20140335 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report Final 2018_20190128

k��
PW
YEAR 3 (2018) 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 2018
Y
PREPARED FOR:
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
January 2019

YEAR 3 (2018) 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 2018
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 2019

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Streams..........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Wetland Hydrology....................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Biotic Community Change............................................................................................................ 8
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN.......................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................9
4.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 9
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT BACKGROUND DATA AND MAPS
Figure 1. Site Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5E. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 10. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Table l Ia-1 le. 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 H. HERBICIDE APPLICATION FORMS
APPENDIX I. PHOTO LOG
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Table of Contents page i
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) encompasses approximately 13 acres located
roughly 1.5 miles north of Elon and Gibsonville in western Alamance County within 14 -digit Cataloging
Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03030002030010 of the Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 1, Appendix B
and Table 4, Appendix A). Prior to construction, the Site consisted of agricultural land used for livestock
grazing, hay production, and timber harvest. Streams were cleared, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically
and laterally, and received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from livestock and timber harvest activities.
Stream impacts in Travis Creek also occurred due to a breached dam that impounded water during storm
events. In addition, streamside wetlands were drained by channel incision, soil compaction, the loss of forest
vegetation, and land uses. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts,
and project attributes are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
Positive aspects supporting mitigation activities at the Site include the following.
• Streams have a Best Usage Classification of WS -V, NSW
• Located in a Targeted Local Watershed and within the NCDMS Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance
Local Watershed Planning (LWP) Area
• Travis Creek is listed on the NCDENR 2012 303(d) list for 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
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page I
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.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 2
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

* Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
** Prior to Site selection, the landowner received a violation for unauthorized discharge of fill material into Waters
of the United States. Fill resulted from unpermitted upgrades to a farm pond dam, including widening the dam
footprint, dredging stream channel, and casting spoil material adjacent to the stream channel on jurisdictional
wetlands. Prior to restoration activities the landowner was required to obtain an after -the -fact permit to resolve
the violations of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (Action ID:SAW-2014-00665). In addition, stream reaches
and wetland areas associated with the violation have been removed from credit generation.
In addition, the landowner received a violation for riparian buffer impacts due to clearing of trees adjacent to
streams draining to Jordan Lake (NOV-2013-BV-0001). As a result of this violation, the upper 122 linear feet of
UT 3 has a reduced credit ratio (1.5:1). On-site visits conducted with USACE representatives determined that
the functional uplift of project restoration to UT 3 would be satisfactory to generate credit at this ratio.
Stream Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives. From a
mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes stream success criteria related to goals
and objectives.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Stream
Stream Mitigation Type
(linear feet)
(linear feet)
Ratio
Mitigation
Units
Restoration
3147
90
1:1
3237
Restoration (See Notes below)**
122
1:5:1
81.3
Enhancement (Level II)
657
--
2.5:1
262.8
TOTAL
3804
212
3581.1
Wetland Mitigation Type
Acreage
Ratio
Riparian Wetland
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.
Space Purposefully Left Blank
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 3
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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 -
Restore Stream Stability
built measurements to determine channel stability and
maintenance of channel geomorphology.
Improve Stream Geomorphology
Convert stream channels from unstable G- and F -type
channels to stable E- and C- type stream channels.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and
attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Two overbank events will be documented, in separate years,
during the monitoring period and documentation of an elevated
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
groundwater table (within 12 inches of the soil surface) for
greater than 10 percent of the growing season during average
climatic conditions.
Improve Sediment Transport to Convert the UTs
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
from Sand/Silt Dominated to Gravel/Cobble
pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
Dominated Streams
conditions of gravel and cobble.
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria (Sections
2.3 and 2.2)
Increase Thermoregulation
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2).
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Criteria (Section 2.2)
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Documentation of two overbank events in separate monitoring
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
years and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
0 IW Restore Habitat
Pebble counts documenting coarsening of bed material from
Restore In -stream Habitat
pre-existing conditions of sand and silt to post restoration
conditions of gravel and cobble, and attaining Vegetation
Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Restore Stream -side Habitat
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Improve Vegetation Composition and Structure
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria (Section 2.2)
Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring years.
Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems per acre in year 5,
and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. In addition, planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in
each plot at year 7 since this Site is located in the Piedmont. Volunteer stems may be considered on a case-
by-case basis in determining overall vegetation success; however, volunteer stems should be counted
separately from planted stems.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 4
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Wetland Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for wetland re-establishment should relate to project goals and objectives.
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by
restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful
upon achieving vegetation success criteria. The following summarizes wetland success criteria related to
goals and objectives.
Wetland Goals and Success Criteria
Project Goal/Objective
Wetland Success Criteria
Improve Hydrology
Restore Wooded Riparian Buffer
Attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Increase Surface Storage and Retention
Two overbank events in separate monitoring years, and attaining
Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Restore Appropriate Inundation/Duration
Increase Subsurface Storage and Retention
Improve Water Quality
Increase Upland Pollutant Filtration
Attaining Wetland and Vegetation Success Criteria.
Reduce Stressors and Sources of Pollution
Fencing maintained throughout the monitoring period and
encroachment within the easement eliminated.
Increase Removal and Retention of Pathogens,
Particulates (Sediments), Dissolved Materials
(Nutrients), and Toxins from the Water Column
Removal of cattle, documentation of two overbank events in
separate monitoring years, and attaining Vegetation Success
Criteria.
Increase Energy Dissipation of Overbank/Overland
Flows/Stormwater Runoff
Documentation of two overbank events in separate monitoring
years, and attaining Vegetation Success Criteria.
Iff 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.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 5
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Summary of Monitoring Period/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)
Bud burst and soil temperature of
March 6 -October 22 (231
23 days
44-F documented on March 6, 2018
days)
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.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the latest guidance by US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) in April 2003 (Stream Mitigation Guidelines) will be followed and are briefly outlined below.
Monitoring data collected at the Site should include reference photos, plant survival analysis, channel
stability analysis, and biological data, if specifically required by permit conditions.
Wetland hydrology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years (years 1-7). Riparian vegetation
and stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with measurements
completed in years 1-3, year 5, and year 7. Monitoring reports for years 4 and 6 will include photo
documentation of stream stability and wetland hydrology monitoring data. If monitoring demonstrates the
Site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been identified, Restoration Systems (RS) may propose to
terminate monitoring at the Site and forego monitoring requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will
only be provided through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (NC IRT). Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc (AXE). Annual monitoring
reports of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected.
2.1 Streams
Annual monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections and substrate on riffles and pools.
Data to be presented in graphic and tabular format will include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3)
average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth ratio, 6) bank height ratio, and 7) entrenchment ratio.
Longitudinal profiles will not be measured routinely unless monitoring demonstrates channel bank or bed
instability, in which case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along reaches of concern to
track changes and demonstrate stability.
Visual assessment of in -stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the
channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. In addition, visual assessments of the
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 6
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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 3 (2018) Stream measurements were performed mid-April 2018. As a whole, monitoring measurements
indicate minimal changes in the cross-sections as compared to as -built data. The channel geometry compares
favorably with the proposed conditions as set forth in the detailed mitigation plan and as constructed.
Immediately after construction, before ground cover was fully established, multiple heavy rain events (2+
inches) caused some sedimentation in the streambed. This aggradation can be seen in several Year 1 (2016)
cross-sections, and it appeared to be reduced and stabilized during Years 2-3 (2017-2018).
The year 1 (2016) measurements for cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT -1 showed stream bed erosion when
compared with as -built data. Stream bed erosion was noted shortly after as -built measurements were taken,
and were the result of the above mentioned rain events. It was evident bed material used during construction
in this area was finer than it should have been. Two riffles showed bed erosion, totaling approximately 50
feet in length (approximately 1 percent of the project length). RS created and implemented a remedial action
plan during late winter of 2016/2017 (see Section 3.0 and Appendix G). These repairs appear stable during
Year 3 (2018) monitoring, and they will continue to be monitored during subsequent monitoring years.
Across the site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No stream areas of concern
were identified during Year 3 (2018) monitoring; however, three small areas of bank erosion were observed
in the Enhancement (Level Il) reach of Travis Creek. The pre -construction condition of Travis Creek
included some stream bank erosion, and with the large amount of rainfall the Site received during Year 3
(2018), some of this erosion became more apparent. These areas will continue to be monitored for any
significant change, but the erosion is not expected to cause any major stream stability problems. Additionally,
several monitoring cross-sections (Travis XS -1, Travis XS -2, Travis XS -4, UTI XS -2, UT2 XS -5, and UT2
XS -8) are showing Bank Height Ratios of <1. The bank height ratios were calculated based on fixing the
cross-sectional area from last year's data, in accordance with the 2018 NCDMS "Standard Measurement of
the BHR Monitoring Parameter" guidance. Each of these cross-sections exhibited a small amount of
aggradation during Year 3 (2018). It is expected that this aggradation is the product of natural sediment
transport and will not cause any long-term stream issues. Tables for annual quantitative assessments are
included in Appendix D.
In 2017, a beaver dam was located and removed along Travis Creek between the outfalls of UT -4 and UT -
3. The dam was removed in the winter of 2017, and no additional beaver activity was recorded during the
2018 monitoring season.
2.2 Vegetation
After planting was completed on April 8, 2016, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and additional Site
modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (10 -meter by 10 -meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species
density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented
by photograph.
Working with Carolina Silvics, RS planted 1030 containerized trees consisting of 755 1 -gallon pots and 275
3 -gallon pots during the week of December 20t'', 2016, which included the following species: Betula nigra,
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 7
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occiendentalis, Quercus falcata, Quercus nigra, Quercus palustris,
Quercus phellos, and Quercus rubra. A remedial planting plan report detailing location of planting and
density is provided in Appendix G.
Year 3 (2018) stem count measurements were performed on July 19, 2018 and indicate an average of 370
planted stems per acre (excluding livestakes) across the Site; therefore, the Site is meeting vegetation success
criteria. Ten of the fourteen individual vegetation plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone.
When including naturally recruited stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanic), Plots 3 and 7 were above
success criteria. Year 3 (2018) vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C.
Five additional temporary 25 -meter by 4 -meter transects were established and stems counts were performed
in March 2018. Survival of planted stems in these plots was above success standards with a range of 364-
769 planted stems per acre; results are summarized in Table 10 (Appendix Q.
Treatment of invasive plant species continued during 2018 throughout the Site, and Restoration Systems
will continue to treat and monitor the site for invasive species throughout the monitoring period. In the late
fall of 2017, a small patch (less than a 1/4 of an acre) of cattails was noted at the confluence of UT -1 and
UT -2. Treatment was conducted in May of 2018, additional treatments are planned for the spring of 2019
and will continue as needed. See Appendix H (Herbicide Application Forms) for a detailed account of
site -wide treatments.
2.3 Wetland Hydrology
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed to take measurements after hydrological modifications
were performed at the Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals
necessary to satisfy jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, a surface water
gauge has been installed in Tributary 3 to monitor flow regime of the tributary. Approximate locations of
gauges are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix A).
Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to satisfy
jurisdictional hydrology success criteria (USEPA 1990). In addition, an on-site rain gauge will document
rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought conditions and floodplain crest
gauges will confirm overbank flooding events. All groundwater gauges were successful in year 3 (2018)
(Appendix E).
2.4 Biotic Community Change
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored. In -stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during the monitoring period.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using NCDWQ protocols found in the Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic 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.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 8
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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 (2018) occurred on June 13, 2018.
The samples were sent to Pennington and Associates, a NCDWR certified laboratory, for identification and
analysis. Results and Habitat Assessment Dataforms are included in Appendix F.
3.0 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
A remedial action plan was developed in order to address stream and vegetation problem areas observed
during Year 1 (2016) monitoring. The completed remedial action report can be found in Appendix G.
3.1 Stream
The degradation observed during Year 1 (2016) in and adjacent to cross-sections 9 and 10 on UT -1
encompasses approximately 12 linear feet and 15 linear feet of stream, respectively (<l 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. This will be monitored by existing established cross-sections
9 and 10.
3.2 Vegetation
Multiple factors were contributing to poor vegetative success in Year 1 (2016) including a later than desired
initial bare -root planting, heavy herbaceous competition primarily from fescue (Site was previously a cattle
pasture), and sporadic rain events, which left upland areas of the site dry for extended periods of the growing
season. Greater survival of planted species was observed within riparian areas. Upland areas of the site had
the lowest survival rates.
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.
4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Environmental Laboratory. 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2.0). United States Army Engineer
Research and Development Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 9
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2006. Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Biological Assessment Unit, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS 2009). Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document—library/get—file?uuid=
864e82e8-725 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, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North
Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MIST). EPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) page 10
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
2018 Year 3 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
Nonriparian Wetland
Restoration
Enhancement
Re-establishment
Re-establishment
3237
344.1
0.5
--
Projects Components
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Approach
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Ratio
Credits
Comment
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
EIl
578-20=
2.5:1
223.2
Creek is within a powerline easement
Station 10+00 to 15+78
558
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
2018 Year 3 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
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
--
1.41**
Totals
4016
--
--
Mitigation Units
3581.1 SMUs
0.5 Riparian WMUs
0.00 Nonriparian WMUs
**Wetland enhancement acreage is not included in mitigation credit calculations as per RFP 16-005568 requirements.
***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).
2018 Year 3 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
Year 3 Monitoring
April 16-17, 2018
July 19, 2018
October 2018
October 2018
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Aycock Springs Miti ation 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
2018 Year 3 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%
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 4. Project Attribute Table (continued)
Aycock Springs Mitigation Site
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Travis Cr
UT 1/UT2
UT 3
UT 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
1550
1966
212
413
Valley Classification
alluvial
Drainage Area (acres)
3008
68
26
119
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
--
30.75/25.5
26.75
27.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg 5/6-, Eg 5-, and Fc 5 -type
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
IV I IV I 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
2018 Year 3 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.-NIM W10U191a187%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
2018 Year 3 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

