-� kDD F\-� N N F\-� F\-� N 4 I\-� N N l\n F\-� N N m F\-� N W \ \ \ \ \
\ \ J In \ O 00 a> \ -P, N O \ In W \ \ V U, \ O W M \ N O W \ W kD \ N O W 1.0
J J J J J V V J J J V V J J J J J J J V J J J J J v J V J
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
3
2.0 £
c
1.5
oc
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 14. 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.
4.66 inches of rain was recorded between April 23 and
June 15, 2017
April 25, 2017
25, 2017 at an onsite rain gauge.
--
Wrack and laid back vegetation observed in the
October 27, 2017
June 19, 2017
floodplain of Travis Creek after 1.93 inches of rain was
3
recorded on June 19, 2017 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 3: Wrack and laid-back
vegetation around a cross-section marker in
the floodplain of Travis Creek
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 15. 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.
2017 Year 2 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)
1
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
(23.3 percent)
1 (10.5 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.
2017 Year 2 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
a
4
-6
a
-8
a 10
c
c -12
L
c7 -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 2 (2017 Data)

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
-2
-4
-6
°J -8
m
m
3 -10
v
3 -12
° -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 2 (2017 Data)
N N W W W W W ? ? Ln Ln Ln Ul Ul m m m m V V V V m w w w w l0 l0 l0 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O N
N N 00 N N N V7M 0 V N N W -,J NW V I--� N N LnI--� h-0 N N lD NW Ql N N N
Ul \\\\\
N Ul \ \ N l0 \ NJ N l0 61 \ O A F-� \ A F-� 00 \ N l0 M\ \ Ol W O \ W O V AF-� M N
V V V
Date
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
°
O
1.0
0.5
0.0
E
a

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c -2
-4
-6
J
L
°1 -8
3 -10
v
3 -12
° -14
c7
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Aycock Springs Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 2 (2017 Data)
N N W W W W W A A A A Ln Ln Ln Ln V7 m m m m V V V V m m m m m w w w w N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O N
V7 lf7
V F- -4 V
V V
Date
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
7
O
1.0
0.5
0.0
Q

APPENDIX F
BENTHIC DATA
Results
Habitat Assessment Data Sheets
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

AXIOM ENVIRONMENT AYCOCK PROJECT, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FORM ALAMANCE
COUNTY, NC, 6/15/2017.
PAI ID NO
50157
50158
50159
STATION
UT -1
UT -2
UT -4
DATE
6/15/2017
6/15/2017
6/15/2017
SPECIES
TOLERANCE
VALUE
FUNCTIONAL
FEEDING GROUP
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.
8.7
CG
2
1
3
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
CG
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
CG
3
Hirudinea
P
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
P
1
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Ostracoda
1
Isopoda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea sp.
8.4
CG
3
5
1
Amphipoda
CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
7.2
CG
1
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Procambarus sp.
9.3
SH
1
Insecta
Collembola
Isotomidae
1
Ephemeroptera
Caenidae
CG
Caenis sp.
6.8
CG
36
Odonata
Coenagrionidae
P
Ischnura sp.
9.5
5
1
Libellulidae
P
1
Plathemis lydia
9.8
1
Somatochlora tenebrosa
8.9
P
1
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
1
Corixidae
PI
1
Coleoptera
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 2 AXIOM AYCOCK 6 17cl

AXIOM ENVIRONMENT AYCOCK PROJECT, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FORM ALAMANCE
COUNTY, NC, 6/15/2017.
PAI ID NO
50157
50158
50159
STATION
UT -1
UT -2
UT -4
DATE
6/15/2017
6/15/2017
6/15/2017
SPECIES
TOLERANCE
VALUE
FUNCTIONAL
FEEDING GROUP
Dytiscidae
P
Laccophilus fasciatus rufus
9.8
P
1
Hydrophilidae
P
2
1
Tropisternus sp.
9.3
P
6
1
3
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
P
1
Chironomidae
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
60
15
11
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
12
9
7
EPT INDEX
1
0
0
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned values
8.08
8.47
9.08
PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 2 AXIOM AYCOCK 6 17cl

