20140129 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2019_20200327

ID#* 20140129 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 03/30/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/27/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r- Wetlands r` Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20140129
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mit. Site
County: Cabarrus
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Little Buffalo Creek _94147_MY5_2019.pdf 32.47MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
�X/ I �;" -;-I 1

Monitoring Report
Year 5
FINAL
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
NCDEQ DMS Project Number. 94147
Contract Number. 2029
USACE Permit Action ID: 2014-00386
DWR Permit: 14-0129
Cabarrus County
Data collection: October 2019-January 2020
Draft Submitted: February 2020
Final Submitted: March 2020
Reach 1 Restoration Area Pre -Construction Reach 1 Restoration Area MY5
Prepared for:
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

Prepared by:
LVI%qhl I I
W SP
(formerly Louis Berger)
412 Mount Kemble Avenue
PO Box 1946
Morristown, NJ 07962-1946
Tel [phone]
Project Manager:
Ed Samanns
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Ed Samanns
Project Manager
WSP (formerly Louis Berger)
412 Mount Kemble Avenue
PO Box 1946
Morristown, NJ 07962-1946
NORTH CAROLINA
Emvironmentat Quality
Subj ect: DRAFT Monitoring Year 5 report for the
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040105— Cabarrus County
DMS Project ID No. 94147
Contract # 002029
Dear Mr. Samanns:
March 5, 2020
On February 17, 2020, the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) received the DRAFT
Monitoring Year 5 report for the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project site from WSP
(formerly Louis Berger). The report establishes the Year 5 monitoring conditions at the site.
Anticipated mitigation on the site includes 2,017 linear feet of stream restoration; 1,244 linear feet
of stream Enhancement (Level I); 7,723 linear feet of stream Enhancement (Level II); and 2,378
linear feet of stream Preservation for a total of 6,411 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs).
DMS, DEQ Stewardship and WSP conducted a site visit on March 3, 2020 to review conditions
on the site. Comments from the site visit are captured in this letter as well as comments from the
DRAFT MY5 report.
General: Based on the data gaps reported in MY5, DMS recommends continued monitoring and
maintenance of the stream flow gauges on the site in 2020 until project closeout. Available 2020
data should be collected before and reported by WSP at the June 9, 2020 NC IRT project closeout
presentation.
General: DMS recommends including the June 19, 2018 MT site visit minutes in the appendices.
In the comment response letter, please confirm that actions items and discussion points from the
meeting have been implemented and/ or resolved. If not, please provide anticipated completion
date/s.
NOH7HCAROuNA� ��
DNPhft Aof GNi0i1nIFMYQNW
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 MaiI Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Section 1.4 - Mitigation Components and Design: This section indicates DMS will receive
approximately 6,411 as of December 2017 but the credits were determined by the July 2015 As -
Built Report. Please update the 2017 reference to the appropriate date. The 6,376 SMU value
assumes additional credit from the UT3 EI work but this is not made clear in the text. Please
update the text to reflect this assumption. Refer to the June 19, 2018 IRT site visit minutes
regarding the requirement for a Mitigation Plan Addendum to add project credits and edit this
section accordingly.
Section 1.5.1.3 - Volunteer Species (Supplemental Plantings): Please describe the placement
of the supplemental plantings relative to the vegetation plots and non -plot areas. A supplemental
planting map (with planting dates) would be helpful and at a minimum should be provided in the
project closeout report.
Section 1.5.2 - Stream Assessment: In the report text, please indicate the approximate stream
stations where the former beaver dams were located. Based on a review of the draft report, it
appears that WSP does not currently consider the previous aggradation (linear wetlands) on UT 2
and UT3 a project issue. Please confirm in the comment response letter. If aggradation (linear
wetlands) are still considered a project issue, please update the report text and edit the CCPV
(Figures 3 & 4) to more clearly indicate the sections of UT 2 and UT3 that are considered linear
wetlands and the sections considered stream channel.
Section 1.5.2 -Stream Assessment: In the data gap summary section, please also note the project
reach associated with each gauge: (i.e.: UT 2 Lower — Gauge 3 (Missing Data: 08/21/2019 —
10/09/2019)).
Section 1.5.4 - Monitoring Year 5 Summary: The term channelization is used in this section
and several other sections of the document. Consider using alternate wording to describe the
process since channelization typically refers to the straightening and ditching of streams.
Figure Al — Project Components Map: Recommend removing the "Proposed Easement
Following Modification To Easement With DMS" callout and leader as the easement has been
amended. Also; this is not applicable to the project components.
Table 2: Year 4 Monitoring — Please update the completion date to the final report delivery date.
CCPV Maps: Stream Thalweg colors on the CCPV maps and legend should be consistent with
the Project Components Map (Fig. A-1). Please update the CCPV stream thalweg colors to match
the Project Components Map. Please also confirm that the aerial imagery is the most recent
available. Please update if more recent aerial imagery is available.
Visual Stream Morphology Assessment Table 5: If applicable, please update the table to reflect
any aggradation observed in UT 2 and/ or UT3 (see comment above). Please label all of the tables
in this section with a title (Tables 5a-g).
Appendix D - Table lla: Please note that BHR is not required for pools. A dash can be utilized
for pools (BHR).
M(X H ::N LINA�
owa tof EmWF__�l 0.4hy
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quallty I Divislon of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail SerV[Ce Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707,8976

Appendix E - Figure 6c - Water Level and Rainfall Plots - Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology
Monitoring Graph UT 2 Lower: Leader pointing to the missing data needs to be shifted to the
correct interval of missing data.
Table 13 - Continuous Stream Flow Record: Please show the maximum number of consecutive
days for each gauge beneath the date ranges.
Example:
12/18/14-
5/25/15
(158 Days)
Digital Support File Comments:
MY5 spatial features are corrupted and cannot be uploaded into ArcMap. Please re -send
these features in a separate zipped folder. Sending them in a zipped folder has helped
prevent this issue previously.
Some of the current features have merged segments from specific reaches (i.e. Little
Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc.), but do not clearly result from adding together
reported restoration footage among those specific reaches. For example, the feature "Little
Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and 3" has a length of 1433 in the geodatabase, while reach 2 is
reported at 1244 ft and the Ell segment of Reach 3 is reported at 839 ft. Because there are
additional merged segments (i.e. Reach 3 and 4), the distinct feature segments (i.e. Reach
3 EII, Reach 4 Ell, etc) cannot be distinguished or compared to the asset table.
Please provide DMS with stream features that are segmented based on the Restoration
Footage or Acreage column of the asset table, ensuring that these segments accurately
represent the creditable footage reported.
• Please specify low top of bank elevation in the stream cross section Figures or Table 1 Ia.
Comments based on the 3/3/20 DMS site visit:
• Please include the drainage swales shapefile in the final digital support file CD.
• Recent cattle encroachment was observed during the site visit. Please continue to work
with the project landowners to eliminate all cattle encroachment within the conservation
easement.
• Please work to address all outstanding work/ project action items (crossing above UT3;
main stem crossing; crossing above UT1, etc.) ASAP and well before the June 9, 2020
closeout presentation with the NC IRT.
• Please continue to remove beaver and beaver dam/s from all project reaches through project
closeout.
M(X H ::N LINA�
owa tof EmWF--�l0.4hy
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quallty I Divislon of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail SerV[Ce Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707,8976

• A failed pond overflow pipe was noted above UT2 during the site visit. Please assess and
determine potential effects to UT2 and the downstream project reaches. Does this change
in hydrology represent a long term stability issue for the project reach and/or site?
• Minor head cuts were observed on UT2 and UT3. Please assess and determine if these
areas represent long term stability issues for the project site.
• Please continue to measure and track any areas along UT2 and UT3 that function more as
"linear wetlands" as opposed to streams with a functional bed and bank. Areas functioning
as linear wetlands represent a credit risk (potential mitigation credit loss) at project
closeout.
• Vegetation data in MY5 is meeting the success criteria; however, several bare areas within
the conservation easement were observed during the site visit. DMS recommends
conducting random vegetation transects in some of these areas and reporting this data at
the closeout presentation and site visit to substantiate the overall vegetation success criteria
data results.
Based on the potential project credits "at risk" on the site, the final project invoice should
be delayed until the IRT reviews and closes the project site.
Please provide an electronic comment response letter addressing the DMS comments received.
This comment response letter should also be included in the FINAL MY5 revised report after the
report cover. Please send two (2) final hard copies and the final electronic deliverables and support
files (on a CD) directly to my attention at the address below (Western DMS field office). The final
electronic monitoring report with all attachments should be named:
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 MY5 2019.pdf
If you have any questions, please contact me at any time at [phone] or email me at
paul.wiesner(a�ncdenr.gov .
Sincerely,
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
NCDENR — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Mobile
cc: file
M(X H ::N LINA�
owa tof EmWF--�l0.4hy
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quallty I Divislon of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail SerV[Ce Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707,8976

Your ref.: 94147
Our ref.: LE2000992
March 24, 2020
Paul Wiesner, Western Regional Supervisor
NCDENR - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project - MY5 Report Comments & Responses
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
WSP has reviewed your comments, received on March 5, 2020, for the DRAFT Monitoring Year 5 report
for the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project site. We offer the following responses.
General: Based on the data gaps reported in MY5, DMS recommends continued monitoring and
maintenance of the stream flow gauges on the site in 2020 until project closeout. Available 2020 data
should be collected before and reported by WSP at the June 9, 2020 NC IRT project closeout presentation.
o WSP will continue to monitor stream flow gauges until project closeout. Data collected from the
stream flow gauges will be analyzed and results will be reported at the June 9, 2020 NC IRT
project closeout presentation.
General: DMS recommends including the June 19, 2018 IRT site visit minutes in the appendices. In the
comment response letter, please confirm that actions items and discussion points from the meeting have
been implemented and/ or resolved. If not, please provide anticipated completion date/s.
o The Monitoring Year 5 report has been updated to include the June 19, 2018IRT site visit minutes
in Appendix F and offers the following responses to action items and discussion points listed in the
site visit minutes:
IRT Site Visit: Action Items
1. Color code stream centerlines in CCPV maps for MY4 and MY5 reports to distinguish levels of
restoration effort.
o This was done for the CCPV shown in MY4 and MY5 reports.
2. Remove beaver dam and spread debris on the copper area and the bare area around vegetation plot
11.
o The beaver dam was removed in MY4 and the debris was spread out near the beaver dam, to
facilitate vegetative re -growth adjacent to the dam. It was not spread over the bare (high copper)
area. The dam was more than 125 feet downstream from where the beaver dam was located. The
debris was not moved this full distance in order to avoid additional disturbance to vegetated
portions of the riparian buffer.
WSP USA
Suite 1500
434 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
WSP.Com

3. Deploy a new gauge mid -point of stream length UT-2. Install the gauge at an increased depth,
sufficient to record water levels beneath the channel.
o The existing Gauge 3 is located at station 16+80; approximately halfway between the start of
restoration (13+80) and the end of UT-2 (19+50), along the area of continued channel formation.
A replacement gauge was installed approximately 75 feet downstream (17+55) of Gauge 3 during
the fall of 2019. The replacement gauge was installed during a period when the original Gauge 3
could not be found. The replacement gauge is located in a segment with a well-defined channel
(bed and banks). The original Gauge 3 was found a few months later (winter 2019) and now both
gauges are functioning. Additionally, visual monitoring and photo collection has continued to
ensure appropriate documentation of stream flow in this area.
4. Install groundwater well on UT-2 in conjunction with new gauge.
o Gauge 13 was installed adjacent to existing Gauge 3 and the groundwater level has been
compared to stream flow data in the MY4 and MY5 reports.
5. Replant around UT-2 with more mature trees at least 4 different species.
o Approximately 70 4-foot tall trees consisting of eight different species were replanted across 1.41
acres around UT 2 in November 2018. Figures depicting the replanting locations has been added
in Appendix F of the Monitoring Year 5 report.
6. Measure linear stream length that may be considered a linear wetland at closeout for more
accurate number in the winter. (DMS Note: This should be measured in both MY4 & MY5 to
track any changes. Measurements will be much easier in the dormant season).
o In MY4, approximately 230 feet of stream length in UT 2 and 216 feet of stream length in UT 3
were identified as areas of aggradation/linear wetland. Based on observations of flow and
features indicating channel development duringMY5 site visits, UT 2 is currently shown without
any areas of aggradation/linear wetland and the UT 3 stream length of aggradation/linear
wetland has been lessened to 185 feet (split between two segments). WSP will continue to monitor
the relevant segments of UT 2 and UT3. As part of this monitoring, WSP will document flow, and
evidence of channel development or aggradation. It may be difficult to document features during
the growing season when vegetation becomes thick. However, photos from January -March 2020
have been collected to highlight the channel condition during the dormant season.
7. Replant the left bank riparian corridor of Reach 4 (cattle grazed area) with more mature trees of at
least 4 different species.
o In November 2018, approximately 60 4-foot tall trees consisting of eight different species were
replanted across 1.27 acres around Reach 4. A figure depicting the replanting locations has been
added in Appendix F of the Monitoring Year 5 report.
8. Deploy a new gauge near the mid -point of UT-3.
o Gauge 12 was installed near stream station 18+25 and flow data has been analyzed in the MY4
and MY5 reports. This gauge was placed at the approximate midpoint of the restoration length
(10+00-24+50).
9. Replant around UT-3 with more mature trees of at least 4 different species.
o In November 2018, approximately 120 4-foot tall trees consisting of eight different species were
replanted across 2.79 acres around UT 3. A figure depicting the replanting locations has been
added in Appendix F of the Monitoring Year 5 report.
10. Conduct more vegetation tmnsects around Vegetation Plot #11, UT-2, Reach 4, and UT-3.
o Random vegetation plots were established and assessed in September 2018 for the MY4 report.
Two randomly placed 10 x 10-meter vegetation plots were assessed in each of the four areas
mentioned above. For the eight random vegetation plots, seven were exceeding requirements for
planted stems by 10% (387 to 4695 stems/acre) and one was exceeding requirements by less than
Page 2