Legend
KRJ/CLF
Date:
Conservation Easement - 13.2 ac
Scale:
1:2400
- Streams
14-006
j 2
In -stream Structures'
°'
Wetland Restoration Area
Cross Sections
L 9
Stream Bank Erosion
3
CVS Plots meeting success criteria
CVS Plots not meeting success criteria
8
2018 Transects 25m x 4m meeting success criteria
Wetland Enhancement Area
o Groundwater Gauges
7
o Stream Gauge
Constructed Crossings
i..: o -;.
Active Invasive Species Management Areas
300 150 0
300
600
Feet
1
Air/ li
Amm EnNfpn119BnI&I,lAC.
Prepared for:
Project:
Aycock Springs
Stream and
Wetland
Mitigation
Site
Alamance County, NC
Title:
Current Conditions
Plan View
Notes:
1. Background Imagery source:
2014 aerial photography
provided by the NC OneMap
Program (online, supported by
the NC Geographic Information
Coordination Council).
Drawn by:
KRJ/CLF
Date:
DEC 2018
Scale:
1:2400
Project No.:
14-006
FIGURE
2

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
yellow hatch
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 3 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2018
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Aycock Springs
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2018
(continued)
Plot 14
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 10. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data
2018 Year 3 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
71.4%
2 Yes
3 No*
4 Yes
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 No*
8 Yes
9 No
10 Yes
11 Yes
12 Yes
13 No
14 Yes
*These plots did not meet success criteria based on planted stems only; however, when including naturally recruited
stems of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanic) these plots were above success criteria.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
10/4/2018 13:02
database name
RS-Aycock_2018-v2.3.l.mdb
database location
S:\Business\Projects\14\14-006 Acyock Springs Detailed\2018 YEAR-03\CVS
computer name
CORR12-PC
file size
56627200
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 14-006
project Name Aycock Springs
Description
River Basin Cape Fear
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (s m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 14
2018 Year 3 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 (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0007
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0010
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
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
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
9
9
9
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10 10
10
4
4
4 4
4
4 1
1
1 3
3
3
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
2
6
1
1
4
1
1
6
1 2
2
2 1
1
1 1
1
3
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
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
4
4
4
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
6
6
6
2
2
3
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
2
2
1 1
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
181
41
728.4
181
1
0.02
41
728.4
23
6
930.8
8
41
323.7
8
1
0.02
41
323.7
11
5
445.2
71 71
1
0.02
31 31
283.3 283.3
13
4
526.1
91
364.2
4L�ij
9
1
0.02
12
91
5
364.2
91
1
0.02
5
364.2
14
5
566.6
15 1SI
1
0.02
4 4
607 607
15
4
607
71
283.3
4L�ij
71 8
1
0.02
9
4
364.21
9 9
1
0.02
4 4
364.21 364.2
6
6
242.81242.81
61 7
1
0.02
6 7
283.31
9
1
5
364.21
91
1
0.02
5
364 21
11
5
445.2
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
14.006-01-0011
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0012
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0013
PnoLS P -all T
14.006-01-0014
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (20 6)
PnoLSIP-all IT
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
9
5
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
7
7
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
Callicarpa
beautyberry
Shrub
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry Shrub
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1 1
1
46
46
46
49
49
49
52
52
52
57
57
57
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
13
13
36
10
10
31
5
5
13
3
3
5
Liquidambar
sweetgum
Tree
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
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
10
7
7
9
1
1
1
5
5
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1 1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
10
10
10
7
7
7
5
5
5
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1 1 1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
18
18
18
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
14
14
16
12
12
12
11
11
11
13
13
13
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
3
3
3
7
7
7
11
11
11
62
62
62
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
Tree
2
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
10
61
404.7
10
1
0.02
61
404.7
13
71
526.1
9
1
61
364.2
9 9
1
0.02
61 6
364.2 364.2
3 3 3
1
1 0.02
31 31 3
121.4 121.4 121.4
9
4
364.2
9
1
0.02
4
364.2
10
1
5
404.7
128
15
370
128 158
14
0.35
15 16
370 456.7
131
1
17
378.71
131 171
14
0.35
17 23
378.7 494.3
115
15
332.41
115 141
14
0.35
15 20
332.41407.61592.61
205
1
14
205 216
14
0.35
14 16
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%
PnoLS = 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

Table 10. Supplemental Vegetation Transect Data — March 7, 2018
Scientific Name
Common Name
Temporary
Species Type Plot 1
4m x 25m
1800
Temporary
Plot 2
4m x 25m
1600
Temporary
Plot 3
4m x 25m
1500
Temporary
Plot 4
4m x 25m
1900
Temporary
Plot 5
4m x 25m
1800
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree 1
2
1
1
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
Tree
2
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree 6
1
2
4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree 8
1
1
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree 4
4
5
4
4
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
Tree
2
4
Stem Count 19
Size (Ares) 1
Size (Acres) 0.0247
Species count 4
Stems per acre 1 769.2
9
9
12
12
1
1
1
1
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
4
4
5
5
1 364.4
1 364.4
1 485.8
1 485.8
2018 Year 3 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
Tables l la -e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12a -f. Monitoring Data
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
12.4
593.25
13.7
592.75
�a
592.07
16.5
592.20
18.1
592.04
:.,.
592.24
21.0
592.41
22.0
592.49
22.6
-°'-
24.1
592.48
25.7
592.51
26.7
�• -
27.6
592.80
28.2
592.93
30.0
592.91
31.9
593.0
33.2
593.5
34.8
593.9
36.9
594.3
40.8
594.9
43.7
594.8
46.5
595.4
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -1, Riffle
597
----------------------------------------------------------------
596
595
-----------
---------------------------------
----------
0 594
W 593
----llankShc
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
591
MY -03 4/16/18
0 5 10
15
20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.90
4.1
594.93
8.2
595.00
9.6
594.45
11.1
593.87
12.4
593.25
13.7
592.75
15.2
592.07
16.5
592.20
18.1
592.04
19.6
592.24
21.0
592.41
22.0
592.49
22.6
592.41
24.1
592.48
25.7
592.51
26.7
592.65
27.6
592.80
28.2
592.93
30.0
592.91
31.9
593.0
33.2
593.5
34.8
593.9
36.9
594.3
40.8
594.9
43.7
594.8
46.5
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
40.1
Bankfull Width:
27.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
596.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
595.00
1.7
Watershed:
3.3
Cape Fear, 0303002
Date:
4/16/2018
XS ID
Perkinson, Butler
Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
593.36
11.0
Feature
12.3
Riffle
13.0
593.16
14.0
593.01
14.8
592.67
i,
592.62
18.2
592.61
19.6
592.40
21.4
592.26
23.1
592.51
23.9
593.59
25.0
594.02
26.5
594.48
27.9
594.94
30.0
595.1
Stream Type GE
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
598
----------------------------------------------------------
597
596
595
0
� 594
ti
W
� � � • Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
591
MY -014 .16.18
0 5
10 15 20 25
35
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.00
1.7
595.12
3.3
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.00
1.7
595.12
3.3
594.45
5.9
593.68
6.8
593.41
8.9
593.36
11.0
593.30
12.3
593.32
13.0
593.16
14.0
593.01
14.8
592.67
16.5
592.62
18.2
592.61
19.6
592.40
21.4
592.26
23.1
592.51
23.9
593.59
25.0
594.02
26.5
594.48
27.9
594.94
30.0
595.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
41.6
Bankfull Width:
25.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/16/2018
f ;t
Perkinson, Butler
17.0
593.8
18.3
593.7
19.2
593.6
20.3
592.8
22.6
592.6
24.8
592.3
26.1
591.8
27.4
591.8
29.3
591.5
30.1
592.0
31.3
592.3
31.9
592.5
32.7
593.2
33.6
593.6
36.0
594.2
38.1
594.8
41.1
595.3
43.0
595.3
45.1
595.4
r:... t
12-
`
5
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
596
----------------------------------------------
----
595
594
0
593
---- BankShc
ti
W
-- - •Flood Prone Area
592
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
591
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5 10
15 20
25 30 35
40 0
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.2
5.0
595.1
8.9
594.8
12.5
594.5
15.4
593.8
17.0
593.8
18.3
593.7
19.2
593.6
20.3
592.8
22.6
592.6
24.8
592.3
26.1
591.8
27.4
591.8
29.3
591.5
30.1
592.0
31.3
592.3
31.9
592.5
32.7
593.2
33.6
593.6
36.0
594.2
38.1
594.8
41.1
595.3
43.0
595.3
45.1
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
57.2
Bankfull Width:
39.0
Flood Prone Area Elevafion:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.71
1.8
595.33
3.9
594.66
4.9
594.35
5.9
593.73
6.9
593.27
8.2
592.85
10.6
592.97
12.8
592.61
14.5
592.85
14.8
592.83
15.8
593.65
16.7
593.72
17.3
593.55
18.7
593.51
19.2
593.75
20.0
593.88
20.4
593.87
21.7
593.67
22.8
593.58
24.0
593.5
25.7
594.3
26.8
594.8
28.3
595.2
30.2
595.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
43.8
Bankfull Width:
28.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.0
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.3
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
Stream Type C/E