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet Al (oL)-r. I
Mountain/ Piedmont Steams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ ffOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent
average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form,
select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
0:� . P ZJ
Stream ��' 40 �f* 1'` r fGeY Location/road: � abs '' ' �Ro d Name )County %�"1 ^w'' �e
Date Cabs 111 CC# Basin Subbasin 6? -0=" OZ
aq�n
Observer(s)I-_41rA0 " Type of Study: ❑ Fish KBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 3C�IZY��� Longitude -�1 sz'12'1 Ecoregion: ❑ MT ),P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature — °C DO _ mg/I Conductivity (con•.) pS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: �'� %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : ❑Forest IbAgriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream � Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg Max � c.
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height. (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: {` ' or [INA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel tilled in with sediment
❑ Recent over•bank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth O Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON �Y: ❑R" ap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berni/levee
Flow conditions : []High ❑Normal O ow
Turbidity: DClear O Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? YES ONO Details I 9`1
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ O
C. Water tills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: �'01 1';'J"'40 Photos: ON LAY ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks: , a,'1 -W\
N
42
_ � 1
t+

I. Channel Modification core
A. channel natural, frequent bends.... 0
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ........................ I............................. 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence f dredging ❑Evidence of desnaggim—no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
ID
Remarks, _Xt0V ii01r01() Iff,,0(k Subtotal
11. 1nstream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare Common. or Abundant.
�- Rocks k Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs � Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
2016
,
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
I type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal 144
111. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at
riftle for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ......................... 15
2. ernbeddedness 20 -40% ........................................................ 2
3. embeddedness 40-80%.......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................. 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................ 14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
�b3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
4. embeddedness>80%...............................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock................................................................................................... 3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................ 3
Substrate pearl all detritus......
y.............................................................................................. _
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay................................................................................................... I
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the. 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent...........................................................................................................................................Subtotal
Lbt o tal
0 —
�
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑ Bottom D/
rsandy-sink as you walk D Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader- depth
Remarks_ _—_--
Page Total
43

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
t16
re Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles a—bsf nt................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: E3T'yp1cal for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 7� 7)
B. Erosion areas present
I . diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
?. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident...........................................0 0
Total w
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ....................................
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks *0"l !'t`-; .64 o --!-t 4 V Subtotal
%1111. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A
break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as
paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
—/ FACE UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: Q Trees Q/hrubs aGrasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc)
Score
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
I. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
5
5
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
4�
'
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
...................................
4. width < 6 meters ....................................... ............
:.
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters ..............
C. width 6-l) meters.......................................................................
I
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
I
?. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
3
3
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
1
1
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
0
0
Remarks �1 rvv ��-- 1'_ j ( �� �� ('
Total
J
Page Total 40
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
44

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle.-
900
ngle:90° 45°
Typical Stream Cross-section
Cross-section
�� F,xtrcmc Iligh Water
Normal lligh Water
Normal Flow ,
p
135°
— _ — Upper Hank
Lo„rr
Hank
L stream Width This side is 45° bank angle.
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
t
45

I
3/06 Revision 6 Utz
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet JJ
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ ffOTALSCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent
average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form,
select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined byaddingthe results from the different metrics.
pp pee -la
Stream {l Bio ����5 CrCee— Location/road: OP" �a+�sor��tie ()"ad Name )County ��a'""'^ `�
Date (QEI, Jif CC# /)3o 3"d -t Basin l>~ear Subbasin
Observer(s) 9U4W\0ype of Study: ❑ Fish *enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 36. 17$ t2$ Longitude -71. 51(913 Ecoregion: ❑ MT XP ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Nater Quality: Temperature °C DO �f nig/l Conductivity (corr.) pS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential aO %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallo4v Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use :korest Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream = Channel (at top of bank) ; . ; Stream Depth: (m) Avg' �^ ^Max
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river>25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) L ,
Bank Angle: or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low For bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Bath banks undercut at bend []Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton gro\•vth, 1:1 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ❑N Y: ❑Ripyrap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow condittio� : ❑High ❑Normal Low
Turbidity: (]Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic/❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? l YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low Flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ ❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... B/
E. Very little water- in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: Y , •r • j
Photos: ❑N 0�1 ❑ Digital 1135mm
Remarks: v Ck�o\'Via{-L-W- 0060 VA chink
ry
SIC) CI
42