10% (290 stems per acre). More detailed results were presented in the MY4 report. During the
March 3, 2020 site visit with DMS, it was decided WSP will conduct more random vegetation
plots along UT 3 and other areas of concern. Results from the additional random vegetation plots
will be available during the closeout presentation.
11. Take lots of photographs of the tributary flow, at different times of the year, to highlight channel
performance.
o Additional photographs were presented in the Monitoring Year 5 report. WSP will continue to
document flow with photographs until project closeout.
12. Include this meeting summary in the Appendix of MY4's report.
o This meeting summary was presented in the MY4 report (Appendix F) and was requested to be
included in MY5. It will be shown in Appendix F of the final MY5 report.
IRT Site Visit: Discussion Points
Reach L
• The IRT recommended an additional 20 feet of fencing in this area to create a filter/buffer for the
tributary to protect water quality in Little Buffalo Creek. Any increased filtering capacity is better
than the existing conditions.
o The location where this fence was recommended is along a confluence adjacent to the downstream end of
the Reach I restoration segment. The landowner indicated that installation was not feasible. The fence
would limit access to a critical water source for their livestock.
• Consider speaking with Marcus [Harward] about keeping [poorer] cows elsewhere and/or to Phil
Cline about potentially adding fenced area.
o Up to this point, landowners have not been interested in modifying the use of their land to reduce the
potential for easement encroachment.
• Paul recommended random tmnsects (10m x 10m) to be more representative of the vegetation in
the area.
o As mentioned above, random vegetation plots were conducted and results were discussed in the
MY4 report. WSP will perform additional random vegetation plots along UT3 among other areas.
Results will be available during the closeout presentation.
Buffer width:
• [IRT] explained that buffer width should be 50 feet or greater and too much length without that
buffer width would be a concern.
o WSP will perform a desktop analysis to confirm the 50' buffer width is contained within the
conservation easement boundary for the site. Areas of potential concern will be spot-checked via
field measurements. Results will be presented in the closeout report and presentation. An exhibit
will be available during the project closeout presentation.
UT-2:
• IRT noted that the tree density was sufficient but was concerned that their vigor (i.e., size) was not
where it should be.
o Vegetation Plot #8 is located along UT 2. During vegetation monitoring for MY5, tree heights
ranged from I to 9 feet with an average near 5 feet. WSP will re -assess tree heights prior to the
project closeout.
Reach 4:
• IRT expressed concern about the size of the tree saplings.
Page 3

o Vegetation Plot #4 is located along Reach 4. During vegetation monitoring for MY5, tree heights
ranged from 1.5 to 6 feet with an average near 3.5 feet. WSP will re -assess tree heights prior to
the project closeout.
The lower portions of UT-3 (ash grove):
• [WSP] asked about incorporating the extra section of work that had been done into the credit table
(this would require a mitigation plan modification). IRT highly recommended against trying to
modify the existing mitigation plan to incorporate the extra section of work [WSP] completed as it
could potentially open the project to additional monitoring. IRT suggested that [WSP] note that
extra repairs were made in the final report and to also mention it at close out.
o Based on this information from IRT, WSP will not be requesting additional credit along UT3. A
more thorough discussion of the project credit situation has been included in the MY5 report.
Reach 5:
• UT-5 was considered by the IRT to potentially not be a stream and is considered a clear credit
risk.
o Based on field observations, gauge data, and discussions with DMS, no credit will be requested
for UT-5.
Miscellaneous:
• IRT requested that MY4 and MY5 reports include discussion on initial planted acreage versus
replanted acreage (as percentages).
o The MY4 report included a brief statement regarding reseeded areas along particular stream
segments. The MY5 reports includes a more thorough discussion of replanting areas, dates, and
total acreage.
• IRT recommended providing before and after photos of the site in MY5 report for their closeout
review to understand the uplift that has occurred.
o WSP will provide before and after photos of the site in the closeout report and presentation.
Based on discussions with DMS, this comparison would fit more appropriately in the closeout
report as opposed to the MY5 report.
Section 1.4 - Mitigation Components and Design: This section indicates DMS will receive
approximately 6,411 as of December 2017 but the credits were determined by the July 2015 As- Built
Report. Please update the 2017 reference to the appropriate date. The 6,376 SMU value assumes additional
credit from the UT3 EI work but this is not made clear in the text. Please update the text to reflect this
assumption. Refer to the June 19, 2018 IRT site visit minutes regarding the requirement for a Mitigation
Plan Addendum to add project credits and edit this section accordingly.
o This section of the report has been revised to clarify the project crediting, as well as providing an
accurate timeline of credit accounting and discussion.
Section 1.5.1.3 - Volunteer Species (Supplemental Plantings): Please describe the placement of the
supplemental plantings relative to the vegetation plots and non -plot areas. A supplemental planting map
(with planting dates) would be helpful and at a minimum should be provided in the project closeout report.
o WSP added text in section " 1.5.1.6Additional Tree Planting" of the Monitoring Year 5 report that
describes locations of supplemental plantings from February 2016, March 2017, and November
2018. A map depicting these planting locations and dates has been included in Appendix F. This
map will also be included in the project closeout report.
Section 1.5.2 - Stream Assessment: In the report text, please indicate the approximate stream stations
where the former beaver dams were located. Based on a review of the draft report, it appears that WSP does
not currently consider the previous aggradation (linear wetlands) on UT 2 and UT3 a project issue. Please
confirm in the comment response letter. If aggmdation (linear wetlands) are still considered a project issue,
Page 4

please update the report teat and edit the CCPV (Figures 3 & 4) to more clearly indicate the sections of UT
2 and UT3 that are considered linear wetlands and the sections considered stream channel.
o Approximate stream stations for the locations of the former beaver dams were added to the text:
23+75 in Reach I (MY4) and 12+50 and 16+00 in UT 7 (MY5).
The previously identified area of aggradation (linear wetland) in UT 2 near stream station 17+00
is not considered a project issue at this time because continuous flow has been documented for
multiple years and evidence of channel development has been observed in this section through
Year 4 and Year 5. During the June 19, 2018IRT site visit, the attendees agreed that as trees
mature in the area, additional water observed may begin to be taken up by evapotranspiration and
the tree roots will help maintain a defined channel. In July 2019, a sparsely vegetated to
unvegetated channel of flowing water surrounded by thick vegetation was noted in this area. More
evidence of channel development was observed in January and March 2020, with areas of bank
and bed formation. The active channel is difficult to observe due to the presence of water,
sediment deposition, and thick herbaceous vegetation. WSP will continue to note evidence of
channel development and take photographs in this section of UT 2.
In UT3, the area of aggradation (linear wetland) from stream station 10+20 to approximately
11 +20 was noted in the CCPV of Monitoring Year 5 report as minor bed aggradation. Continuous
flow has been documented for multiple years. In January 2020, WSP observed a definitive flow
path through bent/dead herbaceous vegetation. Another small segment of aggradation has been
added to the CCPV between station 12+40 and 13+25. The channel in this area is shallow, and
of the three areas mentioned (one along UT2 and two along UT3), this is the only area WSP
considers to be functioning as a linear wetland. However, the appearance and function varies
seasonally with the influence of vegetation and flow depth. As such, continued monitoring and
discussion with DMS and IRT will be essential to determine the classification of this segment.
Section 1.5.2 - Stream Assessment: In the data gap summary section, please also note the project reach
associated with each gauge: (i.e.: UT 2 Lower — Gauge 3 (Missing Data: 08/21/2019 — 10/09/2019)).
o The text in the Monitoring Year 5 report has been updated to indicate which project reach is
associated with each gauge.
Section 1.5.4 - Monitoring Year 5 Summary: The term channelization is used in this section and several
other sections of the document. Consider using alternate wording to describe the process since
channelization typically refers to the straightening and ditching of streams.
o There were three instances where the term "channelization" was used and has been replaced by
the phrase "channel development" or "channel formation" to more appropriately describe the
processes that are occurring on the site.
Figure Al — Project Components Map: Recommend removing the "Proposed Easement Following
Modification To Easement With DMS" callout and leader as the easement has been amended. Also; this is
not applicable to the project components.
o This callout has been removed from Figure A-1.
Table 2: Year 4 Monitoring — Please update the completion date to the final report delivery date.
o The table has been updated and now uses March 2019 as the completion date.
CCPV Maps: Stream Thalweg colors on the CCPV maps and legend should be consistent with the Project
Components Map (Fig. A-1). Please update the CCPV stream thalweg colors to match the Project
Components Map. Please also confirm that the aerial imagery is the most recent available. Please update if
more recent aerial imagery is available.
o The CCPV maps have been updated to include these requests.
Visual Stream Morphology Assessment Table 5: If applicable, please update the table to reflect any
aggradation observed in UT 2 and/ or UT3 (see comment above). Please label all of the tables in this
section with a title (Tables 5a-g).
Page 5

o At the time of this response, WSP has updated Table 5 to list two separate areas of aggradation
along UT 3 (10+20-11 +20: 1 00'and 12+40-13+25: 85 ). No aggradation will be shown for UT
2, but thorough monitoring will continue through project closeout. Evidence of channel
development and/or aggradation will be documented in these three areas. If necessary, WSP will
update figures and text in the closeout report and presentation to reflect changes since the MI'5
report.
Appendix D - Table 11 a: Please note that BHR is not required for pools. A dash can be utilized for pools
(BHR).
o This table has been updated to show dashes for BHR for pools.
Appendix E - Figure 6c - Water Level and Rainfall Plots - Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring
Graph UT 2 Lower: Leader pointing to the missing data needs to be shifted to the correct interval of
missing data.
o The leaders shown in UT 2 Lower graph were pointing to the period of time when it was believed
the instrument was buried in sediment and when a new instrument was installed. The text box for
the period of missing data was intended to explain where the data were missing and did not show
a leader or limits for the data gap because the data gap was bounded by notes and limits on either
side. WSP recognizes this may have been confusing and has adjusted Figure 6c.
Table 13 - Continuous Stream Flow Record: Please show the maximum number of consecutive days for
each gauge beneath the date ranges.
Example:
12/18/14-5/25/15 (158 Days)
o Table 13 has been updated to include the number of days for each date range shown.
Digital Support File Comments:
• MY5 spatial features are corrupted and cannot be uploaded into ArcMap. Please re -send
these features in a separate zipped folder. Sending them in a zipped folder has helped
prevent this issue previously.
o WSP has reviewed the shapefiles and addressed two corrupted shapefiles. The zipped folder will
be saved on the final digital support file CD. Let us know if there are any problems accessing the
new shapefiles. We would be more than happy to resend via email.
Some of the current features have merged segments from specific reaches (i.e. Little Buffalo Creek
Reach 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc.), but do not clearly result from adding together reported restoration
footage among those specific reaches. For example, the feature "Little Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and 3"
has a length of 1433 in the geodatabase, while reach 2 is reported at 1244 ft and the EII segment of
Reach 3 is reported at 839 ft. Because there are additional merged segments (i.e. Reach 3 and 4), the
distinct feature segments (i.e. Reach 3 EII, Reach 4 Ell, etc) cannot be distinguished or compared to
the asset table.
Please provide DMS with stream features that are segmented based on the Restoration Footage or
Acreage column of the asset table, ensuring that these segments accurately represent the creditable
footage reported.
o The provided shapefiles have been updated to segment the lines per mitigation area and stream
reach. However, the lengths of the lines in "Little BuffaloCreek 94147 MY5 Stream
Thalweg Mitigation Activity. shp "do not match the asset table. The lengths are different due to
recent survey and 5 years of natural channel migration resulting in increased sinuosity. The asset
table is based on the line segments provided in `Little BuffaloCreek 94147 As -Built Stream
Thalweg Mitigation Activity. shp". These lines are still segmented according to stream reach and
mitigation activity, but reflect the as -built alignments. The as -built alignments were used to
develop the asset table and to calculate mitigation credit.
• Please specify low top of bank elevation in the stream cross section Figures or Table I Ia.
o The tables on the cross section figures have been updated to include the low bank elevation.
Page 6

Comments based on the 3/3/20 DMS site visit:
• Please include the drainage swales shapefile in the final digital support file CD.
o This shapefile was sent via email on March 4, 2020 and will also be included in the final digital
support file CD.
• Recent cattle encroachment was observed during the site visit. Please continue to work with the project
landowners to eliminate all cattle encroachment within the conservation easement.
o WSP will conduct site visits twice a month until project closeout. Any signs of cattle will be
documented and brought to the attention of the landowner.
• Please work to address all outstanding work/ project action items (crossing above UT3; main stem
crossing; crossing above UTl, etc.) ASAP and well before the June 9, 2020 closeout presentation with
the NC IRT.
o WSP has been in contact with contractors for repair work. The current target completion date is
the end ofApril.
• Please continue to remove beaver and beaver dam/s from all project reaches through project closeout.
o WSP will conduct site visits twice a month until project closeout. If beaver dams are found, a
beaver trapper will be contacted and beaver dams will be removed.
Kind regards,
"VI, &ki-,
(Jon Becker)
cc: Matt Holthaus and Ed Samanns
Page 7

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary................................................................
1.1 Project Setting and Background ........................................
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................
1.3 Project Success Criteria......................................................
1.4 Mitigation Components and Design ...................................
1.5 Monitoring Year 5 Conditions Assessment ........................
1.5.1 Vegetation Assessment ...................................................
1.5.1.1 Planted Stems.........................................................
1.5.1.2 Combined Planted/Volunteer Stems ........................
1.5.1.3 Volunteer Species/Volunteer Diversity .............
1.5.1.4 Non -plot Assessment ...............................................
1.5.1.5 Invasive Species ...................................................
1.5.1.6 Additional Tree Planting ......................................
1.5.2 Stream Assessment.........................................................
1.5.3 Site Boundary Assessment ..............................................
1.5.3.1 Easement Modification ............................................
1.5.3.2 Encroachments........................................................
1.5.3.3 Final Maintenance Work .........................................
1.5.4 Monitoring Year 5 Conditions Assessment Summary ......
2.0 Methodology...........................................................................
2.1 Geomorphology...................................................................
2.2 Longitudinal Profiles..........................................................
2.3 Cross Sections & Particle Size Distribution .......................
2.4 Vegetation Monitoring........................................................
2.5 Hydrological Monitoring....................................................
2.6 Photo Points & Visual Assessment .....................................
3.0 References...............................................................................
.1
.1
.1
,.2
,.2
,.3
,.3
,. 3
,.3
,.4
,.4
,.5
.5
.5
.9
.9
.9
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
14
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

Appendices
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map & Background Tables
Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map
Figure Al — Project Components Map
Table 1 — Project Mitigation Components
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 2a-2j — Integrated Current Condition Plan View-MY5
Table 5a-g — Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6a-e — Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photo Appendices A-F: Vegetation Monitoring Photographs, Cross Section Photographs, Photo Station
Photographs, Problem Area Photographs, Significant Flow Events, UT2 and UT3 Channel Development
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 — Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 — Total Planted Stems
Table 9 — CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata and Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with
Annual Means)
Appendix D. Stream Measurement & Geomorphology Data
Table l0aa-af — Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table l0ba-bg — Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distribution)
Table 1 laa-ag — Monitoring Data: Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross
Section)
Table 1 lba-bf — Monitoring Data: Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 3a-k — Longitudinal Profile Plots
Figure 4a-q — Cross-section Plots
Figure 5a-q — Pebble Count Plots
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 12 — Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Figure 6a-g — Water Level and Rainfall Plots
Table 13 — Continuous Stream Flow Record
Appendix F. Supplemental Information
IRT Site Visit Minutes
Supplemental Planting Location Exhibits
CDROM Copy of Electronic Files
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Project Setting and Background
The Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation site is located in Cabarrus County, North Carolina, two miles
southwest of the Town of Gold Hill, and 12 miles east of Kannapolis. The site encompasses approximately
47 acres of former cattle pasture, cropland and riparian forest along Little Buffalo Creek and portions of
seven unnamed tributaries (Figures 1 and 2). Little Buffalo Creek is located within the Yadkin River Basin
(03040105; 03040105020060). Historic land use at the site had consisted primarily of ranching activities
that had allowed cattle access to the stream and riparian zone. Several reaches of the stream have bedrock in
their streambed and vertical migration of the stream has been confined to a small percentage of the project
site.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Restoration project include, but are not limited to, the
enhancement of water quality and aquatic/terrestrial habitat, stream stability improvement, and erosion
reduction. The uplift of these stream functions specifically requires:
• Protecting and improving water quality through the removal or minimization of the biological,
chemical, and physical stressors:
o Reducing sediment input into the stream from erosion;
o Reducing non -point pollutant impacts by removing livestock access (including restoring forested
buffer);
o Protecting headwater springs.
• Improving aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat:
o Moderating stream water temperatures by improving canopy coverage over the channel;
o Restoring, enhancing, reconnecting, and protecting valuable wildlife habitat.
• Restore floodplain connectivity:
o Reestablishing floodplain connection thereby dissipating energy associated with flood flows.
In addition to the ecological uplift that the project will provide to the Site through the improvement of the
stream functions, this project establishes the following environmentally advantageous goals:
• Providing a water source for livestock removed from the stream and riparian corridor;
• Reducing the number of locations that livestock are able to cross the stream;
• Providing a safe and environmentally appropriate stream crossing point for livestock.
In order to achieve the project goals, WSP (formerly Louis Berger) proposes to accomplish the following
objectives:
• Fence the cattle out of the stream and riparian corridor;
• Remove invasive vegetative species from the riparian corridor;
• Restore and enhance unstable portions of the stream;
• Preserve the stream channel and banks through a conservation easement;
• Plant the riparian corridor with native tree and shrub vegetation.
The expected ecological benefits and goals associated with the Little Buffalo Creek site mitigation plan serve
to meet objectives consistent with the resource protection objectives detailed in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 2008.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