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Watershed:
Feature
Cape
Date:
r
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
10.8
592.8
11.7
592.3
13.4
592.0
14.8
591.9
16.3
591.9
18.3
591.9
20.1
591.8
21.0
592.1
22.2
592.6
24.3
592.9
25.9
593.5
27.8
594.0
28.9
594.2
31.3
595.3
32.3
595.4
A_
..
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 5, Pool
596
595 _____________________________________________________
594
0
593
- -- - Bankfull
ti
•Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
591
MY -03 4/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
595.3
4.3
595.3
6.5
594.6
8.2
594.2
9.3
593.6
10.8
592.8
11.7
592.3
13.4
592.0
14.8
591.9
16.3
591.9
18.3
591.9
20.1
591.8
21.0
592.1
22.2
592.6
24.3
592.9
25.9
593.5
27.8
594.0
28.9
594.2
31.3
595.3
32.3
595.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
52.3
Bankfull Width:
25.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.09
3.3
595.61
5.5
594.93
6.8
594.30
9.4
594.46
11.0
594.50
12.6
594.52
13.4
593.52
16.1
593.57
18.7
593.25
20.6
593.01
23.3
593.18
24.4
593.73
26.2
594.84
28.7
595.95
29.8
596.20
31.0
596.54
597
0
596
ti
Banktull
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
50.3
Bankfull Width:
28.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.1
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
600
599
598
597
0
596
ti
Banktull
W
595
• Flood Prone Area
594
MY -00 4/6/16
593
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 a/tom
592
-MY-034/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)

t'
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596
------------------------------------------------- ----
595
5
0 594
Bankfull
ti 593 --
W - � Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592 MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
591 MY -03 4/16/18
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.
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
t'
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 7, Pool
597
596
------------------------------------------------- ----
595
5
0 594
Bankfull
ti 593 --
W - � Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592 MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
591 MY -03 4/16/18
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.
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
3.6
596.0
6.2
595.4
7.3
595.2
8.9
594.8
9.9
594.4
11.0
594.0
12.1
593.7
13.6
593.3
14.2
593.2
15.8
593.2
16.9
593.1
18.2
592.9
19.5
593.0
20.9
592.9
21.7
592.6
22.4
592.8
23.5
592.9
24.4
593.4
25.7
593.5
26.0
593.9
27.0
594.3
28.5
595.0
30.4
595.7
32.1
595.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
44.9
Bankfull Width:
25.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.49
2.4
596.25
4.8
595.54
6.5
594.70
8.4
593.25
11.1
592.95
13.0
593.07
14.8
592.90
16.2
593.11
16.8
593.62
19.1
593.29
20.5
593.51
21.7
594.56
23.4
594.42
25.4
594.39
27.2
595.06
29.5
595.96
30.7
596.37
31.6
596.78
32.6
597.17
34.5
597.5
596
-----------------------------------------------
------
� � � • Bankfull
ti
595
�l
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
58.3
Bankfull Width:
28.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
599.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
599
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
W / D Ratio:
13.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type :ism=
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS - 8, Riffle
600
............................................................
599
598
597
00
596
-----------------------------------------------
------
� � � • Bankfull
ti
595
�l
• Flood Prone Area
594
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
593
MY -02 a/tom
4/16/18
592MY-03
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
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
7.4
594.9
8.6
594.3
9.4
593.5
11.1
592.8
13.1
593.0
14.3
592.8
15.7
592.5
17.3
592.5
19.1
592.2
20.8
592.1
22.1
592.4
23.2
592.5
23.9
593.2
24.8
593.7
25.6
594.1
27.2
594.7
28.9
595.2
30.6
595.5
31.8
596.0
33.5
596.3
35.4
596.7
::.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 9, Pool
598
597
596 ----------------------------------------------
------
595
0
594
��. Bankf ll
ti
W 593
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
592
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
591
My -03 4/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.3
2.0
596.2
4.1
595.8
5.4
595.4
6.6
595.3
7.4
594.9
8.6
594.3
9.4
593.5
11.1
592.8
13.1
593.0
14.3
592.8
15.7
592.5
17.3
592.5
19.1
592.2
20.8
592.1
22.1
592.4
23.2
592.5
23.9
593.2
24.8
593.7
25.6
594.1
27.2
594.7
28.9
595.2
30.6
595.5
31.8
596.0
33.5
596.3
35.4
596.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
60.8
Bankfull Width:
27.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.05

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -10, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
16.4
595.1
17.9
594.4
19.1
594.4
20.4
594.2
21.4
593.7
22.1
593.5
23.3
593.4
24.1
593.3
25.3
593.0
26.7
592.9
28.2
592.8
29.7
592.6
31.0
592.6
32.2
592.6
33.5
•�
34.2
592.9
34.8
593.3
35.8
593.9
36.7
594.5
38.4
595.5
39.4
596.0
40.2
596.2
41.6
596.8
43.2
597.1
44.5
597.3
46.2
597.7
48.0
597.9
49.6
597.9
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
MY -03 4/16/18
0 10
20
30 40
60
Station (feet)
51.3
598.1
Station
Elevation
-0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.6
6.5
596.5
9.9
595.9
12.2
595.6
14.1
595.6
16.4
595.1
17.9
594.4
19.1
594.4
20.4
594.2
21.4
593.7
22.1
593.5
23.3
593.4
24.1
593.3
25.3
593.0
26.7
592.9
28.2
592.8
29.7
592.6
31.0
592.6
32.2
592.6
33.5
592.7
34.2
592.9
34.8
593.3
35.8
593.9
36.7
594.5
38.4
595.5
39.4
596.0
40.2
596.2
41.6
596.8
43.2
597.1
44.5
597.3
46.2
597.7
48.0
597.9
49.6
597.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
87.5
Bankfull Width:
37.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
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:
A{
9.4
595.10
10.5
594.67
11.2
594.17
1+' 7
593.30
14.3
593.19
16.3
593.06
19.2
it s
20.7
593.39
21.9
593.30
23.4
593.77
F P
594.10
27.0
594.19
28.6
594.50
31.0
594.79
32.5
595.39
33.8
596.0
35.5
596.7
37.6
596.9
m
m
�
597
�
596
"�.
Bankfull
W 595
` -
594
MY 4/6/16
-00
593
MY -01 10/18/16
riY-02 a/tom
592
-MY-034/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.2
597.55
2.7
597.37
4.0
596.73
5.9
596.52
7.9
595.87
9.4
595.10
10.5
594.67
11.2
594.17
12.3
593.30
14.3
593.19
16.3
593.06
19.2
593.01
20.7
593.39
21.9
593.30
23.4
593.77
25.0
594.10
27.0
594.19
28.6
594.50
31.0
594.79
32.5
595.39
33.8
596.0
35.5
596.7
37.6
596.9
m
m
�
597
�
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
69.6
Bankfull Width:
30.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.3
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio::
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
- - - - - - -
4.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00
41.8 597.0
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -11, Riffle
601
600
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - -
599
598
m
m
�
597
�
596
Bankfull
W 595
•Flood Prone Area
594
MY 4/6/16
-00
593
MY -01 10/18/16
riY-02 a/tom
592
-MY-034/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
598.42
4.5
598.06
7.9
597.38
10.5
596.75
12.3
596.02
13.4
595.39
14.4
594.87
16.6
594.58
18.0
594.64
20.3
594.63
21.1
594.46
22.0
594.53
23.1
594.44
24.0
594.65
24.8
594.82
25.8
595.23
27.4
595.19
28.4
595.40
30.1
595.72
32.1
596.27
34.3
597.1
37.3
598.4
39.5
598.4
_ •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
595
MY -01 10/18/16
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
67.9
Bankfull Width:
31.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.5
Flood Prone Width:
601
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
14.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.03
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -12, Riffle
602
601
............................................................
600
599
m
598
am
0
597
ti
W 596
� � � • Bankfull
_ •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
595
MY -01 10/18/16
594
MY -02 a/tom
593
-MY-034/16/18
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS -13, Pool
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
8.4
595.5
9.1
595.0
10.4
594.3
11.6
594.1
13.5
594.2
15.2
594.4
16.4
594.5
17.9
595.0
18.9
595.3
19.8
595.7
y
�l+f
rx lr
.: �,�1ti-!`j'
22.9
596.4
24.6
596.9
26.6
is:r?}.PF•��_�r
r _ e :ter _
N Al
597.3
30.0
597.9
30.7
598.1
32.7
598.6
34.7
598.9
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
Travis Creek, XS - 13, Pool
600
599
598
5 597
F7�
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
MY-03 4/16/18
0 5
10 15
20 25 30
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.6
1.8
597.6
3.5
597.1
6.1
596.3
7.5
595.8
8.4
595.5
9.1
595.0
10.4
594.3
11.6
594.1
13.5
594.2
15.2
594.4
16.4
594.5
17.9
595.0
18.9
595.3
19.8
595.7
20.5
596.1
22.9
596.4
24.6
596.9
26.6
597.1
28.5
597.3
30.0
597.9
30.7
598.1
32.7
598.6
34.7
598.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
48.2
Bankfull Width:
27.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
Travis Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.4
599.16
0.8
599.15
3.4
598.09
5.8
597.18
7.1
596.61
8.2
596.51
9.3
595.99
10.3
595.56
10.9
594.93
12.6
594.82
13.7
594.80
14.5
594.59
15.4
594.37
16.1
594.37
16.9
594.74
17.8
594.77
19.1
594.58
20.1
594.67
20.6
595.02
21.3
595.36
21.6
595.7
22.7
596.0
23.5
595.9
24.4
595.8
25.6
595.5
26.3
595.5
27.3
595.7
28.4
596.1
29.3
596.4
30.9
597.3
32.0
597.8
33.5
598.6
35.2
599.2
37.7
599.7
SUMMARY DATA
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -14, Riffle
Bankfull Elevation:
599.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
94.6
Bankfull Width:
33.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
603.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
W / D Ratio:
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, Travis Creek, XS -14, Riffle
605
604
_________________________________________________________________
603
602
601
m
600
0 599
598
�l
___•Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
597
_ _ _ •
596
MY -00 4/6/16
595
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
594
MY -03 4/16/18
593
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
35 40
Station (feet)