I. Channel Modification re
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ t, 5i
B. channel natural. infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of strearn disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal _ J
11. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant.
Rocks A Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
riffle for ern bedded ness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
15
mer
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20 ,`
16
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .............
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
1
Remarks
Subtotal
111. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at
riffle for ern bedded ness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40%..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
I. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
I�
J. embeddedness 40-80%
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. ernbeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. ernbeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
I . substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .............
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
1
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...............................................................................................................0
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 81)
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent........................................................................................................................................ 0 C)
Subtotal
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
43

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris darn, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Sr*ore Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... i 16; 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 1.0
D. riffles abient ................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal _
Vl. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
I . little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.' -@
13. Erosion areas present
I . diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................... I................. 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
�. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident...........................................0 0 I
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Qrnri,
A. Stream with good canopy .with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas .......................................................
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................ ............. 0
....................................
Remarks i o"/ ,L
Subtotal 14=
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain).
Definition: A
break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the
stream, such as
paths down to stream. storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides. etc.
/ F�AE UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: Trees n Shrubs 0 Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc)
Score
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
I..width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters ...................................................................................
5
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
I . breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width <- 6 meters...........
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
3
i
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
I
I
d. width < 6 meters ................ .......................................................
0
0
Remarks cuY 2 �^ ' . .�. U _ , f
Total
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE_
44

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
VI
90° 45°
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
Typical Stream Cross-section
1 Extreme Ili -it Water
135°
Normal I ligh Water
Normal Plow
Upper Back
Lower
Bank
stream Width
This side is 45° bank angle.
45

3/06 Revision 6 �yeoelG oT `
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet JJ
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent
average stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form,
select the description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two
descriptions, select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
trc, �iJ ],
t
Stream X 4- `T't-.,J:', Cfttt Location/road: G '.'�r (I oad Name )County %`�ww�a✓'F
Date ��S! CC# 0303 0007- Basin (�,.p, Subbasin
r
Observer(s) "Vf o Type of Study: ❑ Fish j3enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 36, 17A96" Longitude Ecoregion: ❑ N1T XP ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature - °C DO - mg/I Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm 1)H �
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential %Active PastUr'e % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : Forest Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream , I Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg ��' Max L7
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25111 wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: —`� ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0°. Angles % 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel. < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks []Both banks undercut at bend []Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits El Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Lxcessive periphyton growth�� ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON D�`: ❑R�ipp, cement, gabions 13 Sediment/grade-control structrn-e ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions : ❑HIg ❑Normal 13fow
Turbidity: ❑Clear 13 Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tanniic OMilky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? UrYES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................
B. Water fills ?75% of available channel.. or Q5% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing p000ls/..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions: Noo , �V Y� Photos: ❑N OK ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks:
5--'\0,0
42

1. Channel Modification
A. channel natural, frequent bends..............................................................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old)...........
C. some channelization present...................................................................
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ....................
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc..........
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream
Remarks
ore
............................ 5
.............................
4
.............................
3
.............................
2
.............................
0
❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Subtotal 5
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common. or Abundant.
t Rocks �. Nlacrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs P Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
Score
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
16
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
5
1 1
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
0
?
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
Subtotal
Remarks
Subtotal
lll. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at
riffle for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40%...............................................................................
?
1_
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80%.................................................................................... ....................
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
?
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
I . substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus ..................
?
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
I I
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... LQ,
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ }
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...........
....................................................................................................
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent........................................................................................................................................ 0 (�
,1 Subtotal
El Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 13 Bottom sandy -sink as you walk biJ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total~"
43

V. Riffle I-labitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
re Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 1 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 4 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal I
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
I . little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.? 0
B. Erosion areas present
I . diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2-
5.
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident...........................................0 0 ,
rte.
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0
Remarks Subtotal
-
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond
floodplain).
Definition: A
break in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, Such as
paths down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides. etc.
—/ CE UPSTREAM
Lft. Bank
Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: Trees Vd Shrubs Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc)
Score
Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
I. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
5
5
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
,
'
O
3, width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters ..........................
'
C. width 6-12 meters .....................................
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.....
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
I
I
id. width < 6 meters........... I..............................................................
Remarks I e") ( ) "'lt/ l-i�t 0.{h
0
Total
Page Total U
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE
44

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diag►-am to determine bank angle:
90° 45°
Site Sketch:
Other- comments:
Tvyical Stream Cross-section
Extreme Moh Water
Normal Ifigh Water
•
Normal Flovv
i Eli
�•�:
•'iip-� J�
Stream Width Bank
45
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.