1.3 Project Success Criteria
Streams
For stream hydrology, a minimum of two bankfull events must be documented within the standard 5-year
monitoring period. In order for the monitoring to be considered complete, the two verification events must
occur in separate monitoring years. All of the morphologic and channel stability parameters will be evaluated
in the context of hydrologic events to which the system is exposed.
Dimension — General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain
features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional
stability. For stream dimension, cross -sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross -sectional
area, and the channel's width to depth ratios should demonstrate relative stability in order to be
deemed successful.
Pattern — Pattern features should show little adjustment over the standard 5-year monitoring period.
Rates of lateral migration need to be moderate.
Profile — For the channels' profile, the reach under assessment should not demonstrate any trends in
thalweg aggradation or degradation over any significant continuous portion of its length. Over the
monitoring period, the profile should also demonstrate the maintenance or development of bedform
(facets) more in keeping with reference level diversity and distributions for the stream type in
question. It should also provide a meaningful contrast in terms of bedform diversity against the pre-
existing condition. Bedform distributions, riffle/pool lengths and slopes will vary, but should do so
with maintenance around design distributions. This requires that the majority of pools are maintained
at greater depths with lower water surface slopes and riffles are shallow with greater water surface
slopes.
Substrate and Sediment Transport — Substrate measurements should indicate progression towards,
or maintenance of the known distributions from the design phase. Sediment Transport should be
deemed successful by the absence of any significant trend in the aggradation or depositional
potential of the channel.
Vegetation
Survival of woody species planted at mitigation sites should be at least 260 stems/acre through Year 5. This
is consistent with Wilmington District (1993) guidance for wetland mitigation (USACE 2003).
1.4 Mitigation Components and Design
The Little Buffalo Creek Site consists of six reaches along the main stem and seven unnamed tributaries
(UTs). The main stem of Little Buffalo Creek as well as UT 4 and UT 7 are perennial streams. The
remainders of the UTs are intermittent streams associated with groundwater seeps. This stream mitigation
project includes reaches of restoration, enhancement, and preservation along the main stem and the
associated UTs. In total, the Site will provide 13,362 linear feet of restoration, enhancement, and preservation
(Tables 1 & 4). A summary of restoration and enhancement activity and reporting history can be found in
Table 2.
Restoration activities have established a new, stable stream channel with the appropriate dimension, pattern
and profile to transport perennial flow and sediment and have re -connected the stream to its floodplain.
Reestablishment of native riparian forest vegetation and installation of cattle exclusion fencing were also
performed as part of the restoration activities. Enhancement activities included reestablishing native riparian
vegetation within a 50-foot easement along each bank of the stream corridor and excluding cattle with
fencing. In the case of enhancement level I the activities included reshaping or relocating the bed and banks
and riparian forest planting. Preservation was conducted within portions of the stream corridors that have
intact riparian forests and stable stream reaches and included excluding cattle with fencing. WSP (formerly
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

Louis Berger) is contracted with DMS to provide 6,170 stream mitigation units through implementation of
the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project. At a 1:1 ratio for restoration, 1.5:1 for enhancement level
I, 2.5:1 for enhancement level II, and a 5:1 ratio for preservation, the DMS could receive, as of July 2015,
approximately 6,411 stream mitigation units from the Site (Table 1). In addition, approximately 31 acres of
riparian buffer have been protected within a 47 acre conservation easement.
The stream credit generation had the potential to increase to 6,450 stream mitigation units as a result of
additional enhancement level I work conducted in the fall of 2016 within a portion of UT3. This area,
previously assessed as enhancement level II, had additional entrenched portions of the tributary graded to
re -connect the channel with its floodplain and the riparian zone replanted. Receiving increased credit for
additional work performed in UT3 would require an addendum to the mitigation plan, which was not
recommended by IRT during the June 19, 2018 site visit. Additionally, due to insufficient channel flow, UT5
is not anticipated to generate stream credits for enhancement level II work. Therefore, assuming UT5 and
additional work in UT3 do not generate stream credit, the DMS could receive a maximum of 6,337 stream
mitigation units for the Site.
1.5 Monitoring Year 5 Conditions Assessment
1.5.1 Vegetation Assessment
1.5.1.1 Planted Stems
The planted stem density requirement for Year 5 is 260 stems per acre. When examining planted stems only,
in Year 5 of monitoring, all plots are exceeding requirements by 10% (290 to 678 stems/acre). Recruitment
of native plant seedlings was recorded in all vegetation monitoring plots (Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The current
average estimate of 411 planted stems per acre for the site is exceeding the required success criteria of 260
stems per acre.
The increased stems/acre count in vegetation monitoring plot 10 was due to the inclusion of a tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera) that was originally recorded in early monitoring years, not observed during MY4,
but found in MY5. The stems/acre counts remained stable in vegetation monitoring plots 1, 2, 3, and 5. The
remaining vegetation monitoring plots (4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) showed a decrease in stems per acre however
all plots still met the success criterion for MY5. Vegetation monitoring plots 11 and 4 decreased by only one
and two trees respectively.
The reason for the decrease in stems/acre counts in vegetation monitoring plots 6 and 7 was due to volunteer
stems being miscounted as planted stems in MY4, which resulted in lower planted stem counts in MY5. Due
to the thick coverage of blackberry, planted stems in vegetation monitoring plot 8 were outcompeted or not
located, which resulted in a lower stems/acre count. Vegetation monitoring plot 4 had thick sections of
natural vegetation that may have made it difficult to locate a swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) and
tulip tree in MY5 that were less than 12 inches tall in MY4. Similarly, in vegetation monitoring plot 11, a
small swamp chestnut oak was not located during the MY5 survey. For vegetation monitoring plot 12, there
were several sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) trees which were potentially misidentified and counted as planted
stems in MY4 and one planted American hornbeam (Carpinus carohniana) that were not found in MY5.
1.5.1.2 Combined Plan ted/Volun teer Stems
When examining combined planted/volunteer stems in MY5, all vegetation monitoring plots are exceeding
requirements by 10% (339 to 2,759 stems/acre). Recruitment of native plant seedlings was recorded in all
vegetation monitoring plots (Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The current average estimate of 1,049 combined
planted/volunteer stems per acre for the site is exceeding the planted stem success criteria of 260 stems per
acre.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

1.5.1.3 Volunteer Species/VolunteerDiversity
Species diversity has steadily increased from Year 0 (14 planted), to Year 1(18 combined planted/volunteer),
to Year 2 (18 combined planted/volunteer), to Year 3 (22 combined planted/volunteer), to Year 4 (23
combined planted/volunteer), to current Year 5 (25 combined planted/volunteer). The increase of two species
in MY4 was due to direct plantings of slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) in March
2017. The increase for one species in MY5, willow oak (Quercus phellos), was due to supplemental plantings
that occurred in November 2018.
The remaining increase of species is a result of additional volunteers. In Year 1, three new volunteer species
were noted: red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif ua), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virgintana). In Year 2, two new volunteer species were noted: boxelder (Acer negundo) and common
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). In the Year 3, five new volunteer species were noted: eastern baccharis
(Baccharis hahmifolia), common persimmon (Diospyros virgintana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), smooth
sumac (Rhus glabra), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). In the Year 4, one new volunteer species was
noted: inkberry (Ilex glabra). In the current Year 5, four new volunteer species were noted: pawpaw (Asimina
triloba), river birch (Betula nigra), bittemut hickory (Carya cordiformis), and white oak (Quercus alba).
When comparing planted stems only between Year 4 and Year 5, three vegetation monitoring plots (3, 4,
and 10) have seen an increase in species diversity, five vegetation monitoring plots (1, 5, 8, 9, and 11), have
maintained species diversity, and four vegetation monitoring plots (2, 6, 7, and 12) lost species diversity.
The increased planted stem species diversity in vegetation monitoring plot 3 was due to the addition of a
willow oak that was from the supplemental plantings that occurred in November 2018. In vegetation
monitoring plots 4 and 10, the increase in planted stem diversity was due to planted stems documented in
earlier years being found during MY5 that were not observed in MY4. In vegetation monitoring plots 6 and
7, volunteer stems were miscounted as planted stems in MY4, which resulted in lower planted stem species
diversity in MY5. In vegetation monitoring plot 2, an eastern redbud (Cercis canandensis) that was present
in all previous years of monitoring was not found during MY5, which decreased planted stem species
diversity. Similarly, in vegetation monitoring plot 12, there were two species that were not found in MY5
that led to a decrease in planted stem diversity from MY4.
When comparing combined planted/volunteer stems between MY4 and MY5, eight vegetation monitoring
plots (1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11) saw an increase in species diversity, one vegetation monitoring plot (9)
maintained species diversity, and three vegetation monitoring plots (2, 5, and 12) lost species diversity. The
increased combined planted/volunteer stem diversity in vegetation monitoring plots 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11
is due to new species recruitment that is to be expected as the site ages and becomes more established. In
vegetation monitoring plot 5, a black cherry (Prunus serotina) observed in MY4 was not found in MY5,
which caused the combined planted/volunteer stem diversity to decrease. The changes in planted/volunteer
stem diversity in vegetation monitoring plots 10 (increase), 2, and 12 (decreases) are described as above.
1.5.1.4 Non -plot Assessment
Black willow and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) live stakes throughout the restoration areas are doing
well and very few have been observed to be dead. Surviving stakes are continuing to grow quickly and
contribute to bank stability. Soft rush (Juncus effusus) has become established on parts of the stream bank
and is contributing to overbank stability along sections of UT7 and UT3. Additional stability is being
provided by grasses and sedges that have become established on banks throughout the site. Volunteer crop
cover is no longer present and has been outcompeted by other species such as goldenrods (Sohdago), asters
(Aster), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and native grasses.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project - Project #94147 - WSP - March 2020 - Monitoring Year 5 - Final

Herbaceous cover along reach 1 has improved greatly through the previous reseedings; however, there is a
small bare patch, approximately 0.02 acres, with no herbaceous cover on the left bank flood plain. This is
due to an exceedance in copper within the soils that is preventing establishment, determined by sediment
sampling during MY4. Overall herbaceous cover throughout the site has continued to improve.
1.5.1.5 Invasive Species
Past treatment and removal of privet (Ligustrum) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) from riparian areas
has been mostly successful for Reaches 1-5. Additional treatment during MY4 was primarily focused on
princess tree, tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and privet. During the MY5 monitoring, isolated
occurrences have been observed but no significant regrowth is present. Isolated invasive plants have been
removed by hand when observed, as feasible. Specific site visits (and minor invasive removal) were
conducted by WSP personnel in April, July, October, and December 2019 and January 2020. The majority
of encounters were with privet, along Reach 1 and UT 2. A volunteer princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa)
was observed in vegetation monitoring plot 6 in October 2019 and was removed. The tree was not included
in species diversity and stems/acre counts for W5.
1.5.1.6 Additional Tree Planting
During the June 19, 2018 IRT site visit, Kim Browning, USACE, stated that the trees on the left bank of
Reach 4, in entire UT 2, and in entire UT 3 did not exhibit the expected level of vigor (tree height) and
recommended planting those areas with more mature trees of at least four different species. In an August 8,
2018 email, DMS verified that there is no success criteria standard for tree height on Little Buffalo Creek
but recommended planting the areas the IRT noted with at least 4-foot-high trees as the IRT team will want
to see successful vegetation (tree height) onsite at closeout. As such, between November 27-29, 2018,
Carolina Silvics planted 300 trees (60 trees along Reach 4, 70 trees along UT 2, 120 trees along UT 3, and
50 trees in Reach 1) that were at least 4-foot-tall and selected for habitat from among twelve recommended
species: silver maple, pin oak, white oak, willow oak, black gum, green ash, box elder, pignut hickory,
shagbark hickory, mockernut hickory, hackberry, and tulip tree. A healthy willow oak from the November
2018 planting was found during MY5 in vegetation monitoring plot 3. Other trees from the planting were
observed during field visits and appeared to be healthy. The additional planting in 2018 is the third
occurrence of vegetation supplementation. The prior two events occurred in 2016 and 2017.
Each of the three supplemental plantings (2016, 2017, and 2018) covered between 4-7 acres. However, the
planting areas overlapped year -after -year. All three plantings covered significant portions of UT 2 and UT
3. Segments along UT 7 were replanted in 2016, while isolated overbank areas along Reaches 1-4 were
planted through all three years. The total replanted area, discounting overlap, is approximately 8.5 acres. Of
the originally planted areas (zones 1, 2, and 3) approximately 35%has been subject to additional tree planting
between 2016 and 2018 (8.5 ac of 24.2 ac). Figures which highlight the additional planting areas are included
in Appendix F.
1.5.2 Stream Assessment
Geomorphologically, the site is functioning as anticipated. Issues identified in MY4 monitoring have been
resolved. The following lists the key/potential problems identified through the project during MY4
monitoring and how the issues have been resolved through W5:
• Aggradation in Reach I Restoration section upstream of the Beaver Dam removal - Due to the
presence of a beaver dam near stream station 23+75, fine material (gravel and sand) has settled out
within the channel and interior flood bench upstream of the beaver dam. This was caused by the
backflow condition upstream of the beaver dam during flood events. The aggradation was evident
in the MY4 profile survey, MS-1P cross section, and field observations. The aggradation was not
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

removed during the beaver dam removal in Year 4 as it would cause significant damage to the very
well -established vegetation within the channel. Based on the visual gradation of this material, it was
believed that additional storm events would remove the majority of this material and allow the
channel to rebound to its condition prior to the beaver establishing the dam. During a November 16,
2018 site visit, the dam restoration area was noted to be stable. Observations made during MY5 field
visits confirmed the channel is returning to its condition prior to the beaver dam. At this time, no
maintenance work is being proposed for this area and it is assumed the channel will continue to
transport the fine material naturally.
No defined channel for 230 feet portion of UT 2 (wetlands) (continued from MY3) — As noted in
the MY4 report, sections of UT 2 (station 15+30 to 17+60) were targeted for additional monitoring
to ensure sufficient channel development and appropriate function. Continuous flow was noted
during multiple field visits in MY5. The area of concern has decreased in length to approximately
100 feet (16+10 to 17+10). Even in this shortened section, WSP observed evidence of a defined
channel during a January 2020 field visit. As such, the aggradation shape has been removed from
the CCPV. Photo documentation of this location has been provided in Appendix B including several
photos from July 2019 and January 2020. WSP will continue monitoring this area through project
closeout.
The following lists the key/potential problems identified through the project during Year 5 monitoring:
Additional sediment aggradation in UT3 due to erosion/washout of old cattle crossing —
Adjacent to Old Mine Road, at the upstream end of UT 3, an old piped crossing is failing. The soil
over this pipe is washing downstream and slowly raising the bed profile along the upstream section
of UT 3. This is apparent in the profile plots (Figure 3a-k). The aggradation is most apparent between
10+20-11+20 and 12+40-13+25. The section starting at 10+20 exhibits typical channel
characteristics (bed and banks). The channel section from 12+40 to 13+25 is less defined. Both
sections will be monitored through project closeout. Additionally, a contractor has been scheduled
to move and re -stabilize the crossing to eliminate the potential for any future sediment aggradation
due to erosion of the crossing. All work will occur outside of the conservation easement.
Increased hydrology runoff in UT2 due to dam blowout — Along the upstream extent of UT2,
outside of the conservation easement, the area around the outflow pipe from the pond has blown out.
This pond provides UT2 with its source hydrologic input. This was observed at the year 5
walkthrough with DMS in March 2020. The blowout has resulted in increased surface water volume
entering UT2 due to an expanded conveyance around the outflow pipe. This increased hydrology is
most evident within the area previously described as a linear wetland feature. A headcut has formed
and has continued migrating upstream. The headcut has resulted in a more defined channel within
the area. Bedrock is present both upstream and downstream, which will serve as vertical control as
the channel adjusts to the increased hydrology. WSP will collect additional field data through project
closeout. The additional data will include a rough estimate of bedrock locations/elevations through
use of a probe rod. Currently WSP believes the stream will reach equilibrium and the headcut
migration will quicken the process of channel formation. Immediately downstream of the headcut,
there is a well-defined channel, along a section which had previously been described as a linear
wetland.
• Beaver dams present in UT 7 —Evidence of beavers was observed along UT 7 during the fall/winter
of 2019. Two separate beaver dams, near stream stations 12+50 and 16+00, were observed and
removed in early fall 2019. The larger of the two dams was rebuilt by winter (near stream station
16+00). A trapper successfully removed the beavers and dam in December 2019. Effects from the
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