h_
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
593
592
-------------------------------- --------------
ti
W 591---•sankfiil]
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
59Q MY -03 4/16/18
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 -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
h_
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
593
592
-------------------------------- --------------
ti
W 591---•sankfiil]
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY-Ol 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
59Q MY -03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)
Site Aycock Springs
Watershed: Cape
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.42
1.4
591.44
2.9
591.25
3.9
591.00
4.5
590.84
5.4
590.71
6.2
590.64
6.7
590.70
7.2
590.80
7.8
590.66
8.5
590.72
9.0
590.85
9.4
590.93
10.0
591.15
10.8
591.48
11.8
591.72
12.5
591.75
13.2
591.75
14.3
591.84
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
18.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
591.68
1.4
591.51
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
XS ID
591.16
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
591.04
5.5
591.04
Feature
590.95
Riffle
590.98
7.3
590.96
7.8
590.98
8.2
591.03
8.4
591.05
9.1
591.08
9.6
591.14
10.2
591.14
10.6
591.35
11.3
591.46
12.3
591.45
13.7
591.6
NMI
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
593
-----------------------------------------------------------
592
5
o----------------------------------------
ti
--_ • Bankfiil]
W 591
__ _ •Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
590
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.68
1.4
591.51
2.1
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.68
1.4
591.51
2.1
591.51
3.0
591.47
3.7
591.22
4.3
591.16
5.1
591.04
5.5
591.04
6.3
590.95
6.8
590.98
7.3
590.96
7.8
590.98
8.2
591.03
8.4
591.05
9.1
591.08
9.6
591.14
10.2
591.14
10.6
591.35
11.3
591.46
12.3
591.45
13.7
591.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
592.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
28.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.8
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
4.2
591.3
4.5
591.3
5.0
591.1
5.7
590.7
6.2
590.5
6.6
590.6
7.0
590.7
7.4
590.8
7.8
590.9
8.3
591.0
8.5
591.1
9.2
591.2
9.9
591.3
10.5
591.5
11.2
591.6
11.7
591.9
12.4
591.9
13.2
592.0
14.5
592.00
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
593
592
d ----------
------------------------------
---•
0
�
-- - • Bankfull
ti 591
-- - •Flood Prone Area
W
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
590
MY -03 4/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.3
592.2
1.2
592.2
2.3
592.1
3.1
591.9
3.7
591.6
4.2
591.3
4.5
591.3
5.0
591.1
5.7
590.7
6.2
590.5
6.6
590.6
7.0
590.7
7.4
590.8
7.8
590.9
8.3
591.0
8.5
591.1
9.2
591.2
9.9
591.3
10.5
591.5
11.2
591.6
11.7
591.9
12.4
591.9
13.2
592.0
14.5
592.00
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Bankfull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
y
Perkinson, Butler
4.9
591.21
5.8
591.11
4
591.11
7.2
591.02
7.7
591.02
8.6
591.01
9.3
591.44
9.9
591.68
10.6
592.01
11.2
592.18
11.9
592.29
12.8
592.27
ti
¢`
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
593
---------------------------------------------------------------
592 --------------------------------------------
----------
0
. Bankfull
591
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
590
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
591.97
1.3
591.85
2.2
591.63
3.3
591.46
4.2
591.29
4.9
591.21
5.8
591.11
6.5
591.11
7.2
591.02
7.7
591.02
8.6
591.01
9.3
591.44
9.9
591.68
10.6
592.01
11.2
592.18
11.9
592.29
12.8
592.27
SUMMARY DATA
.77
Bankfull Elevation:
591.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.7
Bankfull Width:
10.2
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:
18.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
4.6
591.46
5.0
591.39
5.8
591.42
6.6
591.41
7.0
591.24
7.5
591.13
7.9
591.12
8.4
591.13
8.7
591.52
9.2
591.37
10.1
591.53
10.6
591.74
11.5
592.15
12.2
592.31
13.0
592.40
13.7
592.4
. _ _ •_.fir...
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
59Q
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.42
1.0
592.50
2.0
592.27
3.0
591.95
3.9
591.65
4.6
591.46
5.0
591.39
5.8
591.42
6.6
591.41
7.0
591.24
7.5
591.13
7.9
591.12
8.4
591.13
8.7
591.52
9.2
591.37
10.1
591.53
10.6
591.74
11.5
592.15
12.2
592.31
13.0
592.40
13.7
592.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.8
Bankfull Width:
9.2
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:
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
3.9
592.26
4.5
592.19
5.3
592.22
6.0
592.29
7.0
592.28
-
592.20
8.8
592.46
9.4
592.69
"
592.69
11.0
592.62
11.8
592.60
v
L;:•
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
594
593
0
. Bankfull
592
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10//18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
591
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
592.79
0.9
592.84
1.7
592.84
2.3
592.59
2.8
592.34
3.9
592.26
4.5
592.19
5.3
592.22
6.0
592.29
7.0
592.28
8.1
592.20
8.8
592.46
9.4
592.69
10.1
592.69
11.0
592.62
11.8
592.60
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
592.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
593.15
1.2
593.26
1.7
592.93
Watershed:
592.78
Cape Fear, 0303002
592.71
3.9
592.71
4.8
592.53
XS ID
592.38
UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
592.39
- !
592.29
6.9
592.38
Feature
592.38
Riffle
592.60
1
592.93
8.9
593.05
Date:
593.23
4/16/2018
593.23
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
d4
-'
y..'
a
!
Stream Type
CB
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 7, Riffle
594
--------------------------------------------------------
0 593
-- •
Bankfull
•
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10
12
14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
593.15
1.2
593.26
1.7
592.93
2.3
592.78
3.0
592.71
3.9
592.71
4.8
592.53
5.1
592.38
5.5
592.39
6.1
592.29
6.9
592.38
7.0
592.38
7.5
592.60
8.3
592.93
8.9
593.05
9.8
593.23
11.4
593.23
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.0
Bankfull Cross Area:
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
593.7
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
Watershed:
UT 1, XS - 8, Pool
Cape
{
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
4.1
592.4
4.6
592.3
4.9
592.4
5.7
592.2
6.1
592.2
6.8
592.2
7.2
592.5
7.8
592.9
8.4
593.2
9.2
593.3
9.8
593.5
11.3
_W.
,' .:t.?$.-: alb.
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
-MY-034/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
593.3
1.3
593.2
2.3
593.3
3.0
593.1
3.4
592.9
4.1
592.4
4.6
592.3
4.9
592.4
5.7
592.2
6.1
592.2
6.8
592.2
7.2
592.5
7.8
592.9
8.4
593.2
9.2
593.3
9.8
593.5
11.3
593.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
6.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
594.89
1.3
594.85
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
XS ID
594.39
UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
594.27
5.5
594.42
Feature
594.06
Riffle
594.19
7.1
594.36
7.5
594.58
8.3
594.68
9.2
594.95
10.5
594.83
11.6
594.82
J
SVS
V.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 9, Riffle
596
---------------------------------------------------------
595
5 -------
-------------
------------
0
• Bankfull
W 594
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
593
MY -0s
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
594.89
1.3
594.85
1.9
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.89
1.3
594.85
1.9
594.64
3.3
594.64
4.0
594.53
4.5
594.39
4.9
594.27
5.5
594.42
5.8
594.06
6.4
594.19
7.1
594.36
7.5
594.58
8.3
594.68
9.2
594.95
10.5
594.83
11.6
594.82
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
595.7
0.7
595.6
1.6
595.5
2.4
595.3
3.1
595.1
3.6
594.7
4.3
594.3
4.9
593.9
5.8
593.5
6.5
593.5
7.0
593.5
7.5
593.6
8.0
593.7
8.5
594.0
8.9
595.0
9.6
595.4
10.2
595.5
11.1
595.6
12.5
595.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.5
Bankfull Width:
5.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.14
596
m
595
5
s;
0
W 594
593
- I
Irk `
,t
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS - 10, Pool
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 11, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
3.4
595.74
3.8
595.17
4.5
595.32
5.4
595.22
5.7
595.47
6.3
595.57
7.0
595.41
8.2
595.81
8.9
595.90
10.1
596.06
11.1
596.17
_
596.17
t
.a
y'.
r r-
• :..
-
i'
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -11, Riffle
598
597___________________________________________________________
5
0
- - -. Bankfull
596
���• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
595
MY -03 4/16/18
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:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
596.08
1.1
596.08
1.6
596.08
2.6
595.82
2.9
595.74
3.4
595.74
3.8
595.17
4.5
595.32
5.4
595.22
5.7
595.47
6.3
595.57
7.0
595.41
8.2
595.81
8.9
595.90
10.1
596.06
11.1
596.17
12.0
596.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.0
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
3.5
597.12
4.1
597.07
4.5
597.04
5.3
597.04
5.7
597.13
6.6
597.19
6.9
�7-
1
597.31
8.1
597.37
8.8
597.65
9.5
597.76
11.2
597.70
{
{.
Ml
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 1, XS -12,
Riffle
599
-----------------------------------------------------------------
598
0
ti
Bankfull
W 597
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
MY -03 4/16/18
596
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.82
0.9
597.78
1.8
597.49
2.2
597.29
3.0
597.23
3.5
597.12
4.1
597.07
4.5
597.04
5.3
597.04
5.7
597.13
6.6
597.19
6.9
597.32
7.4
597.31
8.1
597.37
8.8
597.65
9.5
597.76
11.2
597.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.2
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
19.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -1, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
3.8
592.8
4.3
592.8
5.0
592.8
5.6
592.9
6.5
593.0
7.1
593.3
7.9
593.3
8.9
593.4
9.6
. ./. . .
10.2
593.5
Y';I•
'
.
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-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
592
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6
8 10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
593.3
1.3
593.5
2.2
593.3
3.0
593.0
3.3
592.9
3.8
592.8
4.3
592.8
5.0
592.8
5.6
592.9
6.5
593.0
7.1
593.3
7.9
593.3
8.9
593.4
9.6
593.4
10.2
593.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
593.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.01
1.0
594.06
2.1
594.08
2.7
593.95
3.4
593.90
4.2
593.75
4.7
593.84
5.5
593.81
6.2
593.85
7.2
593.93
7.9
594.08
9.2
594.20
10.1
594.20
11.2
594.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
594.4
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
31.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
m
5
595
594
Stream Type I C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 2, Riffle
Station (feet)
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
MY -03 4/16/18

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
594.76
1.5
594.84
2.1
594.67
2.6
594.51
3.5
594.37
4.1
594.60
4.9
594.49
5.5
594.50
6.6
594.53
7.3
594.65
7.9
594.87
8.6
594.92
9.3
594.99
10.6
594.91
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
594.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
5.8
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:
28.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
15.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
596
594
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
W -------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
2 4 6
Station (feet)
-------------•Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
MY034/16/18
R 1
v.
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 3, Riffle
W -------------------------------------------------------------
1 1
2 4 6
Station (feet)
-------------•Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
MY034/16/18
R 1

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
IRiffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
595.33
1.6
595.40
3.1
595.33
3.7
595.18
4.3
595.04
5.1
595.01
5.7
595.05
6.4
595.13
7.3
595.12
8.0
595.11
8.8
595.28
9.6
595.38
10.7
595.44
12.0
595.35
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
595.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
0.9
Bankfull Width:
5.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
595.6
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
596.0
d
595.5
5
s;
0
ti
W 595.0
594.5
0
i
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 4, Riffle
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
597.31
1.8
597.03
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
XS ID
596.59
UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
596.64
6.7
596.61
Feature
596.65
Riffle
596.86
9.0
596.99
9.8
597.05
11.1
596.99
:.
wj
p
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 5, Riffle
598
_______________________________________________________________-
--------------------------------------
0 597
• Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
596
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4 6 8
12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.31
1.8
597.03
2.9
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.31
1.8
597.03
2.9
596.89
3.6
596.66
4.4
596.72
5.1
596.59
5.9
596.64
6.7
596.61
7.6
596.65
8.3
596.86
9.0
596.99
9.8
597.05
11.1
596.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
9.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean De that Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
33.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.1
Bank Height Ratio:
<1

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
3.8
:_,-, AIM
4.4
597.73
5.3
597.72
6.4
597.53
r'1
597.55
8.2
597.74
9.1
597.85
9.7
..•
10.6
597.91
11.2
597.99
�:"•
-
;�'
• r .+
.r.
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
599
5 ________________________________________________________________
0 598
W
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
597
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.96
1.3
597.96
2.3
597.86
2.8
597.67
3.4
597.59
3.8
597.63
4.4
597.73
5.3
597.72
6.4
597.53
7.3
597.55
8.2
597.74
9.1
597.85
9.7
597.91
10.6
597.91
11.2
597.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
6.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
598.1
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
14.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
R
597.6
5.3
597.5
5.9
597.5
6.2
597.3
6.8
597.5
7.4
597.7
8.0
597.8
8.5
597.8
9.0
597.9
9.8
598.1
11.1
L
12.1
598.4
13.0
598.3
E.
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
599
------
0 598
�
-- _ • Bankfull
_ Flood Prone Area
W
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
597
MY-03 4/16/48
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.2
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.2
598.5
1.5
598.4
2.7
598.2
3.8
597.8
4.2
597.6
4.7
597.6
5.3
597.5
5.9
597.5
6.2
597.3
6.8
597.5
7.4
597.7
8.0
597.8
8.5
597.8
9.0
597.9
9.8
598.1
11.1
598.3
12.1
598.4
13.0
598.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
598.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
8.4
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
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.30
1.3
601.24
2.0
601.14
3.0
601.18
3.8
600.99
4.5
600.95
5.3
600.87
6.0
600.83
6.6
600.99
7.3
600.85
8.4
600.85
9.3
601.18
10.0
601.31
11.4
601.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
10.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
36.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.9
Bank Height Ratio:
<1
600 +
0
1
5
"M IZE
•i env _ ��
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 8, Riffle
2 4 6 8 10
Station (feet)
12
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
MY -03 4/16/18
14

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
604.69
1.1
604.83
1.7
Watershed:
Date:
Cape Fear, 0303002
Field Crew:
,.Ar
3.6
604.15
XS ID
603.96
UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
604.19
4.6
604.26
5.1
Feature
5.6
Riffle
5.9
5 r
k, olid i .
604.13
7.5
604.26
8.6
604.54
9.2
604.82
10.2
604.97
f�
+'
Stream Type
CB
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 9, Riffle
606
-----------------------------------------------------------
605
-----------------------------------------------------
0
• Bankfull
ti
W 604
� � � •Flood Prone Area
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
603
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
604.69
1.1
604.83
1.7
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
604.69
1.1
604.83
1.7
604.76
2.3
604.54
3.2
604.15
3.6
604.15
3.8
603.96
4.2
604.19
4.6
604.26
5.1
604.22
5.6
604.10
5.9
604.14
6.8
604.13
7.5
604.26
8.6
604.54
9.2
604.82
10.2
604.97
SUMMARY DATA
Az
Bankfull Elevation:
604.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.4
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
605.8
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1 .0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
605.6
1.1
605.6
2.0
605.5
2.8
605.5
3.6
605.1
4.2
604.9
4.9
604.6
5.3
604.4
5.7
604.5
6.6
604.6
7.1
604.7
7.6
604.6
8.2
605.0
8.7
605.2
9.3
605.4
10.0
605.7
10.7
605.9
11.7
606.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
605.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Bankfull Width:
6.7
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
607
Stream Type IC E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS -10, Pool
m
606
o ------------------------
W 605
604 ; F
0 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
-MY-034/16/18
10 12 14