APPENDIX G
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
ReplantArea 1 y
Denary-r2D bees In 0.47 ac -250 Trees+Ac
2 nevr pamse sums added ro vag p9r 13
• L
Replant Area 2.
Density. 170 trees m 1. S at - 172 Trees i Ac
3 neiv plaered srems adyed m veg plpt512 4 i4
Repwnl Area 3
Denary: 20 trees in .22 ac -71 trees; At.
ReplarltAwa 4
DePM 25 trees in 0.29 ac -59 Trees;Ac.
2 new planted nems added to veg plots 10
9
Replant Area 6.
D—ity, 751rees m 0.32 ac - 230 Trees' Ac.
5 naav planted v—a Mind Ia ve plots
Map of Replant Areas- green dots indicate approximate location of where photos were taken.
Replant Area S
Density: 15e t mes,n 0.92 ac - 200 Trees l Ac
d new 1.,nred stems added m —qp1Ea 88 g
2 naw planted stemAa
s add so reg %t 2
Replant Area 7
Denary: 3101Fees In 1 55 at � 200 Trees i At
5 new planled Wens added 10 Veg 0012
N1 Mw 04�Me1 U.— a tlded 1e veg 0111 1
Replant Area 8:
oensity: 1501 tees In .57 acres - 260 V2es I Ac.
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC
ar��ESS upiL 911 + Aycock Springs Mitigaiton Site
G�-C 5•1E s
-__ _ • _ � 2016 Remedial Planting Plan
�FGk era'+�'9�92
�� r:el hSk
eS am
}

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

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
Photo 2: Looking S. in Replant Area 2, just N. of veg. plot 14 Photo Date: 1-13-2017

;:► Y,i ,....
i �.� � _•: •"�, it } y�'� i �:; � [
'� Fk i ,., f�t�'i z, +il) ��.�• 5 k' ,a spa, �}r-T`. �- I � ..
F ♦♦ S � • 'a

fj Ro
-lip
ANA
*14
ly All
7.
AY.

49i
7
MAN.

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
MAI
4
c j t
4.f
72 i
Photo 6 / 7: Live stake establishment on bank in Replant area 6
13
Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement - Update
Pill
i
` Historic Channel
r--1 I I• 1
- L
lr " Restored Channel
WANSubstrate Replacement
Area 2 -12'
Substrate Replacement
Areal -15'
/ ,A
.�t
r
r.'
EN12 T2
STA.- +75
6S
1 S
4
C
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC SGALE:IM=4211
Springs
1101 HAY IJE55T.SUiTE 211Aycock
RL
® AEIGH. NO 2760a DATE, 2.2011
Substrate replacement - 2-23-2017
H 918755.8480 SITE',
FA%. 918)558492
ILIAeni
lmepery:lc ESRI
Map of Area — UT 1, XC 9, 10, 11
Aye "k Springs, UT 1, X$ • 9, Rill
Aycock Springs, LTT 1, XS - 10, Pool
k—ork Springs, UT I° ]rS - 11, RIM
596
595
5-
--------------------------.-------_--_-__--_-----------
-MYA9us'IR
�A7-0! lNlm76
5
Us— 6w
594
W
�_.BaNSWI
Flr-00 YSn6
= MY -00 4'6H 6
FiY-0] l4RlG6
R95
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (j ee)
o>nlan lay. J
Aye "k Springs, UT 1, X$ • 9, Rill
Aycock Springs, LTT 1, XS - 10, Pool
596
595
595
-MYA9us'IR
�A7-0! lNlm76
5
Us— 6w
594
W
�_.BaNSWI
__� rtom Prmee Area
= MY -00 4'6H 6
593
AMY-0110AM6
0 2 4 6 8 10
12 14
Station (j ee)
Aye "k Springs, UT 1, X$ • 9, Rill
5gfi
595
-MYA9us'IR
�A7-0! lNlm76
593
V S i3
Us— 6w