beaver dam such as high debris lines, very fine sediment deposition, and a reduction of herbaceous
vegetation cover on the stream banks of UT 7 were observed during the January 2020 field visit. It
was also noted that the pool feature immediately upstream of the dam location has widened, cutting
into the previously willow vegetated banks where beaver had cut the trees down. It is expected that
over time the stream banks and channel will recover and the willow remnants will re -grow.
Cow encroachment in Reaches 3-5, UT 3, and UT 4 — Cattle encroachment was observed in
October 2019 during an extreme drought season. Several cows were observed, a few of which were
dead. The land/cattle owners and DMS were contacted immediately upon observation and the cattle
were removed as quickly as possible. No major damage was observed to the channel or easement.
Minor vegetation damage (trampling of grass) and one location which showed evidence of cows
crossing the channel were observed. The area of cows crossing the channel was along UT 4, near
vegetation plot 5. No impacts to vegetation plot 5 were observed. Signs of cattle, including cow pies
and tracks, remained into the winter. Based on the location of the cattle, and their tracks, it appears
the cows were entering the fenced easement at the existing cattle crossing and the crossing is in need
of modifications for electrical connections. These modifications have already been discussed with
DMS and the landowners and is expected to be completed by the end of April 2020. During the
January 2020 field visit, two cows were observed in UT4. It is believed the two cows recently entered
the site through a section of the cattle crossing. The landowners were already aware that they were
loose and working to remove them at the time of the visit. DMS was immediately notified.
Signs of cattle encroachment were also evident during the March (2020) pre -closeout site visit with
NC DMS. The primary areas of encroachment corresponded with the same locations noted in
October. As such, no changes were made to the CCPV or Table 6. Preventing cattle encroachment
will be a focus through project closeout. Frequent site visits and coordination with stakeholders will
be crucial as the project progresses. A final update will be provided in the closeout report.
No future channel maintenance is proposed at this time for MY5. Any maintenance work identified going
forward will be limited to hand work to the maximum extent possible as heavy equipment would likely cause
more damage than benefit.
As mentioned above, there is work planned at the upstream end of UT 3 to replace the crossing in a stable
location near Old Mine Road. Additionally, a fencing contractor is scheduled to install final improvements
at the main cattle crossing as well as near the crossing at Old Mine Road. All work is to occur outside (or at
the boundary) of the conservation easement. No heavy machinery will be in the stream channel or within the
easement.
The stream restoration and enhancement areas are relatively stable and will continue to adjust somewhat in
response to storm events. Gauge data throughout the site indicate six different bankfull events during the
MY5 monitoring period (Table 12). The bankfull event that occurred on December 20, 2018 was included
in the total number of bankfull events for MY5. Of the remaining five events, three occurred in the spring,
one occurred in the summer, and one occurred in the fall of 2019. The in -stream structures are remaining
stable and functioning as designed and have had no change in functionality since MY4.
As commented by DMS in MY2 and MY3; as well as discussed with the IRT during the June 19, 2018 Site
Visit; UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5 are being monitored to confirm continuous flow for 30 consecutive days within
the intermittent streams. Table 13 provides documentation of the continuous flow periods for all areas for
each monitoring year. Gauge 11 in UT 5 did not have a 30-day period of continuous flow during MY5 and
is the only gauge that did not record a 30-day period of continuous flow for multiple years. As such, gauge
11 was removed in July 2019 and repurposed elsewhere as replacement hardware. All other gauges,
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

including those in UT 2 and UT 3, indicated a period of continuous flow for 30 days or more, as observed
in the water level plots of Figure 6a-6e and summarized in Table 13. Gauge 6 in UT 3 could not be found
for a significant portion of the year and was finally replaced in October. The period of data analysis for
gauge 6 flow was extended beyond the other gauges to demonstrate a 30-day period of continuous flow in
UT 3. It is possible other 30-day continuous flow periods occurred earlier in the year that in which the data
was not recovered.
It should be noted that continuous data for the entire monitoring year is not available for five gauges during
MY5. A summary of the data gaps is provided below:
UT 2 Lower - Gauge 3 (Missing Data: 08/21/2019—10/09/2019): Due to vegetation overgrowth,
this gauge could not be found during the spring/summer/fall site visits. The gauge was found in
December 2019 once vegetation coverage decreased during seasonal retreat. Attempts to locate the
gauge were made during all previous site visits, including the use of a metal detector. In October
2019 a replacement gauge was installed. Once the gauge was found in December, data was
downloaded. The downloaded data covered through August, at which point the logger ran out of
memory. As such, the gap in data is limited to the period between August when the old gauge ran
out of memory and October when the new gauge was installed.
UT 3 Upper - Gauge 6 (Missing Data: 11/18/2018 — 10/09-2019): Similar to gauge 3, gauge 6
could not be found during any of the site visits early in the year. Hoping to find the gauge once
vegetative growth slowed down, a replacement gauge was not installed until October 2019. The
original gauge was never found, even through use of a metal detector. The original gauge is likely
buried or washed downstream. The available data from the replacement gauge is presented in this
report.
• UT 3 Upper - Gauge 9 (Missing Data: 07/11/2019 — 08/27/2019): Gauge 9 was never missing or
replaced. The data was downloaded during all site visits when other gauges were downloaded. The
gap in data is due to an error in the gauge or mistake in the setting of the delayed restart after
downloading data that was corrected during a follow up site visit.
• UT 5 - Gauge 11 (Missing Data: 07/10/2019 — Present): Due to a lack of continuous flow during
MY4 and MY5 the gauge was removed during the early fall.
• UT 2 Lower - Gauge 13 (Missing Data: 08/21/2019—12/19/2019): Similar to gauge 3, gauge 13
could not be found during the spring/summer/fall site visits. The gauge was found in December 2019
with decreased vegetation coverage in the winter season However, unlike gauge 3, no replacement
was installed in October 2019. As such, no data is available from the time the gauge ran out of
memory (August 2019) to when it was found and restarted (December 2019).
In order to interpret the provided gauge data, a summary of rainfall totals has been provided below. Total
annual rainfall for MY5 was the second highest recorded for all years of monitoring. The North Carolina
Drought Management Advisory Council (https://www.ncdrought.org/) reported moderate drought
conditions in the area from September 24 to October 22, 2019.
Rainfall in inches*
Year 0
2014
Year 1
2015
Year 2
2016
Year 3
2017
Year 4
2018
Year 5
2019
January - March
8.97
5.75
7.86
8.56
14.14
14.20
April — June
8.33
6.29
9.37
17.67
12.47
10.65
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

Jul — September
14.57
7.9
9.23
8.92
26.78
9.13
October - December
6.9
25.3
11.43
6.09
20.28
13.43
Total
38.77
45.24
37.89
41.24
73.67
47.41
*Gauge NC-SN-6, Richfield, https://www.cocorahs.org/ViewData/StationPrecipSummar.aspx
As discussed in the MY4 report, gauge 11 had been added in UT 5 to determine if there were periods of
continuous flow. Initial coordination was conducted between WSP (formerly Louis Berger), DMS, and the
USACE regarding inclusion of UT 5 in this project. However, due to the lack of continuous flow, the gauge
was removed during early fall, and no credit is anticipated for UT 5.
1.5.3 Site Boundary Assessment
1.5.3.1 Easement Modification
During MY4, the easement boundary modification was revised near the cattle crossing to include one new
corner and remove the cattle crossing limits. This modification has been accepted by the State and finalized.
No modifications to the easement boundary occurred during MY5.
The easement was marked with additional posts and signs during August 2019. These additional markings
were installed along UT 7 and Reach 6.
1.5.3.2 Encroachments
During site visits to conduct vegetation monitoring in October 2019, WSP personnel observed cattle within
the easement. No holes in the fence were observed. Based on the location of the cows and condition of the
fence at the crossing, it appears the cattle entered the easement at the cattle crossing during the drought
period. Signs indicated the cows may have passed under or over the fence with PVC slats along the north
side of the crossing.
There appeared to be 10-12 live cows in the easement, as well as 5 dead cows. An additional 3-4 dead cows
were observed in the adjacent field to the cattle crossing. The land/cattle owners reported that all cows (both
live and dead) were removed from the easement within two weeks. DMS was alerted immediately and
coordinated directly with the land owners as appropriate.
The October 2019 event resulted in cows within the easement upstream of the cattle crossing, along Reaches
3-5, UT 3, and UT 4. No significant damage was observed due to this event, however, fresh cow pies and
trails in the outer extents of the easement corridor were observed during the engineering monitoring event.
Final improvements to the fence at the cattle crossing should prevent future encroachment as well as facilitate
any future maintenance required by the land owners following project closeout. In January 2020, there were
two cows spotted within the conservation easement in UT 4, although no damage to any stream channels
was observed. Cow pies were noted along the stream banks of UT 3, UT 4, and the mainstem. Landowners
were aware during the field visit and were already working to remove the cattle.
Again, DMS was contacted immediately after the cows were observed. Paul Wiesner with DMS instructed
WSP to work with the landowner to ensure swift removal from the easement. Additionally, Paul indicated
that it might be helpful to invite the land owners to the pre -closeout meeting scheduled for March 2020.
Property specialists have been invited to the meeting as well.
As mentioned in section 1.5.2 (above), signs of encroachment were again observed in March 2020, during
the pre -closeout site visit. Representatives from WSP and NC DMS discussed this issue with Allen Hammill.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final

The team reiterated the importance of excluding cattle from the conservation easement. WSP will continue
to monitor the site and coordinate with the stakeholders through project closeout.
1.5.3.3 Final Maintenance Work
On August 28"', 2019 a meeting was held with Allen Hammill at the project site. Modifications were
discussed regarding the fence and grading at the crossings, as well as a few additional maintenance items.
The notes from the meeting are included below. This work is scheduled to be completed by Kenneth Strader
and KBS earthwork but has not been conducted yet. The improvements should be complete by the end of
February 2020 and has only been delayed due to seasonal rainfall affecting the contractor's backlog. All
work is to be conducted outside of the conservation easement.
Cattle Crossing on Mainstem — Wood posts in the channel and barbed wire (downstream side) and
PVC slats crossing (upstream side) will be removed and replaced with electrified breakaway wire
from the corner posts. Approximately 3 lines on both the upstream and downstream side will be
installed. All lines will be connected to be electrified. Vertical wires on the bottom line on both
upstream and downstream sides will be added and crimped at a 6-12 inch spacing to the bottom line
running perpendicular to the stream. Vertical crimped lines will drape to approximately 6-inches
above the waterline/ground.
• Fence across UT I just upstream of Old Mine Road — The PVC slat line/gate structure will be
removed and replaced with electric breakaway wire as described above and connected to the existing
fence along Old Mine Road for the property owner to attach live lines to it if cows are brought into
the field. There may be the need for 4-5 lines crossing this stream depending on the depth of the
opening.
Cattle crossing at the top of UT 3 — The conservation easement fence will be relocated to the
conservation easement line (approximately 0.5-feet off of the easement). The gate from the north
side of the fence will be relocated to the south side (opposite corner from where it is at now). The
fence currently in place going up to and across the embankment will be removed. Blackberry
vegetation/shrubs from the embankment will be removed and disposed of offsite. The exposed
concrete pipes at the outfall will be re -stabilized. Backfill material will be used to establish a smooth
slope transition for a 15-foot wide cattle crossing immediately upstream of the relocated fence
between the embankment and conservation easement. The existing 4-foot CMP under the road at
the outfall will also be cleaned to remove built up soil.
1.5.4 Monitoring Year 5 Conditions Assessment Summary
Streams
In summary, the site is performing as intended through MY5 and is meeting the required success criteria
going into project closeout. The site has experienced more than two bankfull events through MY5, as well
as experienced bankfull events in each monitoring year. Cross sections show stability in channel dimensions
through MY5, with the exception of minor aggradation in UT 3 and a section of widening in UT 7 from the
beaver dam which has now been removed. Small deviations have occurred since construction of the channel
geometry; however, this is to be expected and is within reason for a stable and successful restoration project.
Pattern features have remained consistent, with only minor changes occurring in short sections of channel
reaches. Pattern feature changes observed have been directly identified as the result of natural occurrences
within channels and are not related to failures in design. Channel profiles, following the events of MY2 with
major cattle encroachment, remain consistent. Areas affected by the MY2 encroachment show increased
signs of stability and improved vegetation coverage despite the encroachment incident. Areas within UT 2
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final 10

and UT 3 have been monitored more closely to ensure that stable channel development persists, as well as
continuous flow. Lastly, bedform diversity and substrate/sediment transport measurements are as designed
and indicated overall stability in the project through MY5.
Vegetation
Through MY5, planted woody species are meeting the density requirements of 260 stems/acre through the
entire site. Additional plantings of larger species occurred in November 2018 in isolated areas showing lack
of tree height or other deficiencies, per discussions and recommendations of the IRT and DMS. A significant
rebound in planted woody vigor occurred between MY3 and MY4 thanks to the very wet season in MY4.
This continued through MY5 and overall vigor for planted trees remained healthy with a majority of trees
exhibiting only minor damage, if any. Lastly, the site is continuously being monitored and treated for
invasive species. As of the end of the MY5 monitoring period, the site is 100% in compliance with vegetation
monitoring requirements.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final 11