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
606.3
1.4
606.3
Watershed:
606.0
Cape Fear, 0303002
605.7
4.3
XS ID
605.4
UT 2, XS -11, Pool
605.4
6.0
605.2
Feature
605.4
Pool
605.5
7.8
605.7
Date:
606.0
4/16/2018
606.3
10.1
606.3
Field Crew:
606.4
Perkinson, Butler
..1 ._
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS - 11, Pool
607
0606-------------
------ ------------------
----------•
�
-- � • Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
W
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/19/17
C05
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10 12
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
606.3
1.4
606.3
2.7
606.0
3.5
605.7
4.3
Station
Elevation
0.0
606.3
1.4
606.3
2.7
606.0
3.5
605.7
4.3
605.3
4.8
605.4
5.5
605.4
6.0
605.2
6.5
605.4
7.0
605.5
7.8
605.7
8.6
606.0
9.5
606.3
10.1
606.3
10.8
606.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
606.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.5
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Watershed:
4/16/2018
Cape
Perkinson, Butler
4.8
607.56
5.4
607.77
6.3
607.37
6.7
607.42
7.1
607.47
8.0
607.63
8.9
607.51
10.2
607.48
11.4
607.85
12.1
607.96
12.8
608.03
w,.
'il'�^.-,•�-.: i�
�'','..
+fes .. ..
��
Stream Type
C E
Aycock Springs, UT 2,
XS -12, Riffle
609
--------------------------------------------------
0 608
--------------
------------------�������
�� ����Bankfiill
ti
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
607
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6
8
10 12
14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.4
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS -12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.4
608.25
1.5
608.24
2.3
608.28
3.2
608.04
4.2
607.80
4.8
607.56
5.4
607.77
6.3
607.37
6.7
607.42
7.1
607.47
8.0
607.63
8.9
607.51
10.2
607.48
11.4
607.85
12.1
607.96
12.8
608.03
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
607.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
608.3
Flood Prone Width:
90.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
27.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
91 Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
4.6
608.72
5.6
608.52
6.5
608.52
7.4
608.52
8.4
608.65
9.1
608.84
10.1
609.14
10.9
609.18
11.6
609.19
12.5
609.18
.:..
;1
*�
�•f ++►►��`e
Stream Type
C E
Aycock Springs, UT 2, XS
-13, Riffle
610
---------------------------------------------------
0 609
_ _
_ --------------
ti
• Bankfull
W
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/19/17
608
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8
10
12 14
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 2, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
608.91
1.7
608.97
2.7
608.90
3.1
608.71
3.8
608.67
4.6
608.72
5.6
608.52
6.5
608.52
7.4
608.52
8.4
608.65
9.1
608.84
10.1
609.14
10.9
609.18
11.6
609.19
12.5
609.18
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
U609.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
0Max
Deth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
24.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
5.4
596.65
6.6
596.58
7.3
596.66
7.8
596.37
8.2
596.47
x•15.
596.24
9.5
596.57
9.9
596.55
`,i •b:y .?i- V"',�, IITFY','S
_ {:�' I•.7! .r y
12.3
597.55
13.2
597.79
13.9
597.90
15.0
598.14
L
d
Vni
y
-
'k' s
•1�.4
l
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
599
598
0
ti
W 597
---•Bankfiil]
• 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
-MY-034/16/is
12 16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
597.98
1.4
597.74
3.1
597.15
3.8
596.83
4.7
596.54
5.4
596.65
6.6
596.58
7.3
596.66
7.8
596.37
8.2
596.47
8.9
596.24
9.5
596.57
9.9
596.55
10.8
596.90
12.3
597.55
13.2
597.79
13.9
597.90
15.0
598.14
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.65
2.1
597.49
3.9
597.34
5.2
596.69
5.8
596.60
6.3
596.57
6.8
596.43
7.1
596.38
7.6
596.45
8.2
596.42
8.8
596.56
9.7
596.90
11.3
597.58
12.8
598.05
14.9
598.71
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
5.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.6
Flood Prone Width:
8.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
599
m
598
s;
0
ti
W 597
596
0
Stream Type I C E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 2, Riffle
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Watershed:
Pool
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
4.2
596.0
4.9
596.0
5.4
n
5.8
596.0
6.4
595.9
7.1
. . • ,
7.6
596.7
8.2
597.1
9.4
lam:
11.3
598.5
12.4
598.6
y`- _..
.y
;•
_
j ..
• - -+':ter"'-�afii'-..'
.�i.-4xt�'f6PS4
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
599
598
0 597
---- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- -� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- ----•Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
W
596
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
595
MY-03 4/16/18
0 2
4
6 8 10
4
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.1
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.1
596.9
0.9
596.8
2.5
596.7
3.2
596.2
3.7
596.1
4.2
596.0
4.9
596.0
5.4
595.9
5.8
596.0
6.4
595.9
7.1
596.2
7.6
596.7
8.2
597.1
9.4
597.8
11.3
598.5
12.4
598.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
596.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
5.7
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

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
IL IRiffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.3
597.11
1.9
596.89
2.7
596.78
3.4
596.84
4.7
596.97
5.1
596.74
5.8
596.64
6.2
596.64
7.3
596.73
7.6
596.81
8.3
597.08
9.4
597.19
10.7
597.31
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
7.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
33.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
598
596 +
0
•. y�' rcwlu
Stream Type CB
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
2 4 6
Station (feet)
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
MY -03 4/16/18
8 10
12

Site
91 Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
597.21
1.3
597.06
2.1
597.00
2.7
596.84
3.3
597.02
4.1
597.11
4.7
596.81
5.4
596.78
6.5
596.73
7.0
596.98
8.0
597.39
8.7
597.58
9.7
597.58
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
597.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
597.5
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio•
35.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
598
596
Stream Type C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 3, XS - 5, Riffle
_______________ _____________
_ _ _ • Bankfiill
_ _ _ • Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Watershed:
4/16/2018
Cape
Perkinson, Butler
6.6
599.01
7.2
599.08
7.7
599.17
8.6
599.28
9.3
599.26
10.2
599.16
10.9
599.18
11.5
599.11
12.3
599.31
f
599.42
13.8
599.90
14.2
599.98
15.5
600.11
16.7
600.10
i"
.J� M,e` :, :�R;a-. Sites
LJw1'-•` -fY .
7"!l\'.: it
��
- •/.r�.{="
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
601
-----------------------------------------------------------
600
m
--------------
0
-----------------------------
-------------
W 599
� • Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
598
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2 4
6
8 10
12
14
18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.1
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.14
2.0
599.91
3.9
599.68
5.0
599.36
6.0
599.18
6.6
599.01
7.2
599.08
7.7
599.17
8.6
599.28
9.3
599.26
10.2
599.16
10.9
599.18
11.5
599.11
12.3
599.31
13.0
599.42
13.8
599.90
14.2
599.98
15.5
600.11
16.7
600.10
SUMMARY DATA
76
Bankfull Elevation:
599.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
9.1
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:
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
Watershed:
Field Crew:
Cape
5.2
599.5
6.0
599.3
6.7
599.2
7.2
599.1
7.7
599.1
.14
599.0
8.9
598.9
9.6
598.9
10.4
598.9
10.9
599.0
11.6
599.1
11.9
599.0
12.6
599.9
13.7
600.1
15.4
600.0
:.. a .
y
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs,
UT 4, XS
- 2, Pool
601
600
--------------------------------------
---------
0
• Bankfull
599
W
--
� •Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
598
1--014/16/1 8
0 2 4
6
8
10
12
14
18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.2
1.4
600.2
2.5
600.0
3.4
599.8
4.4
599.7
5.2
599.5
6.0
599.3
6.7
599.2
7.2
599.1
7.7
599.1
8.3
599.0
8.9
598.9
9.6
598.9
10.4
598.9
10.9
599.0
11.6
599.1
11.9
599.0
12.6
599.9
13.7
600.1
15.4
600.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.8
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Watershed:
Riffle
Cape
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
5.6
599.31
6.3
599.23
�
�i
8.9
599.38
10.3
599.22
11.2
ti
12.0
599.55
12.7
599.72
13.6
599.99
14.6
599.88
15.6
600.17
16.5
600.19
.5
�.
Stream Type C E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
601
---------------------------------------------------------------
0 600
W
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
599
my034/16/18
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.02
1.8
599.98
3.7
599.85
4.5
599.76
5.2
599.53
5.6
599.31
6.3
599.23
7.4
599.38
8.9
599.38
10.3
599.22
11.2
599.38
12.0
599.55
12.7
599.72
13.6
599.99
14.6
599.88
15.6
600.17
16.5
600.19
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
599.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
9.0
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:
23.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Watershed:
4/16/2018
Cape
Perkinson, Butler
5.7
599.6
6.2
599.4
7.0
599.1
7.8
599.2
8.4
599.0
9.1
599.0
9.7
599.2
10.4
599.6
11.0
600.0
11.6
600.1
12.8
600.1
14.2
600.1
:.• .'I
.Sig:
A•,.
1
F
x?
s:.
Stream Type
C/E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
601
-----------
600
--------------------------------
0
�
� • Bankfull
599
� � � •Flood Prone Area
W
MY-00 4/6/16
MY-01 10/18/16
MY-02 4/20/17
598
MY-034/16/18
0 2
4 6
8 10
12
14
16
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.1
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.1
600.3
2.1
600.4
3.6
600.3
4.4
600.1
5.2
599.8
5.7
599.6
6.2
599.4
7.0
599.1
7.8
599.2
8.4
599.0
9.1
599.0
9.7
599.2
10.4
599.6
11.0
600.0
11.6
600.1
12.8
600.1
14.2
600.1
15.1
600.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
10.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.2
600.34
1.7
600.34
2.8
600.26
3.7
599.89
4.4
599.58
5.0
599.45
5.9
599.41
6.9
599.54
7.7
599.50
8.4
599.35
9.2
599.48
9.8
599.49
10.2
599.65
11.0
600.02
12.1
600.24
13.1
600.24
14.5
600.21
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
600.8
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
601
Stream Type C E
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 5, Riffle
______________________________________________________________-
W_____________ -------------------------------
599 +
0
------------
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Station (feet)

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
-0.1
600.65
1.3
600.54
2.7
600.50
4.2
600.26
4.9
599.86
5.6
599.56
6.2
599.86
6.8
599.95
7.0
599.89
7.5
599.60
8.2
599.69
9.3
599.81
9.8
599.89
10.7
599.74
11.2
600.09
11.9
600.19
12.7
600.27
13.2
600.55
14.1
600.64
15.3
600.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3
Bankfull Width:
4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
1[65
.0
Flood Prone Width:
0
Max De th at Bankfull:
7Mean
De th at Bankfull:
4
W / D Ratio:
J1 21.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
602
m
601
s;
0
ti
W 600
599
wa
.9r
Stream Type CT
-
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 6, Riffle
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Station (feet)

Site
Elevation
Aycock Springs
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Watershed:
Date:
Cape
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
5.6
600.10
6.5
600.05
7.3
600.16
7.7
600.06
8.4
600.06
9.3
600.05
9.9
600.11
10.8
600.06
11.7
600.30
12.8
600.36
13.5
600.55
14.0
600.78
14.8
600.69
15.8
600.78
in
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
MY -03 4/16/18
0 2 4
6
8 10 12
14 16 18
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
600.97
1.4
600.90
3.0
600.93
4.1
600.74
4.8
600.36
5.6
600.10
6.5
600.05
7.3
600.16
7.7
600.06
8.4
600.06
9.3
600.05
9.9
600.11
10.8
600.06
11.7
600.30
12.8
600.36
13.5
600.55
14.0
600.78
14.8
600.69
15.8
600.78
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
600.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.0
Bankfull Width:
9.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.4
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
19.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Aycock Springs
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
4/16/2018
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Butler
Station
Elevation
0.0
601.19
1.7
601.12
2.5
600.74
3.3
600.64
4.1
600.57
4.8
600.67
5.5
600.60
5.8
600.45
6.5
600.41
7.1
600.36
7.9
600.36
8.3
600.41
9.0
600.41
9.8
600.59
10.5
600.70
11.1
600.90
12.4
601.09
13.1
601.16
14.1
601.26
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
C00
-my-034/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
601.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
601.8
Flood Prone Width:
50.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio•22.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
. f•1[5�I�i1�'•A�13•�inS
Stream Type CB
Aycock Springs, UT 4, XS - 8, Riffle
602
m
5
0
601
Bankfull
W
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 4/6/16
MY -01 10/18/16
MY -02 4/20/17
C00
-my-034/16/18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
14 16
Station (feet)