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
i
�5
Ilk
Photo 1: Substrate loss, 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 2: Pool, upstream of 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9 (XC 10 in background)
Cn'v­
.
Ilk
Photo 1: Substrate loss, 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 2: Pool, upstream of 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9 (XC 10 in background)

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo 3: Substrate replacement at UT 1, XC 9
Photo Date: 2-23-2017

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 3: Substrate loss, upstream riffle of XC 10 (pool)

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement — Update Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 4: Substrate replaced, upstream riffle of XC 10 (pool)

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 5: post replacement overview

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
- _ _ - _- µ _,�'� - - .xr• tr:t T-5 ..1�55,�,x.
1•
Photo 6: UT -1 looking downstream from XC -11

Aycock Springs -Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement- Update Photo Date: 3-03-2017
. .... . . . . . .
a 1
�41L
s 9
l a+1Wg FYI+q W
117 ```1P sa /�c���iFt�r*' 'die="--`��►,y, A.�a� fi'�+�
Al
�'�-+� •may' r
0"WE E ti•
`-00 -_
- - - •� _�. -a�� - '` !\. E -"may jf, r ' ;, r ' y _
05
A. 4391► a x`' ��41c* '�i1�d �, i , e 1 °3" �. �.tQ� 1 ! " : ° : n....
Photo 7: XC -9 - Post 3-1-2017 0.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NQ - 7 miles from Site

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update Photo Date: 3-03-2017
Photo 7: XC -10— Post 3-1-20170.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NQ — 7 miles from Site

APPENDIX F
INVASIVE SPECIES TREATMENT LOGS
2017 Year 2 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0397
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 04-06-2017
Start Time 10:00
End Time
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Cloudy Temp (F)
Wind Direction W Wind Speed
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Basal Bark
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Garlon® 4 (triclopyr)
15
Diesel fuel
15 gallons
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Large privet downstream
Total Concentrate
15:30
1 of 2
61
11-15mph
290 fl oz

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0464
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 9:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Clear Temp (F)
Wind Direction S Wind Speed
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Roundup® Custom (glyphosate)
5 Total Concentrate
Hel-fire®
.5
Blue Dye
14:00
2 of 2
81
1-5 mph
78 fl oz
1 fl oz
Water
12 gallons
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
The majority of the site is clear of invasive species. The privet and rose present
were small re-sproutes from recent treatments.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0465
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Srpings
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 14:00
End Time
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Clear Temp (F)
Wind Direction S Wind Speed
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Cut and Stump Spray
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
50 Total Concentrate
Water
100 fl oz
16:00
3of3
81
1-5 mph
50 fl oz
Jap. Honeysuckle
Privet spp.
Tree -of -Heaven
Multiflora Rose
Cut and Stump Sprayed a large patch of all invasive species listed above. The
patch itself was only 20 ft by 50 ft consisting of small specimen. Loppers were
used to clear the area.
The area cut is actually located outside of the easement boundaries according to
PDF maps. I spoke with Ray Holz and he gave the green light to carry on with the
treatment in this area. A map can be provided upon request.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0468
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 9:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
Sky Cover Clear
Wind Direction S
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(%)
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
rt3
Hel-fire®
Water
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Temp (F)
Wind Speed
Total Concentrate
2 gallons
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Large amount of privet in back corner of site
16:00
1 of 2
81
1-5 mph
8 fl oz