2.0 Methodology
Monitoring for stream stability, stream hydrology, and vegetation will be monitored annually for five years
following the initial Baseline and As -Built Report. Annual monitoring requirements are based on the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation Guidelines document (USACE 2003) and supplemental
requirements listed in the DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines dated February 2014
(NCEEP 2014). Establishment, collection, and summarization of data collected was in accordance with the
NCDEQ guidance document EEP Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance (April 2015). Additionally, DMS provided new bank height ratio calculation procedures (un-
published) in 2018 to be implemented in MY4 and MY5, which modifies observations to maintain as -built
bankfull area in determining bank height ratios versus as -built bankfull elevations.
2.1 Geomorphology
Surveys for Year 5 monitoring were conducted by WSP in December/January 2019/2020 using a Total
Station, geo referenced to North Carolina State Plane (NAD83-State Plane Feet-FIPS3200) with vertical
datum North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (Feet NAVD88).
2.2 Longitudinal Profiles
A total of approximately 2950 feet of channel along 8 longitudinal profiles is being surveyed annually. This
includes 335 feet on LBC Reach 1; 225 feet on LBC Reach 3; 112 feet on LBC Reach 4; 51 feet on UT 2;
771 feet on UT 3; 411 feet on UT 4; 977 feet on UT 7; and 62 feet on UT 8. Data collected from annual
monitoring is being compared with the as -built conditions to document the current state of the channel and
any trends in the stream profile occurring throughout the monitoring period. The start and finish locations
of each cross-section and longitudinal profile are collected using a Total Station.
2.3 Cross Sections & Particle Size Distribution
A total of 15 cross -sections, including 9 riffles and 6 pools were installed upon completion of construction
and are being monitored annually. Two additional cross -sections were added within the step -pool portion of
UT 7 in monitoring Year 2. The total number of cross -sections includes five on the main stem of Little
Buffalo Creek, one on UT 2, four on UT 3, two on UT 4, and five on UT 7.
Pebble count surveys were conducted at each cross section, unless noted otherwise in this report. Moving
from bank to bank, particles were picked up blindly and at random and measured in millimeters. Enough
samples were taken to get a representative sample of particle size distribution for each cross section. Sample
size ranged from 50 in pool areas dominated by fines to 100 in flowing riffle areas with a diversity of particle
sizes.
2.4 Vegetation Monitoring
The Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)-DMS entry tool database was used to calculate the number of
monitoring plots needed based on project acreage. Louis Berger (now WSP) established twelve vegetation
monitoring plots across all reaches and tributaries of the project area based on guidance given in the CVS-
DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Each plot measures approximately
0.025 acres individually and is staked out with bright orange painted rebar and marked with two upright
sections of PVC pipe. Photos were taken of each plot and yearly monitoring data was entered into the CVS-
DMS database under the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project (Project ID 94147). Additional PVC
markers were added to plot corners during Year 2 in order to make corner stakes easier to find among the
increasing herbaceous cover.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final 12

For a monitoring event, rope is tied around the four corner stakes to mark out the plot. In Year 0, a GPS was
used to collect coordinates of each stem and their position was measured in relation to the X and Y axis of
the plot. Additionally, each stem was marked with pink flagging to make them easy to locate and identify
during the next monitoring event. Flagging is re -applied each year. Planted stems were identified, measured,
and given a vigor score ranging from 0 to 4 based on the CVS-DMS database. Naturally recruited stems
were identified and tallied but marked as recruits in the database.
In MY4, random vegetation transects monitoring occurred along UT 3 (vegetation monitoring plot 3), Reach
4 (vegetation monitoring plot 4), UT 2 (vegetation monitoring plot 8), and Reach 1 (vegetation monitoring
plot 11). The 10 x 10 meter random transect plots were randomly placed in the vicinity of the anchoring
vegetation plot. The random plot was established by running a measuring tape 10 meters in a random
direction. With the first measuring tape laid down, a second measure tap was run out 10 meters, intersecting
at a right angle with the first measuring tape at the 5 meter mark. All living stems over 1 foot in height were
counted in the four 5 x 5 meter quadrants and aggregated for the 10 x 10 meter random plot. The locations
of the random plots were noted but no permanent markings were placed on the ground. The random plot
data was manually entered into a CVS-DMS database excel spreadsheet (retaining all formulas) to obtain
stems/acre data comparable to the established vegetation monitoring plots.
2.5 Hydrological Monitoring
A total of 13 water level gauges are installed on site, including three groundwater monitoring gauges. The
gauges are being monitored biannually to document the highest stage for the monitoring interval and verify
occurrences of bankfull and geomorphically significant flow events. In addition, observations of wrack and
depositional features in the floodplain, if present, are being documented with photos. In February 2016, two
groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the top and bottom of UT 3 to provide additional
hydrological data to demonstrate groundwater connectivity to the stream channel. In September 2018, an
additional groundwater gauge was installed in UT 2 and an additional surface water gauge was installed in
the mid -section of UT 3.
In addition to the event stage monitoring, the gauges are being utilized to monitor base flow for verification
of water flow for a continuous 30-day period. Gauges are secured in place through PVC structures in channel
pools (Reach 1, Reach 4, UT 4 and UT 7), or in the channel bed (UT 2, UT 3). Elevations are tied to the
gauge structures, in which the thalweg invert elevation immediately downstream of the gauge is also
monitored. Base flow is recorded when the elevation of water recorded by the gauge rises above the
downstream thalweg control elevation.
A surface water gauge was installed in UT 5 during the MY4 monitoring to monitor for continuous flow,
but was subsequently removed due to the data not showing continuous flow and the channel appearing dry
during a wet year and season.
2.6 Photo Points & Visual Assessment
Permanent photo stations were established at each cross-section to digitally document annual conditions of
the left and right banks. Each vegetation monitoring plot includes a photo station taken diagonally from a
plot corner towards the opposite plot corner. Additional permanent photo locations have been established
throughout the project area and can be found on the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) maps in
Appendix A. Visual stream assessments are conducted during annual monitoring to summarize performance
percentages of morphological and structural features. Visual vegetation assessments are also occurring to
catalog the extent and type of vegetation issue as compared to the total planted acreage within the project
site.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final 13

3.0 References
NCDEQ: DMS 2018. Bank Height Ratio Guidance — Unpublished
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Historical Palmer Drought Indices. December 2014
through November 2015. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-
palmers/psi/201412-20151 l/. Accessed October 2016.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines. February 2014. 7pp.
USACE 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared by: USACE, NCDWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — WSP — March 2020 — Monitoring Year 5 — Final 14

Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map &
Background Tables

:" r :J, ,. /" 'J'r {' k ills' I } ,. .., �.xso-th "•--' y1
Yadkin River Basin,:,'.
J+f—If'J: -�;��� .4�.{y'!S,=, L_��lrk'c-4�' ��:�'I�J�I { I r��' .��- .� �v:. { t .; ��•��_
.J
- .��•-� I (i�.� rye', �4�5'�,,: } � F- - 'w �= _ M1.1 I I ���. �. _v
03-07-12
-
.
�'� rf �f�il_ - •. � ~ ' I �,� I-�' �'1 I �'_.R� - _ '�.s�� r �.} _ �I�l.n _� �.. ..�4 �� �• '.�M1��: �� ��' i ..
J��_fS,}.1`•.•-
�.
' � ''� � � •.L',�-' k �'I - �. � :-�..,�.�� ..� . � ! r x .'{: +; �_`;{/;,, � 'r.:t,;� � , . 45I .� � +'':•'� - '.� ti � +-a5-
-x=; I5..:: _, k,,+`' Reference Site
,y}; ��P'��- �rn �ii.
�: f� 4 w•—�. ' 5{ Ir+.. *i'
I,-{'ilAT-0 ryCf
-
-47
i- y 'y w f : + 1 4" f J:I }, 5 7�+J' x i' +' i~ }', x•' = I ;
'x1k:- -,(%`:Old Mine Ro dJ
w �.,� 'k xJ ll�#IS�', "�.� _� f, ':r^• �ij. j"' 4 --`+�'y''' �I ��}I�b��� / _ �+ '���.r�1��1��'�;I,I •'1�},l�:i-'"-�� ''• r�r1� � } ��/f L +' I - �- 9
'1? 1.y! : •� ;-7��'.11 I—.��:v}� - I �r }: •'c.' '+xk��M1 '� �I.1: :'b°� 4 y �'y2 '��F'_- _�{r,� ti fit~
f•r + l_ .� � ', �_ 5 - / -� .�;,4�.[�'"J' �kr� _ I � }� { �y,Yi+ �f ����. Ir "'- ��`._ � # _.' Y �
y f�. ~�t 1`r j �•• •S ~ � � {^ .'�� �}.7 � ;��� '� `� 4 - �' �'!.}�t-�ti._��, �. ��t i'r � . i i.f'' {-�
1 rM1 �' � �7 '�' '`kt. 1} �� �` '� 11J xM1l �. _ - ''I r -'I'y is'-�7'n ! _ � 5.�x��'<'_ �I �- .•
y ',� � '� si S� k }. � Y_ �, s I �,, �•.JJ�� _ � ,�}i'r `�I�:. i _I'k� � f? 4- ' �' r,' � x c' '�1�7� • � :.
if J _,
r�f �� rle;�
J� I'
�p' -�.: 1 Wit_.. 'rf� Y_ f: rr. d.��—.k�'.., � �i{J.��3. T•1 � �'���5
A"'4`4�
i ~�} ��,l I ;�
.'��r''}�"��-��� ���?�'I7�'� ��ti���x-�.}. �Y�-'r�ri���!�lill','�i�� �a+°j 4 i���.�;,k,=�1�' _ `OV'=•'���!'}5_ I r. �l� _
-- %f� ' I I}�I i A � •yam' g ,�� JA xl � I � r�'I }. } ' _' f '": ,. }°{. �' 3 ; � --� -�, x r. k � � -
r �: � .���f, - i�
?''
I�.; "��G:;•..,{7:. , I •-fr Li ' r -1 y���J. .� I1, ,k 1{�r f -
-4J Y � � . ♦' � tr" ~� ram.. " I
Pro Site k r : f + . - ^G
,L 'S 'y •''%�4} f'_}.ky?E''.`1I.*ti*
4 l 3. ;kjx4 ili_'4 4JIf� Si�I(��
l / J
fk IJf{ }i '� %'s, 54sf i'er
f
f� I Yjf{ .f: I '+' I�11 1�•,,`.'Y : �!}I'y'' ,, // �ti ' -`, ;h' fi I :++' 4 y�'y"•` �: y,' Jf'.� "_--v " _kj y.k.y..J {:
f.kaL ! ' 5` if 1Ll
� ,'.I
}`'i-` ; 4 may`_
%J.�^y,.
J1J '�.� J •I l -���4+�'
� l I I �..}.
.5}I I f �
fit a� r
- �`7 (f Y TJ` t,zo-s''.T II -•54�;..+ki'r-'-14.'1�,"yam f �='-� 3.1.�''`7l kl��sf'-_I yl J}"' I._.f '(''^M
�f�1�41'�I\' Ji=
f-1 J'k i f _}'{'_fib
�� �i..}•�?�-�{#y�'{`-. '�'� *�i�-.� t•tiY{�I—_:}�,-:'�� — � +i��. _� t1.x �f'%•��kr ��,�.��lY}`}- .i,�'! .lJ�o-���. .f{�If I ri• .
` ' N.{• tf } ; I,_'''.� t �{ }.__ i 44 x
!� � t�ti'� #�� �� f ���s f'{: �Il {I� _ �:__: M ',\k�:�l� rf��� i �' � frr� ���': T�7•'`'�'4
I r (...Yr.__ '3 ._ Ytr--�" r f,xl r �'-
k t+��) y } I ,r{
yy �tif.'•^`� �M1Y..'�'-•k•—� y~{`•'l-_--_ 1. k,�^`
tiry� '4'�'..'\y, ''�'}}J `',.•. I 2,. 11 k'x t I: l f �� k l I { I
l(\ 'r . ' f _ +_ I �rvkk '�'
r f ) e ``�s : ,1 ' j . r -' '�- {"} _ i . h }� 5 { + I Y/
'.�'d `J,,Sc�}'' _ {.`Y:'} `r .I "k.; ' ' r �Jx'4y`.
i'..:,5 x{ LM1' I l \ •- I-
+�
} :`� — `. .
}a` t',i`. 1 O
Lam'p', : I
n'p Q..
r
,_ i..r.•r fk Imo-; "'..w
{ - O — a! , -' ` _ r :: f;
.� _ yy,,�Y'1 iy4 ''k;Ji,' xL _ ..r... ; G..o b '155}'•'}{ ! ;'7: A'r{. k ~'i_ x--., ~ '
'+J'.
NCDEQ
Legend N Division of Mitigation Services
Project Stream Segments Little Buffalo Creek Creek
Stream Restoration, Cabarrus County, NC
Reference Reach DMS Project # 94147
Promect Location Ma
Source: USGS Topographic Quads: 0 0.5 1 ® THE LOUIS BERGERGROUP Figure 1
Gold Hill, Rockwell, Richfield, Miles 1001 WadeAvenue,Suite 400
and Mount Pleasant, NC Raleigh, NC 27605 November 2016

y0
+'
'O
i'7 � itl
O
V '17
H
d o
p
0
h
`O
ci�i
N�NN
N N
�N�N
N
N
o
R O v
v O v
v
v
v O v
O v v
v
v
v O v
O
z z
z z
z z
z
O
q
Pr
W
W W
W W
W
W W
W W
W W
W
W W
O
O
W
p
O
O O
O
L
y
O
L
ill
Z
y
(yr
ro
T
•�
C
O
a
CC
Z
p �tl q
q �tl q
q
q
�tl q
�tl q
q
q �tl
ro O
R
N
L
�
��
U
•L O v
v O v�
v
v �
� O v�
O� v�
v
�
v O v
O O
�
C
z z
z z
z z
z
W v
•L
7
Y
�
O
'd
O
R
z
L
ro
�
O
a
O
R
R
�
fyi
O
O
O
L
R
o
a
�
z
a
k
W
E
G M
b+
O
N
N
M
00
G
0 O
O
O
O
M
b
+ +
b+
+ +
O O
+
O
O
+
O
+ +
O O
+
O
�3
O\
�
G
ti
O
17
N
Nti
G
O
x

Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94147
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
Technical Proposal
June 2009
August 2008
Categorical Exclusion
February 2010
March 2010
Secure Conservation Easement
March 2010
July 2012
Mitigation Plan
August 2010
April 2014
Final Design — Construction Plans
N/A
May 2014
Construction
June 2014
December 2014
Fencing Installation
June 2014
December 2014
Native Species Planting
December 2014
December 2014
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0
Monitoring — Baseline)
March 2015
June 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2015
December 2015
Replanting & Reseeding
N/A
February 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2016
January 2017
Replanting & Reseeding
N/A
March 2017
Invasive Treatment
N/A
March 2017
Fence Repairs
N/A
December 2016
Construction Repairs
N/A
September 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
September 2017
February 2018
Beaver Trapped and Dam Breached
N/A
March 2018
Land Owner Coordination
Meeting/Invasive Vegetation Walk
Through/Soil Sample Collection
N/A
April 2018
Invasive Treatment - Spring
N/A
May 2018
Cattle Crossing and Fence Repairs
N/A
June 2018
IRT Site Visit and Additional
Easement Sign Installation
N/A
June 2018
Invasive Treatment - Fall
N/A
September 2018
Beaver Dam Removal and Repair
N/A
November 2018
Replanting & Reseeding
N/A
November 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
September - November 2018
March 2019
Cattle Crossing Fence Repair and
Ammendment
N/A
June 2019
Easement postings installed, beaver
dam removal and Stewardship
Meeting
N/A
August 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
October 2019
March 2020
Beaver Trapped and Dam Removed
December 2019
January 2020
Crossing Relocation/Repair and
Fence Repair/Ammendment
January 2020
May 2020