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
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
27.3
25.2
26.2
26.3
28.3
33.7
33.2
35.4
39
25.5
27
26.5
28.4
26
26.7
26
25.7
27.3
27.7
26.8
28.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
41.3
40
40.1
40.1
47.5
47.4
47.9
47.9
58.7
55.8
57.2
57.2
47.2
44.6
43.8
43.8
61.4
58.1
52.3
52.3
54.9
50.6
50.3
50.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
2
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
3.7
3.5
3.7
3.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
4
3.7
3.2
3.3
3
2.9
2.8 1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.8
17.4
18.6
13.4
14.5
14.4
16.7
----
----
----
----
13.8
16.3
16.0
18.4
----
----
----
----
13.6
15.2
14.3
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.5
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.3
----
----
----
----
5.9
5.6
5.7
5.3
----
----
----
----
5.5
5.4
5.6
5.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.04
<1.0
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.04
1.04
<1
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.1
27.4
27.2
28
26.4
27.5
27.3
29.5
34.8
34.4
36.4
40.2
26.6
28
27.5
29.6
27.6
28.2
27.3
26.9
28.7
29.1
27.9
30.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1 1.4
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
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
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
25.1
28.1
28.5
28.6
28
29.3
29.1
29.7
27.8
38.6
38.6
39.1
37.5
30.3
29.8
30.5
30.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
60
45.8
44.9
44.9
64.6
57.4
58.3
58.3
65.9
63.1
60.8
60.8
100.1
91
87.5
87.5
73.9
66.6
69.6
69.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.9
2.8
2.5
3
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.7
3.4
3.4
3.8
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.3
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
12.2
14.2
14.0
13.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
12.4
13.3
13.4
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.4
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
1.00
1.06
1.06
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.5
29.1
26.8
26.2
29.5
29.7
29.8
29.8
30.6
30.3
30.8
29.4
40.2
40
40.4
39.1
31.8
31.4
32.1
32.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.2
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.0
2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.2
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
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
31.3
26.9
26.9
27.8
27.8
32.8
32.3
31.9
33.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
68.7
66.4
67.9
67.9
64.0
50.3
51.9
48.2
104.5
92.4
94.6
94.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.4 1
1.9
1.9
1.7
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.3
3.2
3.5
4.8
4.1
4.5
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
13.2
13.0
14.4
----
----
----
----
10.295
11.29
10.76
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
5.1
5.1
4.8
----
----
----
----
4.6
4.6
4.7
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.03
1.03
1.03
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.4
30.8
30.9
32.5
28.8
28.1
28.8
32.5
35.0
34.2
33.8
35.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.1
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.6
Substrate
d50 (mm)
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm) I
----
----
---
---
---
---
---
---

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
9.1
8.8
9.3
9.2
10.2
8.4
8.4
9.3
9.5
9.3
9.7
9.3
10.2
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
4.7
4.4
4.4
4.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
6.7
5.6
6.4
6.4
6.2
5.5
5.7
5.7
6.6
5.9
5.8
5.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6 1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1
1
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
18.0
21.4
18.8
16.8
23.4
22.9
28.1
----
----
----
----
14.0
17.1
15.2
18.4
14.0
15.3
14.9
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
9.8
9.3
9.9
10.2
9.7
9.8
8.8
----
----
----
----
9.7
9.3
9.7
8.8
9.4
9.5
9.7
9.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.7
9.4
10
9.3
9
9.4
9.4
10.3
8.9
8.9
9.8
10
9.7
10
9.6
10.5
10
10
9.8
9.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
Substrate
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
-- --
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm) I
---
----
----
----
----
---
---
--
----
----
----
----
---- I
----
----
----
----
----
----
I ----
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
6.9
7.5
7.2
7.3
6.7
7.8
8.7
7.2
6
7.9
7.2
7.6
6.7
7.6
7
6.9
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
3.6
1.9
2.2
2.2
3.9
2.4
2.4
2.4
5.7
4.1
3.6
3.6
3
4.1
1.6
1.6
4.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.2
1
0.9
1
0.7
1.1
0.4
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
29.6
20.4
21.9
14.4
21.6
22.2
18.9
----
----
----
----
20.8
12.6
36.1
28.1
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
12.0
13.4
13.1
12.0
12.5
12.3
13.4
----
----
----
----
11.4
12.5
11.8
13.5
----
----
----
----
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)
7.2
7.6
6.8
7
7.8
7.3
7.5
6.9
8.3
9.1
7.5
6.6
8
7.8
7.7
7
8
7.7
7.7
6.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
Substrate
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm) I
---
----
----
----
----
---
---
--
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
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
8.4
8
7.4
6.4
7.3
8.6
8
8.3
8.3
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.2
7.1
7.2
6.3
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
6.5
4.3
4.7
4.7
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
4
3.3
2.4
2.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5 1
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
1 0.4 1
0.8
0.5
1 0.6
0.6 1
0.5 1
0.4
1 0.4
0.4 1
0.6 1
0.5
1 0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
14.0
17.4
19.8
17.3
19.6
14.6
18.8
----
----
----
----
13.2
14.2
14.2
14.0
12.6
15.7
16.5
13.0
Entrenchment Ratio
12.2
12.9
11.5
10.8
11.3
12.2
14.1
12.3
----
----
----
----
14.1
14.3
14.3
14.4
12.7
12.5
14.3
16.1
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
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.8
7.3
8.1
8.9
8.5
7.6
6.6
7.5
9.2
8.5
9.0
9.0
6.8
6.5
6.6
6.5
7.4
7.6
6.6
6.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
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
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2
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 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
9
8.3
8.5
8.8
8.5
8.1
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.2
6.7
6.9
7.6
7.7
8.1
8.1
9.1
8.5
8.7
9.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
6.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.4
4.9
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.3
1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.6
26.5
25.8
27.6
18.5
18.2
14.8
14.5
14.4
15.2
12.5
13.5
----
----
----
----
15.6
16.4
15.4
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio
10.0
10.8
10.6
10.2
10.6
11.1
12.2
12.2
12.7
12.5
13.4
13.0
----
----
----
----
9.9
10.6
10.3
9.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.14
1.11
1.0
1.16
1.33
1.22
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.3
8.4
8.7
9.0
8.7
8.3
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.0
7.4
8.2
8.3
8.7
8.6
9.4
8.7
9.0
9.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
----
-- -
----
----
----
----
----
----
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
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 (fl)
8.3
8.2
9.7
8.4
7.2
7.5
7.3
6.4
7.6
6.8
7
7
8
7.7
7.6
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
9.3
5.9
5.4
5.4
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3
3
4
3.2
3.4
3.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.1
1.4
1.3
1.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
14.4
16.5
16.1
12.4
18.1
14.5
16.3
16.1
16.0
18.5
17.0
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
12.5
12.0
12.3
14.1
11.8
13.2
12.9
12.9
11.3
11.7
11.8
11.6
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.17
1.10
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.5
9.2
10.4
10
7.5
7.8
7.5
6.8
9.3
7.0
7.2
7.4
9.3
7.8
7.8
8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
---
d84 (mm)
----
----
-- -

Table 121). 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 MYl
MY2
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.5
6.3
6.9
7.3
4.8
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.3
5.8
5.8
6.4
5.7
5.4
5.4
8.4
7.7
8.5
9.9
6.9
7
6.8
6.4
8.3
9.4
8.2
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.8
2.1
3.2
2.2
1
1.1
1
1
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.2
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.3
1.4
1
1
5.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3 1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3 1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
1
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.9
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
23.0
28.5
30.3
32.3
19.1
20.1
28.0
26.9
41.0
36.1
32.4
33.0
22.8
21.2
24.9
33.2
20.7
35.0
46.2
40.5
----
----
----
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
18.8
16.1
16.4
16.2
15.8
17.0
15.5
15.6
14.1
15.8
16.7
16.7
10.7
11.7
10.6
9.1
13.0
12.9
13.2
14.1
8.1
----
----
----
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
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.9
6.5
7.2
7.4
4.9
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.4
6.0
5.9
6.5
5.7
5.5
5.5
8.6
7.9
8.6
10.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.4
8.8
9.5
8.4
8.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
Substrate
----
----
d84(mm)
----
----
----
----
----
---
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (nun)
----
----
----
----
----
---
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 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)
8.6
8.3
8.3
10.1
7.4
7.9
7.9
8.5
7.5
7.8
7.6
6.7
6.2
6.4
5.6
5.8
8.3
9.2
7.7
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.4
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
3.6
3.1
2.8
2.8
4.2
3.8
4.4
4.4
5.2
4
4
4
3.5
2.7
2.5
2.5
3.2
2.3
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
20.5
22.2
24.6
36.6
13.0
16.4
14.2
16.5
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
21.5
36.8
31.2
27.4
24.7
34.0
30.4
24.8
Entrenchment Ratio
10.5
10.8
10.8
8.9
12.2
11.4
11.4
10.5
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
10.8
9.8
11.7
12.5
12.5
11.8
12.2
13.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
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
10.3
7.7
8.1
8.2
8.5
8.1
8.2
8.0
7.2
6.6
6.6
5.8
6.1
8.6
9.3
8.0
7.4
7.3
7.7
7.5
6.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
Substrate
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
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
7.2
4.7
5.2
5.2
5.1
5
5.4
5.2
5.7
7
6.8
6.9
7.5
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
11
11
11
20
8
8
8
----
----
----
----
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.9
1.9
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.6
20.7
18.7
21.8
11.6
16.9
14.2
13.9
----
----
----
----
22.3
24.3
28.0
33.7
23.4
28.5
28.0
35.4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
4.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
----
----
----
----
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.1
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
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.8
7.1
6.9
7.5
5.0
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.7
5.8
5.7
6.2
7.1
6.9
7.0
7.7
5.7
5.8
6.0
6.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Substrate
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
5.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
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
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
9.1
8.5
9.1
9.5
9.2
8.6
8.7
8.4
9
8.5
10.6
10.7
10.5
8
8.3
7.8
7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
----
----
----
----
50
50
50
50
----
----
----
----
50
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.4
5.4
5.8
5.8
4.3
3.4
3.5
3.5
6.2
5.2
5.6
5.6
4.3
4.1
3.8
3.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.5
1
1.1
1
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
1
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
26.8
23.5
25.2
----
----
----
----
17.2
22.3
20.2
23.2
----
----
----
----
14.9
16.8
16.0
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio
6.0
5.3
5.7
5.5
----
----
----
----
5.8
5.76.0
5.6
----
----
----
----
6.3
6.0
6.4
6.3
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)
8.6
9.5
9.0
9.3
9.2
9.5
10.0
9.8
9.0
8.8
8.6
9.1
9.1
10.9
11.1
11.0
8.3
8.5
8.1
8.2
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
5.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
Parameter
XS 6 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 7 Riffle (UT 4)
XS 8 Riffle (UT 4)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY 0 MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.1
8.9
8.9
8.4
9.9
11.7
9.1
9.8
10.9
11.1
11
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.3
5.6
4.9
5
5
5.6
4.9
4.9
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.7
24.0
24.0
21.7
17.5
27.9
16.6
19
21.2
25.1
24.7
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio
6.2
5.6
5.6
5.9
5.1
4.3
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.4
9.0
9.0
8.9
10.2
11.9
9.4
10
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
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
2018 Year 3 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)
Year 3 (2018)
Max consecutive days channel flow
37
110
276
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation herbaceous or otherwise
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation
and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,
including h dro h es
Yes
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
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
Other:
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

28
26
24
22
20
18
5 16
41
14
°1 12
10
3 8
h
6
4
2
0
-2
Aycock Springs Surface Gauge UT -3
Year 3 (2018 Data)
4.0
3.5
3.0
N N N N N N N N W W W W 4� 41-- 41-- In In In In M M M M -4 -4 v v W W W W W W W W N N O UM
n W In O DO N
V
FJ N In N N O CO M
1 M� A N � L�� V 1 T
CO
CO CO w 00 Do w w DO N w CO w w CO CO N w DO Do 00 CO N N CO w Do 00 D0 N N N w
COCG CO D0 CU CU CO CG CO00 00 00 CU CG CO00 D0 CU CO CU COCG CO D0 CU CU CU CU 00 N N
1.0
0.5
0.0
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