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0264
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Spring
Date 08-16-2016
Start Time 13:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
Sky Cover Clear
Wind Direction SW
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey
Cut and Stump Spray
Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
50
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Water
.5 gallons
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
End Time 17:30
If NO, this is PAL # of ## 2 of 2
Temp (F) 100
Wind Speed 1-5 mph
Total Concentrate 32 fl oz
Treated the up stream area of the easement. The density of invasive were
moderate. The composed mainly small plants with a few large stems spread
throughout.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0463
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Srpings
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 9:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
Sky Cover Clear
Wind Direction S
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Herbicide Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%) 3
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1) Hel-fire®
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate 5
M
Other Blue Dye
End Time 16:00
If NO, this is PAL # of ## 1 of 3
Temp (F) 81
Wind Speed 1-5 mph
Total Concentrate 8 fl oz
Other Rate/Amt
1 fl oz z
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
2 gal
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Area Description The majority of the site is clear of invasive species. The privet and rose present
were small re-sproutes from recent treatments.
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0348
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 10-28-2016
Start Time 8:30
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Sky Cover
Wind Direction
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
End Time
No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Partly Cloudy Temp (F)
NNW Wind Speed
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Basal Bark
Garlon® 4 (triclopyr)
15
Blue Dye
1 fl oz
Diesel fuel
10 gallons
Total Concentrate
16:00
1 of 2
71
6-10 mph
190 fl oz
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Performed a walk through of the site. The previous treatment was effective. This
treatment focused on regrowth and missed plants.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0267
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Slte
Aycock Spring
Date
08-17-2016
Start Time
7:00
End Time
13:30
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
No
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
3 of 3
Sky Cover
Clear
Temp (F)
100
Wind Direction
S
Wind Speed
1-5 mph
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Basal Bark
Herbicide
Garlon® 4 (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
20
Total Concentrate
300 fl oz
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Other
Blue Dye
Other Rate/Amt 1 fl oz
Diluent Diesel fuel
Total Solution 12 gallons
Species Controlled Privet spp.
Tree -of -Heaven
Multiflora Rose
Sweet Gum
Area Description Treated the up stream area of the easement. The density of invasive were
moderate. The composed mainly small plants with a few large stems spread
throughout.
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0265
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Slte
Aycock Spring
Date
08-17-2016
Start Time
7:30
End Time
13:30
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
No
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
1 of 3
Sky Cover
Clear
Temp (F)
97
Wind Direction
S
Wind Speed
1-5 mph
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey
Sebastian Kimlinger
Application Method
Cut and Stump Spray
Herbicide
Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
50
Total Concentrate
128 fl oz
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
2 gallons
Species Controlled
Callery Pear
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Area Description
Treated the up stream area of the
easement. The density of invasive were
moderate. The composed mainly
small plants with a few large stems spread
throughout.
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0469
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 9:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
Sky Cover Clear
Wind Direction S Wind Speed
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Temp (F)
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Refuge® (glyphosate)
5
Hel-fire®
5
Water
Total Solution 12 gallons
Total Concentrate
16:00
2 of 2
81
1-5 mph
78 fl oz
Species Controlled Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Area Description Large amount of privet in back corner of site, some small invasives near the
stream
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0349
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 10-28-2016
Start Time 14:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
Sky Cover
Wind Direction
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
End Time
No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Clear Temp (F)
NNW Wind Speed
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Roundup® Custom (glyphosate)
3 Total Concentrate
Hel-fire®
.5
Blu Dye
1 fl oz
Water
4 gallons
16:00
2 of 2
71
6-10 mph
16 fl oz
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Foliar treated saplings that were too small to basal bark. Overall the site has
improved since last treatment.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0398
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Springs
Date 04-06-2017
Start Time 12:30
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
Sky Cover Cloudy
Wind Direction W
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(%)
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Temp (F)
Wind Speed
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Roundup® Custom (glyphosate)
5
Hel-fire®
5
Water
3 gallons
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Total Concentrate
14:30
2 of 2
61
11-15mph
20 fl oz

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0263
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Springs
Date 08-16-2016
Start Time 15:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Clear Temp (�
Wind Direction SW Wind Speed
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Basal Bark
GarlonO 4 (triclopyr)
20 Total Concentrate
Blue Dye
1 fl oz
Diesel fuel
2 gallons
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
17:30
1 of 2
100
1-5 mph
32 fl oz
Treated the up stream area of the easement. The density of invasive were
moderate. The composed mainly small plants with a few large stems spread
throughout.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0266
Client Restoration Systems
Project Slte Aycock Spring
Date 08-17-2016
Start Time 7:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No
Sky Cover Clear
Wind Direction S Wind Speed
Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
End Time
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Temp (F)
Applicators
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
N
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
3
Hel-fire®
0.5
Water
1 gallon
Total Concentrate
12:00
2of3
97
1-5 mph
4 fl oz
Privet spp.
Treated small privet (waste high and lower.)Treated the up stream area of the
easement. The density of invasive were moderate. The composed mainly small
plants with a few large stems spread throughout.