Table 3: Project Contact Table
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94147
Designer
WSP USA Inc.
412 Mount Kemble Ave, PO Box 1946
Morristown, NJ 07962-1946
Primary Project Design POC
Edward Samanns [phone]
Construction Contractor
Backwater Environmental, Doug Smith
P.O. Box 1107
Construction contractor POC
Eden, NC 27289
Fencing Contractor
Strader Fencing Inc
5434 Amick Road
Julian, NC 27283
Planting and Invasive Treatment Contractor
Carolina Sylvics
908 Indian Trail
Edenton, NC 27932
Mellow Marsh
1312 Woody Store Rd.
Siler City, NC 27344
919-742-1200
ArborGen Inc.
2011 Broadbank Court
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Ridgeville, SC 29472
843-851-4129
Superior Trees Inc.
12493 US-90
Lee, FL 32059
850-971-5159
WSP USA, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1500
Raleigh, NC 27601
Stream Monitoring POC
WSP USA Inc., Jonathan Becker (919-836-4056)
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Allen Hammill - landowner(704) 433-4656
Landowner Contact Information
Larry Hammill - landowner [phone]
Phil Cline - landowner [phone]
Marcus Harward - landowner (704)-322-0840
Farmhand Contact Information
Marcus Harward - farm operator (704)-322-0840
Garrett— Marcus' cow handler [phone]

Table 4 Project Information
Protect Name
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
CountyCabarms
County
Protect Area acres
12
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.491041°N .-80.366698° W.
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 3040105020060
DWQ Sub -basin
03-07-12
Project Drainage Area acres
4,039
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Rural
Thermal Regime
Warm
Reach Summary Information (Mainstem)
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 6
Len th of reach ainear feet
2,305
1,244
1,083
969
826
2,043
Valley classification
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8
Drainage area acres
1914
2146
2446
2568
2632
4039
NCDWQ stream identification score
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
C
C
Morphological Description stream type)
C4/F4
C4/E4
C4/F4
C4
C4/D4b
C4
Design Ros en Stream Type
C4
C4
C4
IC4
C4
C4
Evolutionary Trend
ir
Design Approach(PI, P2 P3 E etc
R; EII
EII
R; EII
EI; EII
EII
P
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacla/
Goldston
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Drainage class
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Soil H dric status
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Sloe
0.48%
0.38%
0.51%
0.39%
0.47%
0.43%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
Reach Summary Information named Tributaries
Parameters
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
UT 5
UT 6
Len th of reach ainearfeet
111
951
1,475
831
184
151
Vallev classification
N/A
Type 2
Type 2
Type 2
N/A
N/A
Drainage area acres
293
193
62
254
8
16
NCDWQ stream identification score
21
20
26.5
36.5
27.5
24.8
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
C
C
Morphological Description stream type)
N/A
B6
136/06
134c
N/A
N/A
Design Ros en Stream Type
No Restoration
B6
B6
134c
jNo Restoration
No Restoration
Evolutionary Trend
Design Aroach(PI, P2 P3 E etc
EII
R� EII P
R� EI� EII
EI� EII
EII
EII
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacla
Chewacla
Bedin/Georgevi
Goldston
Goldston
Goldston
Drainage class
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Soil H dric status
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non-h dric
Non- h dric
Non-h dric
Sloe
N/A
12.45%
2.35%
2.17%
N/A
N/A
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation communit
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Percent composition of exaotic invasive vegetation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland
Wetland 3
Size of Wetland acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Type non-riparian,riparian riverine or riparian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mapped Soil Series
N/A
N/A
N/A
Drainage class
N/A
N/A
N/A
Soil H dric Status
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source of H drolo
N/A
N/A
N/A
H drolo is Impairment
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation communit
N/A
N/A
N/A
Percent composition of exotic invasive ve etation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Y
Y
Permit 2014-00386
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Y
Y
Letter from NCDENR dated
February 24, 2015
Nationwide Permit Number 27
Endangered Species Act
Y
Y
Letter to USFWS dated
November 16, 2009
Historic Preservation Act
Y
Y
Letter from NC SHPO dated
February 2,2010
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA / Coastal Area Management
N
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Y
Y
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Restoration Plan Appendix 9
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
N/A
N/A

Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data

Figures 2a-j - Integrated Current Condition Plan View -
Monitoring Year 5

VVU-U=IUJN
woo'CISM'MMM
-S/.W- M31h Nb'ld SNOIlI0N00 1N3?J?Jf10
gg�o-d'oN asua3i�
MLZON •461919Tj
laaJlg alpnall qgq
S]IDIAd3S NOIIVOWN d0 NOISIOI0
JSI VSdS
fI dSM
1O3f 02ld Nnoo N011V2]OiS3a V WVI2IiS
N33bO O viinB 3i11IV
m
1.4
J J
W W
r
Z
U
O
O
N
O
O
J J Li
Li
Z
Z Z Z w Y
m
6\ b\
o
Z Z Z p Z
VI
O O O
O
¢
d ¢
<
O
¢ ¢
O w w¢ W m
w
U
J
A QV V
n
Z
Q¢
N S
CO
W
VI
CCo
-
of
W tG62
of ¢ CD
JJJJ
of U U � Li Li W
Z Z O O
W
w
W
¢
Wr W} 0r
cnr
O
CD
O ¢ ¢ Na
m my
JJJJ
H
p w c
�
U
Um Um Jm
Jm
z of
w
\ �
����
0
0
w z z - W
o
z
Cwj ��
x x Q
WO w,- w"
Q
L"
O w
\\
n
Q >`v
Z z m o o
a
m
of w w m O r z
o
pZ
�
Q OH
U
O
LLJ
O
�_
Lj
Q
>
O
Y
o
J
(� �m
Iw Iw Iw
Iw
O O
Q
zoi
U d J o a�
O w
W
�
�g �g �g
�� �� ��
�g
��
LLJ ,.
V1
J J J J J m
In
O
�'
H
D'
H
J
¢(h
d0 dO d0
d0
O
¢
K
O¢ Z w
d' K Z (7'Z
z
(n
¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ z
Z
Z
p
O
z
L¢J
� ZO
UO UO UO
UO
H Y
O z
CD
U � ¢ 0 w^
LL
_ _ _ _ = Ln O
O
O
w
0
O
r NO
ww ww ww
ww
= ¢
CD
z =
o
r r r r r ¢ cJ
U
U
m
Of
U
cn >w
>Of >Of >Of
>Of
m m¢
w Q U a
0
0
S3103dS 3AISVANI
¢
J I I I I I

Ada o Naa oisti3a oN SWd D34�N woo dsm mmlm
1 9gLo-d ON asua3i� -SAW- M31h Nb'ld SN01110N00 1N3?J?Jf10
109LZ ON `46!aleTJ SS310213S NOIIVOUM SO NOISIOIO
JaaJlS allin n dS 4E4 1O3f 021d Nnoo N011V b01S32� V
l VSfI dSWV3b1S
oiM
)iii2io OiVSjfl i 3i11Ii
V1
z ~
_ O
z
`-- - O O O O U Q ¢
- � /� n V V /� z ¢ 'If^
woCDo¢ Xx wr U)r nr Uaa Um Um Jm Jm Z[If W m m V JJJJ
W n H > a
W� W� L¢i� L¢i� O Z z d OU o
¢ Of W W
w w w W U z O � O[ifCD 0-
of of of Of
z oa
¢ O ¢ Z
dZ dZ dZ dZ H Y [if of Z¢ C7 zN -
v t xA `S4 UO UO UO UO O Z CD U<j a�
4
q - \ LULL,LULL,LULL,LULL,LULL,LULL,LULL,LULL,= ¢ CD = , o
>Of >Of >Of >Of a-m ¢ w Q U
J +µ'I � -
QOI�W �
._m(L. / O
_ =aN�❑❑❑ ® 6 a 5
O
S3103dS 3AISVANI
.: W W
W W Z z
J J W W
)
O wn Z Z Z Y Vz
Q W W H¢¢ H w W W
D U
. O= = W H a_w Z Z W=
1 a [if w w a OF- z w O z af�
3 U U U U U J Q > Z Y n J U �¢
w w w w w > (If()f U ¢ O =
Z Z p O Z
_ _ = V1 O O O w O O r /n0
= _ 0
Y¢ c U U m m U cn >m
CD I I I I :: U u a♦ _
__j
Z I I I
0
` U m
IL
N Y
O �
Q
W U
r ,,• U
cc
04
RM
.s
vxglw w�
q t O
O I(1 N Z O
�O wo pn¢§� ` O
Iwi N Z Ld
W J
J ¢� z..

Wd-0100N
WOO'CJsAh
9910-'ON GSUG31l
MLZ ON `111ajey
9=l
�aa�a11ln 4E4
3 NI VSn fI dSM
d
-SAW- M31A NVld SN01110N00 1N3?ano
S]13IAd35 NOIIVOlUM d0 NOISI010
.,iNf100 Sf100V8V3
103f 02ld NOI Vd ]OiS32l Wd3b1S
)i3321S OivAjnB 3i11Ii
z
O
~
z
O O O O O
Q
d Q
V V /� z
Cr)n Cr)ljj
Oof
O
w
N of
Jm Jm Z Of
W
O Q Q a .0
� m
Um Um
¢� O
O
W
r >
W0 F- �W
Q Of
Z
zWLia- C,
W W
w I w I W I w U
O
O z o
oW oW CW �W
Q
U
OJT OJT OJT �� O
Q
J W
O Q Z w
dZ dZ dZ dZ H Y
CDO CDO CDO CDO O z
[if
CD
of Of Z (D zyp
ULLJ a w ��
4
WW WW WW WW = Q
U
Z Q = � ¢
o
>Wf >Wf >� >df a m
Q
W J U u
p3AISVANI
53103dS -
- I` -.
r N
.P
J J
W W
W W
l
W W
H H Z Y
z z z p w
z
co
N
N
o W W Q W
W
H
'•`.. ..
Q H
� LU Q LJ m w U
Li
N
..
W W
W
Q
p z z w O O N W
r Q Q cn Q
�=
--.
p
oCOW
W
"IoN
JnW
U1 == W m W Z
W Z Z K O
z O
Q
W
Z _�
O
;
i• S'
•
N
Y.
-U
W+
M�
Of W W d O
J¢ >
U
Z
Z �H
C) a < Om
--�'•-� _
0;+
O �0 N &�
a+W a
M
Q
?
�Qw
H
W W W W W � w
Of
U Q O
m N (
cn
of � m W
Q Q Q Q Q z z
O
Z
O O z Op
Zvi
'
wln -
J =
= V1 O
H H H F-- Q U U
O
U
w O O r �O
m U co >m
w
J
H
w
~ _-
- w
A J
F
w
Q
W
� I I I I I
TT <* _ ;'
J Z
w
I i
J
w
N
H
z
o_ N 1
~ " � x
w ouq
M1
UZ^
W W
a a+
N F W d n
(U
Q U
000
Y , 1
z +
o=
Z
z
W S
W f a
Z H
_ ¢ Z W a
W J
SOWN
J
�
of
I
I
dl N
N
1� +
N
O
l
r
I

daI ... 1-1 SNOIsti3a I INI SM-034ON woo dsm mm�m
1 ggfo-d �ON asua3i� -S/.W- M31h Nb'ld SNOIlI0N00 1N3?J?Jf10
MLZON dSM
`46!aleTJ S]IDIAd3S NOIIVOIIIW SO NOISIOI0
faa3fS alpnall qgq N1S3a Wd3211S O
oil VSfI dS
1O3f 021d N011V210
N33bO O viin8 3i11I5
-� _ - -
N
Ld
ccn
'Al CD
~ :K oz
oo>
ow
.,N
aw
i
o
MQ
z
N L
M2>
O
? X
~
U
H z W
0,
N O W o o
Q
W O
Y.zrWW
i#;
BL
SOWN
Q J
zFd
3 W "
0 O �
a
._
_
3Zw`S-
t
X
f W
.
Z N
�!
z N
^<Z-
W W
¢ r
J
Q O W
- a
NW
NN
D z
A
3L7
H
3zPQ
a
J J
�
W W
W W Z
Z
U
O
J J L
Z w Y
(n
b\ 6\ b\
b\
Q
z
Ir
r
Ole
Z Z O (n Z
LL]Q
Nco
O O O
O
d Q
CD
LLILLJ Q Q r
F-� :� Q LJ m Z
w
U
N
0 n N V V
/�
Z
Q
(n
� U U of W W w
w
L,
cn
a
�> Ir
n>
o
of
¢ Q a �<
p Z Z w O O
W
U
cnr
Um Um Jm
Jm
z
w
\ m D' my
Ld
w z z = p w
p
p
Z
LL, ��
x x ¢
w� w� W�
Q
Wo
p w
r\\
o
r Q;
z z m o
w w d 0 o
LLJ
d
z z z
z
¢
w
J
¢
�
U
Y
cn
J
< Om
�Q
HW �W �W
�W
p 0
J U
Q
= w o a�
U J H
U
O
O Of
w
�
O
<
� J
OJm OJOf OJOf
OJT
m
O Q Z w v
w
J J J J J (n
Cl)
Z
W'
H
D'
H
LLJJ <of
W� W� d�
d�
O
H Y
Q
W'
Cr !Y Z C9
z
I
Q Q Q Q Q Z
_ _ _ _ = cn O
O
z
Z
O
O
W
O
O
Z
O
Ir ZO
� NO
CDO CDO CDO
WW WW WW
CDO
WW
O Z
= Q
(D
C3
U Q j �,�
Z Q
�-
w
�� H H�< U
U
U
m
(r
U
V1 >0-
>D' >m >(r
>D'
d m
Q
W J U a
/
/
O
Z
W
y�"r�aW51i�f
V
1
❑ ❑ ❑
❑
s
o
S3103dS 3AISVANI
¢
J I I I

�d0 o Na0 SN01sti3a INI SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9gLo-d ON asua3i� -SAW- M31h Nb'ld SN01110N00 1N3?J?Jf10
�aaM33SLZ0N=46191BVJgq S]13IAd]S NOIIVOIIW d0 NOISIOI0
dNnoo
O
oii vsn dSM 133f02ld N011db01Sl2l Wd3b1S
)iii2io OivAjnB 3i11Ii
H
U)
r r Z W Y U)C 0 0 b\
w w 0 < Z W O O O
Q m z U LLJ J U) V)/� V V A
W W w V) fn 0
Z Z W O O �`' W W ¢ '-'-'m LLjm �m �m
Q Q c) ¢ o U_ U U J J
V) _ = W H 0_ W Z O Z W =r wLj CDF WN L¢im L¢iN
LLI m W W O_ O O r O mH Z Z Z Z
Q U (n Q Op] W W W W
~ ~ > =)Y O J O :2Q r:2 r� r� r�
-- W W W W W K W m U Q p = Om. Om. Om. Om.
W r O m J J— J— J— J—
W p r 3 3 3 m (Acn cn r- r w ao- �� �� �� ��
-,n N .' a s a a a z z z o o z� zO CDO CDO CDO cDO
Q V) O O O W O O F V1O WW WW WW WW
W IoU U - m � . z F- F- F- ¢ U U U m [if U cn >D- >� >o' >a- >o'
W Q Q Q J i d
�V= z
Oea�
�NZw
��� �z I I I I I I U U a♦ ❑❑❑❑ a Lj
J I III
U
N N
N W cn
_ p
f �❑ \ = N wl O z W JJJJ
[If O Q Q Q No JJJJ
❑ / W o
Q Q q O 'If LL,L H m Q a V J J J J
/ r
J f/i�W +o Q� Z W
O :� O
x ¢ O O r = 0- p aoe
o O Q J ¢ W
u `0 Z O Q O Q Z w .,
U _ .. ,y v H Y of
p rO -°" O Z U U � Q > w
Q d
M = Q U' Z = a o
W (L D_ m Q W U
r+. MAM"`-� w
0
J �
.rr. S3I03dS a3AISVANI
J 4
v s��• w rn
r L7
D Z w O
O J N
zo
r
<
r
O U ¢ w
r W tq
U N
U O• D �H V
•CL M pr". p r O
D
-Li cD
zw
w � o
CO U
v z
incu -
. + w
py.a. ^ cvww r4 U O
w + z af
QWw O O
JN=�Z a
r z z w \ i GATE r- •II
J f/1 W W W U �
�'- a3�w O
w z
N y r W R J
k. O qJ>q Q
r¢¢ar U
z -wNz V
> =rwpw
¢ W¢r
y>Ww O
�f{M, Up= JZ7
Wrz ply �Zz¢q
W LJp OtW
f p L g W W
W p ¢ u o
\\\ ti�in w Zr
¢ = q z U
W rM..
R
r
o
J