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
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Florence on
October 24, 2018
September 17, 2018
September 15-17, 2018.
Overbank as the result of Hurricane Michael on October
October 24, 2018
October 11, 2018
11, 2018.
*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
2018 Year 3 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.
2018 Year 3 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 (2018)
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2016)
(2017)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
1
Yes/55 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/58 days
(29.1 percent)
(11.0 percent)
(25.1 percent)
2
Yes/46 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/65 days
(24.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(28.1 percent)
3
Yes/44 days
Yes/25 days
Yes/46 days
(23.3 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(19.9 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.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

APPENDIX F
BENTHIC DATA
Results
Habitat Assessment Data Sheets
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

AXIOM, AYCOCK, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/15/2018.
PAI ID NO
51449
51450
51451
STATION
UT -1
UT -2
UT -4
DATE
6/15/2018 6/15/2018 6/15/2018
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
FC
Pisidium sp.
6.6
FC
5
Sphaerium sp.
7.2
FC
1
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Planorbidae
SC
Menetus dilatatus
7.6
SC
1
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta
CG
Naididae
Tubificida
Tubificinae w.h.c.
CG
1
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
CG
1
Hirudinea
P
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
P
4
1
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
P
Placobdella papillifera
8.2
P
2
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Ostracoda
1
Isopoda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea sp.
8.4
CG
16
16
30
Amphipoda
CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.
7.2
CG
3
19
3
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
CG
Neocloeon triangulifer
5
Caenidae
CG
Caenis sp.
6.8
CG
52
2
Odonata
Coenagrionidae
P
Argia sp.
8.31
P
1 8
Ischnura sp.
9.5
2
3
Corduliidae
Somatochlora sp.
8.9
P
1
1
Libellulidae
P
1
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 2 AXIOM Aycock 6 18cl.xlsx

AXIOM, AYCOCK, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/15/2018.
PAI ID NO
51449
51450
51451
STATION
UT -1
UT -2
UT -4
DATE
6/15/2018 6/15/2018 6/15/2018
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.
9.5
P
1
Corixidae
PI
1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
P
Chauliodes sp.
P
1
Sialidae
P
Sialis sp.
7
P
1
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
P
1
Celina sp.
P
2
Hydrovatus sp.
9
Neoporus sp.
5
3
Elmidae
CG
Dubiraphia sp.
5.5
SC
1
Haliplidae
Peltodytes muticus
8.4
SH
1
1
Hydrophilidae
P
1
Enochrus ocnraceus
8.5
CG
1
Tropisternus sp.
9.3
P
1
1
2
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomus sp.
9.3
CG
2
34
Clinotanypus sp.
7.8
P
1
2
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
1
Paratendipes albimanus/duplicatus
5.6
2
Polypedilum flavum
5.7
SH
1
Polypedilum illinoense gp.
8.7
SH
1
Psectrotanypus sp.
3
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gp.
6.5
FC
1
Culicidae
FC
Anopheles sp.
8.6
FC
6
Culex sp.
FC
1
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha clavipes
9
22
Tabanidae
PI
Chrysops sp.
6.7
PI
1
Tipulidae
SH
Tipula sp.
7.5
SH
2
1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
110
94
93
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
22
15
20
EPT TAXA
2
0
1
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned values
7.77
8.26
7.74
PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 2 AXIOM Aycock 6 18cl.xlsx

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet A-icoc'I (f f" s
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE �Z
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 perforin 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.
is; pP '# 7'.JL)je j
StreamT ao 'r^,Crim' Location/road: 044 64n­v'�i Road Name )County A r
Date lonlb'�"'l CCP W?01"12 Basin C.�po Subbasin 67
r+Lf :.4. V-4
Observer(s) i-, I�" Type of Study: ❑ Fish KBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe.)
Latitude L1,Jt757'_ Longitude Ecoregion: ❑ MT ),P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature _"— °C DO — mg/l Conductivity (corr.) pSlcm pt -f
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: 10 %Forest %Residential �' � %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : Forest '9�griculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream D' Channel (at top of bank) l ` Stream Depth: (in) Avg ( Max + :i
❑ 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 ❑ NA (Vertical is 900, horizontal is 01. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, a 901
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 ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 13Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization:
ON f Y: ❑R�ip� ap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
E=ti pw
Flow conditio s : ❑High PyTT,,,d
Turbidity:
[ear ❑ Sli ❑Turbid ❑Tanniicc/❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? M VES 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
/
Q/
............................
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or X25%ofchamtel 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 pools .....................................................
❑
Weather Conditions.__W1^,yZrt Photos: ❑N 2 ❑ Digital 1335mm
Rema
V/ rlq��(� k U..
k,,J �,,kJ�
42

I. Channel Modification ,, re
A. channel natural, frequent bends...... ..................................... ....................................................... ( 5
channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old)... ..... ............................................. 4
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
11 Evidence f dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks tt tt smmr;`; ; Subtotal
11. Instreanr 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 ofolder leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as RareCommon or Abundant. -,. -.,_ •":
t- Rocks N Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs G Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
riffle for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
15
Score
Score
Soorg
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
I6)
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
1 S
11
7
2 types present ... ................ _...
18
14
10
6
l 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...................................................................................................
I
Remarks
Subtotal 1(10
Ill. 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 prix 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
1. embeddedness<20%...................................................................__.....................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
3. embeddedness 40-80% .......... .................................................. ................... __.......... ...........
�fJ
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate trrostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .............. _.......................................... .........................................
2
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
rm of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the fo
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
I. 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......:.....:.........:....:...........'.........................,.......:..............:......................................:.......... 0
Subtotal -Lo-_
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk usilt bottom ❑ Some poo{s over wader depth
Remarks
Mage Total�
43

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... (Y7 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 absSSnt................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: @Typical for area ❑Sleep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal � {0
V1, Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
A. Banks stable Score Score
I. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erasion:" ')
B. Erosion areas present
1. 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 2
5, little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident...........................................0 0
Total
Remarks -
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block put
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
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-- Af,�f _--r07r Zq 0J.,,7+1 i Subtotal
WPI
1'111. 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 Lfl. Bank RI, Bank
Dominant vegetation: G Trees f�hrtibs Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters...... .................. 5 5
2. width 12-18 meters................................................................................... �*l
3. width 6-12 meters..................................................................................... 3 3
4. width < 6 meters.... ............................ 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > IS meters......................................................................... 4 4
b. width 12-18 meters....................................................................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ...................................... 2 2
d. width < 6 meters......................................................................... 1 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters......................................................................... 3 3
b. width 12-18 meters...................................................................... 2 2
c. width 6-12 meters....................................................................... I
d. width < 6 meters......................................................................... 0 0
Remarks Cav '� ntr�; ! n ?j'; -�'� Total
© Disclaimer -farm filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream
44
Page Total uo
TOTAL, SCORE

Supplement for• Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
Lu
a�
I '
I
90° 45°
Tvpical ' ream Cr
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
45
135°
This side is 45° blink angle.

3%06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet 11
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.
Stream (lf la".• 4 CrGcrw Location/road: 4 r»tur
..h1(r 05'.pead r'Zogd
l aName )County lay"""{
Date e' CC sny3 Z Basin � Fds:r
Subbasin (} Z
n
Observer(s)�O�ypeofStudy: ❑ Fish *enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude l $ :z$ Longitude -21.5141? 141? Ecoregion: ❑ MT XP ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature '' °C DO — mg/1 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: (O %Forest %Residential%Active Pasture _0X, Active Crops
____%Fallow Fields _% Commercial- %Industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use : Forest P8Agriculture ❑Urban © Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream r� Channel (at top of bank) ,� Stream Depth: (m) AvgD`01'C 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) 0.2 %
Bank Angle: !spy ° or ❑ NA (vertical is 900, horizontal is 00. Angles > 900 indicate slope is towards mid -channel, { 900
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter,)
O Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply ineised-steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercuE at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits OBar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth / ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON Y: ❑
cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/leveeFlow conditio 2p,
Wow
Turbidity: Tear
❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid OTannic ❑Milky ©Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 6/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 X25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................
C. Water tills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed .............................................
D. Root mats out of water
P ❑
...............
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ...............
Weatiler Conditions: rl7 Photos: ❑N f3Y ❑ Digital ❑35mm
Remarks:
'045 0�- 'u'.0'iS ( 4'_ �ca,u C'.wt( ( C, (�C 1V45 G�
ke, f C C�42
A

1. Channel Modification
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old)...................................................... 3
C. some channelization present..............................................................................................................
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream 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. I nstream 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 ofolder leaves that are packed together and have
begun to deco (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare Common or Abundant. �' i'►',
g Y p p )
Rocks A Microphytes Y -, Sticks and leafpacks _Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACI-I FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score core Score
4 or 5 types present................. 20, 16 12 8
3 types present ......................... ]9 15 11 7
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
1 type present.................... 13 9 5
No types present....................... 0 i
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks Subtotal Vit'
Ill. 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%.......................................................................................................... 12
3. embeddedness 40-80%.......................................................................................................... 8
4. embeddedness >80%... - .....................,.....,................................................................... 3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................ 1 J
2. embeddedness 20-40%_ .................. ........................ ................................................. ......... I�
3. embeddedness 40-80%................... (_6
..................................••.........................................__.......
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................ 2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................ 8
2. embeddedness>50%....... ..................... .................... ....... ................... ......... r..................... _ 4
D. substrate homogeneous
. substrate nearly all bedrock................................................................................................. 3
..
2. substrate nearly all sand........................... __.............................. ,......... 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus................................................................................................... 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay.................................................................................. I
Remarks.0. • 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 core
1. Pools f=requent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... ,IhO
b, pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ ta�J
2. Pools lafrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. varit:ty of pool siges.......................................................,..+........,.,..,,........ ... .t-
�tEdd�aine size...:...,.i.':..........................a.1::...........:...............:..............:...�......... � 4
0
...........................................................
B. Pools absent � ........ ...5ubtakal_�
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hJard ❑ Bottom sandy-sink as you.Walk C� silt bottom Ca Some pools over wader depth
Remarks _ — --- _ — -
Page 7ata1__3
43

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area, Riffles Frequent
Riffles Infrequent
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream..., 16 e
Skmvtore
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .......... 14
Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
..... .... I.....,.1 ....... ,
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 1pt
7
D. riffles a ent
.................................................................... 0
Cannel Slope: Typical for area ©Steep=fast flow ❑ Low= like . a coastal stream
Subtotal
Vl. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
A. BankS'stable
qtr
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion,U)
(�Score
17
B. Erosion areas present
a. width > 18 meters, ..........................
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems .....................................
6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy
6
5
...........................
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding .........
5
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 ..........................
a, width > 18 meters
Zemarks
Total
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.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration .................. re
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ................... 1t)
C. Stream withcano artialsunlight............................... $
P canopy - and shading are essentially equal ......................................
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ...............
E. No canopy and no shading ..............
Remarks c11
.111 - ="✓�C"(J
-- Subtotal 2
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can
break in the riparian zone is any
go beyond floodplain), Definition: A
place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants
paths down to stream. storm drains, uprooted trees,
to directly enter the stream, such as
otter slides, etc.
FPyt'�E UPSTREAM
Dominant
Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
vegetation: E7Trees Shrubs jC Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ©Exotics (kudzu,
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
etc) Score Score
I. width > 18 meters
............. ...........
. width 12-18 meters3. ................ ..............
5 5
� ,�
width 6-12 meters
..................
4, width { S meters .....................
3 3
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
2 �
1. breaks rare
i
a. width > 18 meters, ..........................
.................
width 12-18 meters ......................
4 4
.................................................
c. width 6-12 meters ........................
3 3
d. width < 6 meters .....................
2
2_ breaks common
I t
a, width > 18 meters
....................
b. width 12-18 meters
3 3
..................................
c. width 6-12 meters .........................
2
d width < 6 meters ........................
Remarks .L'j'd
I
a o
�• �= . , , �: rte` � `f'
— — •--�.
Total
13Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
Page
TOTAL SCOREa-7!j_
44
.......... ...... -

Supplement for Ilabitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
T ' i cal Stream '.russ-sectic�
Site Sketch:
Other cornmen
45
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.

3/06 Revision 6 Alcoa, oT-
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
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.
Stream `ri►4
Location/road: (kSi
t�I13 1 f oad Name��_ )County AuW�..Rr.e
Date CC# 03,336007- Basin <5ubbasint - a�
• I
Observer(s) X. -XT t' "� Type of Study: ❑ Fish *enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude Yd,, MIK Longitude ??16�i Ecoregion: ❑ MT P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Waterualit Tent � —
Q Y� Temperature P C 1J0 mg/l Conductivity (torr.) uS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from samplinglacation -include svh:rt
yuu estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use:t %Fores%Residential �! u
--�— ( /oActive Pasture % Active Crops
_._%Fallow Fields —% Commercial %industrial %Other - Describe:
Watershed land use: (Forest Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream , , Channel (at top of bank) 2— Stream Depth: (m) AvgMax Qi
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river>25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of rifle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) i , D
Bank Angle: _ ° or ❑ NA ( Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 01. 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 ©Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth/ ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 13 Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON Lw, ❑trip- p, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Bermlfevee
Flow conditions : ❑Hi ❑Normal IffLow
Turbidity: ❑Clear 17Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic)DMilky ❑Colored (front dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ErYES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low now conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed .............
B, Water fills >75% ofavailable channel. or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........... ............ p
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 pools ................................................
Weather Conditions: �04 CYC ( Photos: ON lei' ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks: qr3+.,r t y .
1.
42

I. Channel Modification e
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 5
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old)...._ .... ........................................... 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 of dredging ©Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream 013anks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
H. Instrearn Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70% of the
reach is rocks, t 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.
{� y
C, Rocks �` Macrophyteso�. Sticks and leafpacks —Snags and logs R Undercut batiks or root teats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present...... ........... 20 16 12 8
11 7
3 types present ......................... 19 5
14 6
2 types present ......................... is
9 S
9
1 type present .......................... 17 13
No types present ....................... 0
5ubtotalA�__
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
111. 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 orgravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40% .....................
2
8
3. embeddedness 40-80%.........................................•............•...................................................
3
4. embeddedness >80%................•....................•.................•.........
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<20%..............................................•...........................................•.................
L�
2. embeddedness 20-40%••...................•................•...............•..•.....•.........................................
b
3. embeddedness 40-80%.•......................................................................
9
4, embeddedness >80%..............•........,..........................•.........................•............
_
C. substrate mostly grave[
8
1. embeddedness<50%.............•.....................•........•..........•...............•....................................
4
2. embeddedness>50%.....................•......................•,.....................,........................................
D. substrate homogeneous
3
....................•.......•....•............•............................
1. substrate nearly all bedrock.. .......... .....
3
2. substrate nearly all sand......................................................................•...•.•...........
3, substrate nearly all detritus.......................................•,.........,...........................................•...•.
I
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .............•..... ............................................•...........................-
Subtotal
Remarks
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
core
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes..........................•...................................•................................................
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
4
U. Pools absent...........................................................................................................................................
Subtotal
0
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
43
Page Total �3

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
re Scare
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 ........................ . q 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. I 0
D. riffles absent ........................ 0
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑ Low= like a coastal stream
Subtotal
VI. Flank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
A. Banks stable
Score Score
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.
B. Erosion areas present
1. 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 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident. 0 0
...................
Remarks Total It
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 riot use to score this metric.
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ...................... core
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ................
C. Stream with partial canopy 8
p py -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 t� ,n �_� y_ t..
subtotal
Vill. Riparian Vegetative Zone Widths
Definition: Riparian zone for this Farm is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A
break in the riparian acne 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.
/ FPy�E UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: H Trees l"Shrubs )g'Grasses ❑ Weeds/old Field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ................................. 5 5
2. width 12-18 meters ........................... 4 0
................
3. width 6-12 meters ...................
4. 3 3
width < 6 meters ............................... 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters ....................... 4
b. width 12-18 meters ..................... 3 3
c. width 6-12 meters ..................................... 2 2
d. width <6 meters ........................... 1
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters ......................... 3 3
................................................
b. width 12- 18 meters ....................... 2
e. width 6-12 meters ................................. I I
d. width < 6 .. meters.........0
Remarks p,� .7 - �., n �.....�................................... 0
Total:—&
D Disclaimer -corm filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical Page Total [)
1 p ypical strean�. TOTAL SCORE_
44

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine batik angle:
Lu
900 45°
T ical Svea;ross-scclio7
Lstregm Width
Site 5ketcht
Other comments:
45
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.

APPENDIX G
REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan - Vegetation Update
Map of Replant Areas -green dots indicate approximate location of where photos were taken.

f
. y - L��• ki,, _ �Rr '�� - -.may �..

7r , 9. W:
1 f
mom . . . . . .
?7W �L,
i 1• I w
_ I
r '

Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan -Vegetation Update
Photo 4: Looking S. in Replant Area 6, from outside of the easement Photo Date: 1-13-2017
Aycock Springs—Remedial Action Plan -Vegetation Update
• �3�r 'i'1;
.' i
v�,
ff........ . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
a,
Photo 6 / 7: Live stake establishment on bank in Replant area 6
D
I
+^ k f
r
+ � • �. t' _ Ery • - .
.E•',i��.-�y Irl i•• rE-. - .���3�t�"xi���:"
Photo Date: 1-13-2017

Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement - Update
Alk spng:,r-c..,.
SubsWIM replacement -2-232017
Map of Area — UT 1, XC 9, 10, 11
Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement— Update
Photo 1: Substrate loss, 6" head -cut at UT 1, XC 9
1—n__k—..l Rp-ry,1111,X9- II..1-
Ay
jars
____________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------
s
.tiy5prNy. 171, h3 t& pnd
v9e
-------------
g3 xs
tl
.\yr rck Sp,fnys, Ul' 1, XS � 9. Wm0
jars
--------------------------------------------------------------
s
Photo Date: 2-23-2017
11:
XC -10
}
.y ..a•..'. i
. p
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 Date: 2-23-2017
Photo 3: Substrate replacement at UT 1, XC 9
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 30 (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
Photo 6: U7-1 looking downstream from XC -11
Aycock Springs— Remedial Action Plan Substrate Replacement —Update
III
Photo Date: 3-03-2017
tom•
Photo 7: XC -9 — Post 3-1-20170.92 inch rain event (Per USGS Guage at BUFFALO CREEK (SR2819 NR MCLEANSVILLE, NC) ` 7 miles from Site

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

APPENDIX H
HERBICIDE APPLICATION FORMS
2018 Year 3 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 - 0529
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Site
Aycock Springs
Date
05-10-2018
Start Time
11:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day?
No
Sky Cover
Clear
Wind Direction
SW
Applicators
Joshua G Merritt INC 026-33717)
Application Method
Basal Bark
Herbicide
GarlonO 4 (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
15
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
End Time 16:30
If NO, this is PAL # of ## 3 of 3
Temp (F) 85
Wind Speed 6-10 mph
Total Concentrate 29 fl oz
Diluent
Diesel fuel
Total Solution
1.5 gallon
Species Controlled
Multiflora Rose
Area Description
Patches of rose scattered through the entire branch, most were smaller but some
were large in size.
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0528
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Springs
Date 05-10-2018
Start Time 9:00 End Time
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Clear Temp (F)
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
(%)
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Refuge® (glyphosate)
4 Total Concentrate
Hel-fire®
.5
Water
6 gallons
Jap. Honeysuckle
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Cattail
14:00
2of3
85
6-10 mph
30 fl oz
Additional Comments Area Description There was a lot of cattail growing where the pond used to be. Rose found
throughout the entire branch while privet and honeysuckle found at the far end of
the site, mostly in the understory
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0527
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Springs
Date 05-10-2018
Start Time 11:00 End Time
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Clear Temp (F)
Wind Direction SW Wind Speed
Applicators Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Application Method Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Herbicide Other (see comments)
Herbicide Rate (%) Total Concentrate
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1) Hel-fire®
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate 5
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
14:00
1 of 3
85
6-10 mph
15 fl oz
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
4 gallons
Species Controlled
herbaceous growth
Area Description
The tributaries were well defined but had some herbaceous species encroaching
and blocking water flow.
Additional Comments
Habitat herbicide used.
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0526
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Springs
Date 05-09-2018
Start Time 9:00 End Time
Only PAL for Site for This Day? Yes If NO, this is PAL # of ##
Sky Cover Clear Temp (F)
Wind Direction ENE Wind Speed
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
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
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Refuge® (glyphosate)
4 Total Concentrate
Hel-fire®
.5
Water
9 gallons
17:00
81
1-5 mph
45 fl oz
Jap. Honeysuckle
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Worked on the main branch, where there are invasives present mostly in the
understory and near the stream. Mostly smaller plants needed to be treated, with
the exception of some larger honeysuckle vines.

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0469
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Springs
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 9:00 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
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(off )
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)
Refuge® (glyphosate)
5 Total Concentrate
Hel-fire®
.5
Water
12 gallons
16:00
2of2
81
1-5 mph
78 fl oz
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Large amount of privet in back corner of site, some small invasives near the
stream
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0468
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Site
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
Joshua G Merritt INC 026-33717)
Application Method
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Herbicide
Garlon® 3A (triclopyr)
Herbicide Rate (%)
3
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Hel-fire®
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
2 gallons
Species Controlled
Privet spp.
End Time 16:00
If NO, this is PAL # of ## 1 of 2
Temp (F) 81
Wind Speed 1-5 mph
Total Concentrate 8 fl oz
Multiflora Rose
Area Description Large amount of privet in back corner of site
Additional Comments

Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0465
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Srpings
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 14:00 End Time 16:00
Only PAL for Site for This Day? No If NO, this is PAL # of ## 3 of 3
Sky Cover Clear Temp (F) 81
Wind Direction S Wind Speed 1-5 mph
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Total Solution
Species Controlled
Area Description
Additional Comments
Grainger Coughtrey (NC 026-34612)
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Cut and Stump Spray
Garlon@ 3A (triclopyr)
50 Total Concentrate 50 fl oz
Water
100 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 - 0464
Client Restoration Systems
Project Site Aycock Springs
Date 09-05-2017
Start Time 9:00 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
Applicators Joshua G Merritt (NC 026-33717)
Application Method
Herbicide
Herbicide Rate (%)
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
(off )
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
2of2
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 - 0463
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Site
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
(off )
Roundup® Custom (glyphosate)
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.
12:30
Multiflora Rose
Area Description
The majority of the site is clear of invasive species. The privet and rose present
If NO, this is PAL # of ##
were small re-sproutes from recent treatments.
Additional Comments
Carolina Silvics, Inc. Pesticide Application Log
CarSily - 0398
Client
Restoration Systems
Project Site
Aycock Springs
Date
04-06-2017
Start Time
12:30
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
Applicators
Sebastian Kimlinger (NC 026-34613)
Application Method
Foliar Spray (Backpack)
Herbicide
Roundup® Custom (glyphosate)
Herbicide Rate (%)
5
Total Concentrate
Surfactant or Adjuvant (1)
Hel-fire®
Surfactant/Adjudivant 1 Rate
5
(off )
Other
Other Rate/Amt
Diluent
Water
Total Solution
3 gallons
Species Controlled
Privet spp.
Multiflora Rose
Area Description
Additional Comments
14:30
2of2
61
11-15mph
20 fl oz

APPENDIX I
PHOTO LOG
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Photo 1: UT -1 Outfall (Terracell)
Photo 2: UT -4 Outfall (Terracell)
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Photo 3: 02-23-20] 7 Repair near UT -1 XC 9
Photo 4: 02-23-2017 Repair near UT -1 XC 10
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791)
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Photo 5: Travis Creek XS -3P (Rack litter along willows)
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Photo 6: Travis Creek — Enhancement 2 Reach near Gibsonville Ossipee Rd.
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

Photo 7: Travis Creek — Enhancement 2 Reach below UT -4 outfall (approx. 50 ft.)
2018 Year 3 Monitoring Report (Contract No. 5791) Appendices
Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina

ID#* 20140335
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review
Completed Date
01/29/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/28/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
fJ Stream rJ Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Raymond Holz
Project Information
r Yes r No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 20140335 Existing 1
(DWR) (nunbersonly ...nodash) Version: (nurrbersonly)
I D#: *
Project Name: Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site
County: Alamance
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Final_Aycock Springs MR Yr.3_2018.pdf 21.13MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the corplete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Raymond Holz
Signature:*