�d0 o1-1 SN01sti3a I IN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9gLo-d ON asua3i� -SAW- M31h Nb'ld SN01110N00 1N3?J?Jf10
109LZ ON `46!aleTJ SS3102135 N011110111W 10 NOIS1010
Jaa3lS a11!n n dS qE4 103f 021d Nnoo N011db01S32� 0
l VSfI dSWd3b1S
oiM
)i3321S OiV11f18 3i111i
q ¢ Z J
W W ^ W
>�Q Z •N LJ -
Q Z O
W p¢ J J�
�
wr = U
oZr �mO]p
aW W m+ W p
Z
U m d'
o �l7¢ J�
V r O/
�JQ
WQ to JNU� '
N Or W f
¢ N q Z 1
r � O
Z W
r w z Lt�ifr
pww ti
U N
O 7
Z 0
n ---z
w U m
m
J CO.
w- ..W
l7 Y Z W N 'U
Q CC^m qmM¢�
m
-
U
MWL.1 +O^W _ I Zw JNW'WW
N ..z p Z
_ _ F
nn
Amk �.Z.qr
M M F q J P p W w o p Q>
+ S q
` p pw M.Z. tiZN rl(1¢ZW° `- O W m
W QNww Vrq ti9� .+.' zmquo,
J ¢P pw 'z(u r .Y i J ¢ =UN.Z-ip�
r > Fr ow o `�. r uQo
3 ' o
= U z
J �w M� N�� wdf s m+ �q >4
�Z M aow > w^r ZZ¢Wp QCU
z W H r¢ q r W Wp r Z
u W p M w '�� .r r wz z r w^ Z � o
q °, Jf/iW �pN1Jf r W
.p. S W Vi M Ifl f/i p W
r ¢ r Y J Q
U WD f Q W '
VI p
z Z U
O K
O O O Q Q p
z O W
N
V AO of O Qwt
Q cD
¢
Jm Jm Z m W m W' my — w o D = OI
W Z W Z Q 0� z W z W O
N
I W I W UO OZ O = o ooe a w ro, `` ¢ p r
H
Ow Hw J U Q
T OT
J W
JJO Q O Q
Q J
Of
N w ro Q w _
d' of m Z Z C7 �zpp r¢ Z Y/ p N Z O
CDC3 CEO O Z (7 U Q _
LIL] WW I-Q CD Z Q= W w r
>aof >Of d m Q W J U a r w N _ -p W J U O
J J^U. �QQ
� rW �
S3103dS 3AISVANI +._ - t A4 - z
> > H z to
J J W W�
H r- Z W Y V1 ♦- Z f� ¢
z w w 0 cn Z w O O..9.
OQ W< Z W W V1 V1� V1� ,
W W w U J U1 O� OV
pZ Zw O O ¢ Wm Wm
H Q Q Ul ¢ H U U U O
V1LLj I- S W H a w Z z wl =� WN Wes .. N
of W W d O z O W O z �r Z Z
o> Z Y O O �Q rw rw O
W W W W W —> d' K U Q O
Q Q Q Q Q I z z Z a O z 00 CEO (�O o
x= x= = v O O O W O O F n0 WW WW O
O D U m [if U cn >o- >(h >of
I I I I I W
l Q
U
cn
CD
L,jJ I I I I

AdaI ww Naa SN01sti3a I INJ SM-034ON woo dsm mmm
1 9gLo-d ON asua3i� -SAW- M31A NVId SN01110N00 1N3?J?Jf10
MLZ0N `46!a1e?J S]13IAd]S NOIIVOIIIW SO NOISIOI0
Jaa,lS a11!n qE4 N1O
oil VSn fI dSM dS
1O3f 021d N011db0S32� Wd3b1S
)iii2io oivAjnB 3i11Ii qq
� 1
I IT
1
1 �
1
I 1
I o Z
r¢
z M Q=
au in
I
1 \ ¢ N z W (+1 .+, o o w
r M
z Q m o
J z
Q, , R ^ z W M W Z O+
1 N Z WQq WOrN.
IZ FIf1" aiQ~ VI diUQ N
or/i '0 xzz W d' Zmr � pN
1 o�`�
1 aqJ w�Jo _ i
W
pear M
Q � U �
RHO a./ DN.
N
Wp1E - A' ;� \gyp\
1
\ W �
vf
p ti
„NINIIINNII' V \d+ + 1 F LD
mow oo�>wo
o„
r D. Q q o gL
aw =nzw
VIA rF]QZW rWN
+
p W T=Q neo rW w ON �Oo W O+Z
p W oQ N N Z N K U 7 + r R ff1 0
cd
w pw3Z., ooi ocd iOww,�prz \
W ZJ Zq p Z Li mc0 r VA F� W
�^ +'VIRWWWY QQrr UW NW rnN
r` W DJ W
W F Q Z W R m z W M m w Y
p p W n> W W U Y
i rw,�r YF w> rz �R orn o0
t11 Qu'z WW worm oij wz �N oa
�Z'-'R w N W W W Or'1 KN
wWNWR W QM Vi W WM OM
W JW Wr W m<O m�
p p O
owuwwo z of
f= U W J W W w W
r =aR
J Uz m
Q O yoW
Z r U
w
J J
W W
O W W Z Z N
J J W W Z Z
oN r r Z W Y U1 O
WZ Z Z O N z Ld O O O O Q d Q
O Q w m w O J U1 O /� Ln V V /� Z < ���
O U U� W W W W LWi Q Wr w,,,r V1r U1r o O Q¢ Q Nv JJJ
O Z Z W O O Li m m m m m °�� JJJ
� _ � Q Q N Q r U U U J J Z W Q W ¢� JJJ
O W Z Z n' 0 0 w O O Z U =Q Wr Wr L Fo L�r O W' Fl Z W Z W" M
Q F �wwdO�o ¢ U cn W <Om 1� 1� 1� 1� pO =o_�oal
J
> r' O O Ja Tl J= ❑�— ❑J�— ❑J�— ❑F-� � ® U Q U
W W W W WQ O<W OO�O�
,of OQ Q J W
m of Q QJ— O Q O Z
O N � ch r r oofdD dD dD dD H Y ch Zz z z In o z o ca CDCcO cDO o z o �o F Q
_ _ _ _ _ (A O O O W O O r�O WW WW WW WW = Q U' zJ
rWC7
rNnz
�^g�+
<p
r r r r r Q U U U m Lf U N >d >of >Of >Of >0-d m Q W U
QCA
rWp
0
Llj S3103dS3AISVsA
NI
FieJ
O Q

JVVU-U=IUJN
woo'dsm mMM
-SAW- M31h Nb'ld SN01110N00 1N3?J?Jf10
1
gg�o-d ON 0S000,�
109LZ ON `46!aleTJ
10Wall!n qgq
S]13IAd3S N011V0111W d0 NOIS1010
3 d
NI VSn fI dSM
dNnooV
103f 02ld N011Vb0S32l WV3b1S
)i3321S OivAjnB 3i11Ii -
Y
W
U
O
J
Q
W
W
J
H
J
m
s
O
N
O
�
N
c�
O
�
O
O
x
II
O
0
o
a
J
�
U
U
N
Z
U
K
�
O
w
J J
W W
W W
J J
O
Z_
H H Z w Y
Z Z Z O Ln Z
(n
N
O O O
O
¢
d
W W H Q Q H
:2¢ W M
LJ
U
J
w
n 0 V V
A
U'
Z
¢
¢
� In of
JJJJ
W
U1
C)
W} W}
(D
w
U Q CD
JJJJ
� U U Li Li W
W
Z Z O O
W
W
Li
¢
W W U1 }
U1 }
U
i�
U Q ¢ �a
m
JJJJ
DO
p w U)
U
Um Um Jm
Jm
Z
w
\ of a
cl)LL,x
w z LL,z p w
p
p
z
��
x Q
w� w� W�
Q
w�
p w
F\\
p
Q;
Z Z d o
ch w w d O r z
w
O
O ��_
Z Z Z
Z
Q
OO
z
w w o
of
r
¢
>
U
Z
cn
Y
J
Om
Q
g g g
g
0
F-
x w o a
J
O
w
[IfJ
LLiJ
OJ-
U
¢
U F
W ¢
3 3 3 w
J J J J J m (n
V1
O 3
W' H
�
H
J
W Q"
WZ dZ WZ
dZ
O
H Y
¢
W'
O Q Z w
W' Z U reM
Q Q Q Q Q Z
Z
O
Z
O
of O
W O
Z
Wi UU
V1p
p0 CDO p0
CDO
O Z
U'
UL¢ j w�
4
S S S S S [n O
H H H H H Q O
U
U
m d'
p
U
r
U1 io_
WW WW WW
io" io" >0f
WW
i['
= Q
d m
U'
Q
Z Q=
J U a
WIz
o
w I I I I I
a
VVv
_
❑❑❑❑
®
m 5
O
a3AISVAN
53103dS
J I I I I
t- W Zt
Y �•J W
G
y q`
A'', �..

Ada o Naa SNoisti3a
I ON
SWd-D34,)N i
woo dsm mmm
1 9gLo-d ON asua3i�
MLZON `46191BTl
Iaa3lS aII!n qgq
—SAW—
M31h Nb'ld SN01110N00 1N3?J?Jf10
S]13IAd]S N0liV0WM d0 NOIS1010
oil
fI dSM
VSn
dS
103f
02ld Nnoo N0ILVb01Sl2l
V
WV3b1S
)iii2io OivAjnB iiiiii
J J
W W
W W Z
Z
V)
J J Ld
Z W Y
N
b\ b\ 6\
b\
O
F
Z
Of
VI
O O O
O
Q
0_ Q
OQ W m
U
Jcn
QV V
n
Z
Q
2i (n [if
JJJJ
_
W
< U U m Li L,
W
Li
VI
Q
cnn
W} W} }
}
K
CD
O Q Q Q NO
U
JJJJ
p Z Z W O O
L,
�'
U
Ljm Ljm Jm
U U
Jm
Z W'
W
m m. of my
11 av
H Q Q V) Q
W Z Z m' O - W
m
Z U 0_Q
W� W� Lim
Lim
W
O
i
>
Z Z O_ Ou O
JJJJ
..
W W D_ O O
O
0-
I
0
(IfOR-f
U' Q
Q
>
U V)
< Opp
W W W
W
O Q
J U
_
U J
L J
w
W
-
rLJ r� rLJ
LIj
OJOf OJOf OJOf
r�
LIj
OJT
Q
Han
3 3 3
J J J J J m VW1
U
z
O 3
V) of r
[ifJ
r Lj Qm
WO WO WO
dO
O
r Y
¢
0-'
O Q Z
0' � Z U' w0E
.
Q Q Q Q Q z
S S S S S V1 O
O
Z O O
O W O
Z OO
CD
CDC3 CDC3 CDC7
WW WW WW
CDC3
WW
O Z
CD
ULj
¢ j
H H H H H Q U
U
U m of
—0
U V) >0_
>0_ >0_ >of
>m
= Q
0_ m
O
Q
Z Q= rcn�„
W J U a
CD
Llij
S3103dS 3AISVANI
w
N
� � W yTe z m
o
b _0
n LOW 0
R W z
W W Z
CO d N
q
W W Q
D �l e. 8. j O K
> L'i Z W f r ^ Q
•� � W o
q
U f W 0
F W Q d Q m
'�,`• -,� N Gaga +o
0� r
W Zz }� �. -mod N Wlr Zfv �} Q
1 // fQ¢ y;, 0 Q�UJ tiN
W d U Q 1 > Z Z / I K00 - - •� In QoQ NH Z
/ arr.., o 0
I I gviw wfnu ^q r
rz u
M w ti
rnti
Ln
r o
w w
O
—
m z
r cr.
Qp m
rr r
nN o
m y `
I �
rz O
i7 O
W N
W
O
O
0
I I
o
Li
J
Q
U
1 V)
I

Wd-0100N
WOO'CJsAh
9910-ON GSUG31l
MLZ ON •11191ey
9=l
�aa�allinall 4E4
3 dS
uI VSfI dSM
-SAW- M31A NV•ld SN01110N00 1N3?ano
S]13IAd35 NOIIVOlUM d0 NOISI010
JdNf100 Sf100V8V3
103f 02ld NOI Vd ]OiS32l Wd3b1S
)i3321S OivAjnB 3i11Ii
J J
W W
W W
r
J J Ld
w
O
Z_
Z Z Z O U] Z
Ld
O O O
O
Q
d Q
OQ W m
(�
J
n Q V V
n
z
mQ
N S
r62
W W W
� U U A W W w
W
Li
cn
Q
W
wY wY �Y
�Y
O
of
U
W
Of
OU Q Q Q-
JJJJ
JJJJ
O z Z W O O
w
U
Um Um Jm
Jm
Z of
W
-, m W m`
JJJJ
w
W Z Z d' Z
O
Z
U' aF
W� W� Lev)
Lim
O
Z Z d 8 O
O
w'w wdOro
O
d
Iw Iw Iw
Iw
U
O
IOw'zo
U' U' U' U' U' J Q
Q
i
U
Z
VI
Y O
J
QOpp
U �Q
r�LLI r�LLI r�LLI
r�LLI
O O
Q
U m J a0
O
w Of
-
O
�
J
Q
�o �o �of
OJT
O
Q
O Q Z
�]
Q Q Q Q Q Z
V1
z
V1
Z
K H
O O
H
Z[If
Q�
00
d0 d0 d0
00 00 UO
d0
UO'
r Y
O Z
of
U
� K Z w
U Q ,,
-
_ cn O
O
O
w O
O
� �O
ww ww ww
ww
= Q
c�
Z Q
H H H H H Q U
U
U
m of
U
N >d
>of >of >of
>0f
d m
Q
W J U a
w
a
VV
T
®
a tt o
a3AISVANI
S3103dS
J I I I I I

Tables 5a-g - Visual Stream Morphology Assessment

�k
_
�
�
=2
/
/)0
)
\
\
\
))/
Cl) >|
�
\f�0
a22
\k0
o
0
0
0
2m >
\f �0
o
0
0
0
)§0
]m >
\/)
/
)
/
)
/
/
/
)
)
/
/
2 f {
IL
16
))f
o
0
0
0
0
0
J\2
/§f
EE
0
0
0
0
0
0
]4A
7-0
=
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
®§4
z
/
E2
R&72
E] k a
m
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
z AIL
\
\
\
®
&
0
-_
>
)}
)
_
E
r�
/$
{0
_
%
-
!
-
-
\
k
_
_
_
1
\Z{
}
_
-
_
-
)
`
2co
=
ww
tm
-
_
§)
�
)
kk
0)
�
)
;2
;
!
7
32
�
w
a:
\
j
a
di 0C
tkdi
cm /�

�k
_
/)22
�m >
a22
2m >
\f �/
R2B]
o
0
0
0
zcn >
\/)
�
16
o
0
0
0
0
0
0)f
J\2
,6
Et§
o
0
0
0
0
0
zD
7
Cl)
®§J
z
R&ƒ)
aka
n
� AIL
«
_
t
00
}
\
\
IL
\\
\\
e
!
�
\
\\\
\�
\Z
$4
&\/
)
`
?
�
o
:
!
;
a
S2
w
j
a
tk|di
c
/�
£kd

-
}k
_
�
�
�2
0
/)22
�m >
a22
2m >
\f �/
R2B]
o
0
0
0
\/)
�
16
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
J\2
/§f
EE
o
0
0
0
0
0
]RA
7R�
Cl)
®§J
z
R&ƒ)
Eata
Cl)
z W
IL
/}
10
\
\
\
\
\\
}
\
\
\
\
\ j0
;0
\
0
\\
)
tm-
_�
en
;
S2
tk|
I
2
£0

(§
_
�
�
�2
�f:./
/)22
«
a22
2m >
\f �/
]m >
\/)
IL
16
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
J\2
/§f
EE
o
0
0
0
0
0
]RA
®§J
z
R&ƒ)
Bata
—
)\
\
)}
\
}
f§
\
\
10
\
\ j0
/
0
;
f
)
`
2
tm
-
tm
_�
en
D
;
S2
tk|
co
2
£kd

(k
_
�
�
�2
�f�0
/)22
�m >
a22
\
o
0
0
0
k/|
>
U.
\f �0
o
0
0
0
)§0
]m >
\/)
m
/
/
/
)
)
)
f f {
)) f
LO
0
0
0
0
0
co
U.
/§f
EE
o
0
0
0
0
]RA
7RR
co&
®§J
z
R&ƒ)
Eaka
e
z W
IL
\
{
\\
\
\
\
\\
\
0
\/>
}
`
)
E
)
`
2Im
f
tm
-
:
_�
-
0
/
kk
20
u`
;
S2
_
C
\)|
a
2
£kd
ca
k

(\
_
�
�
=2
/)0
)
)
)
)
))/|
�m >
a22
2m >
\f �/
]m >
\/)
/
)
/
)
/
/
/
/
)
/
/
2 f {
IL
16
o
0
0
0
0
0
0)0
J\2
/§f
E]|
o
0
0
0
0
0
]4A
=
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
®§4
z
R&ƒ)
E] k a
e
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
z W
IL
&
0ma
Eu
\0
/
!
\
k
_
_
0_
\d>
`
}
\
\
m
71
_
)
`
2
Im
-
IL
-�
kj
�
)
kk
m
LU
)
!
§
;2
;wo
G 2
r
w
'i
\
�
j
a
tk|
]
2
£kd

L
0
.0
0
0
0
0
N
O
O
CI)
N O
C
�H >
a
+ CI c
w
O N
>
ILLN
N
f6
N CI O
41
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
W
O
O
W
O
O
O
O
�
�
o �
Gl
a
6 v v
c �
y
O
O
O
O
O
LO
LO
7 LL
O Gl N
4 C
y E
O
O
O
O
E
C
Z D fn
C
N
m
�
f6 Gl 7
O
F
~ � Q
Z
C G1
M
V
V
V
O
O
O
O
V
Z H
IL y
�
'O '0
m
0
.
h
N
ON
00
N
0
O= 0
m
O_
r
O
01 N
p
N
E
O O
N
N
=
C�
O
�' d
N t0_
O
N
O
O
0�
N N
+.•
i
-o
n
3
a
m
o�
coi o�
n p o .,
o
o
r 3
E o-
N
m
c
O h
w
.N
m
at6i
EL".
m
m
o�
-oo n
`o
x m n
0
r-
o
a
at0i
a
a
E
o a
w
w
O
t .o w
`m
c
n
o
p
E
_
o
Y
o
n
a
O
=
m
o
x
ma�m
o
at0i
m
.3
m
Y
�• o o
ami
a
E
o
O
m
o
Y
�°�
° o y
m
d� a
m
o
a
x
n
0
a
0
- c
.� o
0
m
a o
_
�,
a Y
m -o
E m a
m o
m
m
-o m
L c a
o
c
o
o
o 0 3
i6 c Y
O
N
a•
i6
N C_ r
>
T
N Omo
J m
r o_
Zn
o
o O
o ff o�
�• OI .c
ct6i
0
o a
o
o
n
coi
coi
o
o
O
.Q
n
o m
m
a
3
c
..
o
a
o o
.�.m 0 0
'C
> O
x
m
m
Y
Y:w
wr 0
o
o
Y
uci�
o
Y�
Gl
Q O
H
J
H
H
O
0] u0i
M' Y
0] - N
0]
(n
N
U
O
(n a
N
m
O N d
d 0 a
C
C
O
Ctm
c
O
O
n
O
o
a
N
o
a
°
N
c
t;
Gl
m
u
c
c
U
3
w
w
c�i
3
-
m
U
w
rn
y`
y
a
r j
>
K
c
in
7
O
0
m
x
U fn
N
M U
V
N
M
N
N
M
V
C O
Y
d
d sp
7
O G1
t f6
N
m
t0
m
C U
W
f6
UU
C�
ofm

Tables 6a-i - Vegetation Condition Assessment Table

FL P
[
0
e
o
=
0
E
2
2
Q
2
Q
{0
$>o
0
0
30.
)
-2
-2)
\)
(L
3)0
)/i
J
IL
2
]
§
a
k
�
k
\
\75
k
\
>
\
�
\
}
\
�
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
o
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
J
»
2
0
0
m
R
§
d
,
2
|
IL
2#
§
0
!
■
2
CO]
#
0E
a)
C)
_
LU
0
/
{§
E
_
3o
Cc)
0.
S%22
)G
oz
IL
7k
$
£/»
}
�
\
e
0
°
t
m
d
/
|
k
w
«
Q
�P
\
\#
o
o
0
0
2
2
\
2
\
{0
E-
0
0
3�
)
-2
7-2
0.
S�)G/3
k/]
IL
J
J
]
§
a
e
o
§
£/
3
3
)
/
§
_
\
k
0
\
\
0
}
\
�
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
o
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
J
»
2
0
0
R
0
d
,
2
|
0.
0
!
■
2
«
¥
w
%§2a
a�)
_
0
/
{§
EZ
e
3IL
0.)\»
»
�z
z
7k
$
£/»
\
LLI
\
±E
\/
\\
\(
j(
(\
,
}
\\
�
o=
e
\
°
t
)
d
/
�
|
k
�
«
Q

(
�P\
\#
o
o
0
0
2
2
\
/
\
{§
$>o
0
0
C)i
30.
-c-0)7))
0.
S�)G/3
kG]
IL
IL
2
]
§
e
o
]0
§
£/
3
3
)
/
§
_
\
k
\
>
\
0
}
\
0
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
�
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
J
=
2
»
|
7
d
,
2
|
a.
§_
#
§
0
!
■
2
m
0
#
>1
w
I
I �
0 E m
aLU)=
�
0
/
{§
/>_
,
30.
0-
E
»
S%&»
/»
�z
z
a
$
�
£/»
\
LU
\
±E
\/
0
\(
j(
\\
,
}
\\
�
o=
e
\
j
°
t
0
d
/
|
k
ui
«
Q
0
C)
\#
e
o
=
0
E
2
2
Q
2
Q
{§
E
0C,
0
cl
30.
C0
a)j)j-2
S�)0
kG]
IL
IL
I
]
§
£/
3
3
)
ka)
k
\
75
\
k
\
>
\
0
}
\
0
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
o
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
)
»
2
m
0
d
,
2
|
0.
§
#
§
0
!
■
2
m
]
0
«
¥
w
I
I �
0 E m
a�)
_
�
0
/
{§
/0=
r
3L
�)\»
»
S%&»
)»
�z
J
a
$
�
£/»
\
LU
\
±E
\/
0
j(
\\
,
\
\\
�
o=
e
\
0
°
-0)
d
/
|
E
M.,
Q

�P\
0
o
o
CD
0
0u
2
2
\
/
\
{§
$ao
0
0
C)l
30.
�)j)j))7))
S�)G/3
kG]
§
e
o
]0
£/
3
)
/
§
_
\
k
0
\
\
0
}
\
0
0
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
o
8
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
J
=
2
»
|
0
7
d
,
2
|
§_
#
§
0
!
■
2
m
0
#
«
¥
w
0 E m
>LU)_
�
0
/
{§
E
3-
>)\»
»
S%22
/»
�z
2
7k
IL M
$
LLI
\
±E
\/
\\
0
j(
(\
,
}
\\
�
o=
e
\
0
°
t
)
d
/
�
|
k
w
«
Q
k
k
]
N {
b a
0
)
CD
\#
_
o
_
0
E
2
2
\
\
\
{§
EZ
0
0
30.
)
—2
7-2
0.
3)G
kG]
�J
IL
I
]
§
a
£/
3
3
)
/
§
_
\
k
\
\
\
0
}
\
0
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
o
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
J
»
2
0
d
,
2
|
0.
§
#
§
0
!
■
2
m
0
#
«
¥
w
0 E m
a�)
_
_
0
/
{§
EZ
_
30.
0.
»
�z
J
a
$
£F—
}
�
e
\
0
°
0
)
d
/
|
k
�
«
Q

�P\
o
°
0
0
E
2
2\
2
2
{§
EZ
0
0
30.
)
I
E-2
-2
-2
S�)G/3
kG]
IL
IL
2
]
§
e
o
]0
§
k
/
§
}
\
k
\
\
�
\
�
\
}
\
�
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
o
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
m
J
=
2
»
|
7
d
,
2
|
a.
§
#
§
0
!
■
m
0
\
«
¥
w
0E
a�)=
r
0
%
{
E
r
3I
0.
»
S%&»
/»
�z
z
7k
$
£/»
\
LLI
\
±E
\\
\\
\\
)/
(\
,
}
\\
�
o=
e
\
0
°
t
m
d
/
0
|
E
1
Q
[�
\#
_
o
_P
0
2
2
\
2
rC)
{
$,o
0
0
30.
�)j
)j))70
3/3
kGi
J
J
J
]
§
e
o
]]
§
£/
3
3
)
/
§
\
\
k
\
\
\
,
{
§
�
�
\
A
/
/
f
k
i
�
m
3
J
=
k
»
!
■
2
«
¥
w
0 E m
am
_
LU
0
%
{§
E
r
30.
j)
>)\»
oz
J
a
$
£F—
LLI
\
±E
\/
\\
\\
)/
(\
,
}
\\
�
o=
\
e
°
t
)
d
/
�
|
k
�
«
Q

�P
\
0
o
o
0
0
E
2
2\
2
Q
{0
EZ
0
0
30.
)
c
c-2
0.
c
S�)G/3
M
IL
IL
2
]
§
e
o
]]
§
£/
3
3
11
§
/
§
_
\
k
0
\
\
�
\
}
\
�
\
\
\
,
{
§
}
\
\
o
>
0
4
<
k
i
0
m
3
J
»
2
0
0
m
R
§
d
,
2
|
0.
0
#
§
0
!
■
2
m
0
#
«
¥
w
0E
a�)=
_
0
/
{0
/�_
_
3�
>.2
»
�z
2
7kCL
$
m
}
�
e
\
°
t
)
d
/
|
k
�
«
Q

1
'1 � rOF
{

Veg Plot 3
r
Veg Plot 4

� "r,
y�a�{
1Y19�.:
TN _
-A .. �*,�54L -. ddftL

RQY.
Veg Plot 7
Veg Plot 8

.x
R i �' 1�e r l R nn {I l•n p�_ a S �..- �_ic � -
'
r�
�S 6, �+1,��T' I!''�r�-` �y � C7` r:'��7�`�C�fi"�v �7�'',�� �• H k � 1.+�Ij� �' r - ��•.
11 y � Fy •
qx�,
I l 1.
F '1747� � �"'�3�4•,'-i�a* Ai

Veg Plot 11
Veg Plot 12

�
r
-
i
dl

Cross Section MS-1R Downstream
Cross Section MS-1R Upstream

1 �"�`a>.- .�� bi s, i�i'•'' `�� J ram.. ).. �� ,,fan �.?,
k
r�'

Cross Section MS-2R Downstream
Cross Section MS-2R Upstream

Cross Section MS-3P Downstream
Cross Section MS-3P Upstream

Cross Section UT2-lR Downstream
� f\
�¥y��
• .
Cross Section UT2-1R Upstream

Cross Section UT3-1P Downstream
Cross Section UT3-1P Upstream

Cross Section UT3-1R Downstream
Cross Section UT3-1R Upstream

Cross Section UT3-2R Downstream
Cross Section UT3-2R Upstream

Cross Section UT3-3R Downstream
Cross Section UT3-3R Upstream

Cross Section UT4-1P Downstream
1t 1
f4f � , •; l i
S4
,.A
Cross Section UT4-1P Upstream

Cross Section UT4-1R Downstream
Cross Section UT4-1R Upstream

Cross Section UT7-1P Downstream
Cross Section UT7-1P Upstream

Cross Section UT7-1R Downstream
Cross Section UT7-1R Upstream

.�� kr
4 �
k
Y _" V1.

Cross Section UTTSTP1 Downstream
Cross Section UTTSTP1 Upstream

`
14

Photo Location 1-C — UT7 Upstream
Photo Location 2-A — UT7 Upstream

Photo Location 3-B — Downstream
Photo Location 4-A — Upstream

p
•Yh
A

- JP
Photo Location 5-B — Upstream
Photo Location 6-A — Mainstem Downstream

Photo Location 6-B — Mainstem Upstream
Photo Location 6-C — UT3 Upstream

Photo Location 7-A — Mainstem Downstream
Photo Location 7-B — UT4 Downstream

Photo Location 7-C — Mainstern Upstream
Photo Location 7-D — UT4 Upstream

Photo Location 9-A — Downstream
Photo Location 9-B — Upstream

Photo Location 10-A— Mainstem Downstream
Photo Location 10-B — Mainstem Upstream

Photo Location 10-C — UT2 Upstream
Photo Location 11-A —Downstream

Photo Location 11-B — Upstream
Photo Location 12-A - Downstream

r
Y

Al
`J lei
G
S `p
ti.iG N.v. �•.i �, ��.

Photo Appendix D: Problem Areas
Cow observed near vegetation monitoring plot 7 in UT4 in October 2019

Cow tracks near confluence of Reach 3 and UT4 in January 2020
Cow tracks crossing UT4 in January 2020

•pay "�. 4_A S•S � -.�11� y '. �3 ''�YC3�L �( Y � x�'
s,i �•�oi� �•
�.� d � yY x P��M1 r: ',x 1
c
ry! i
•'S, �
-
t ski � ' I
-
Maw

Blown out cattle crossing (Reach 5)
k, R 4
Dead cow under cattle crossing (Reach 5) in October 2019

Beaver dam at UT7
Beaver dam at UT7 in December 2019

Beaver dam at UT7 in December 2019
Photo taken in January 2020, view towards UT7 beaver dam location (pink flagging) that
was removed in December 2019

Photo Appendix E: Significant Flow Events
Flattened vegetation in floodplain of Reach 1
High drift lines in Reach 1 near MS-113

Flattened vegetation and drift lines in vegetation monitoring plot 11
Dropped debris in Reach 4just upstream of Gauge 5

Alf
@rah-y �•e r d�i b ��� � 1 �
ors �,� .s � � .. — y ✓� .

Photo Appendix F: UT2 and UT3
Flowing water in UT2 during July 2019
Flowing water in UT2 during July 2019

M-7 i 0,.
Flowing water in UT2 during July 2019
Flowing water in UT2 during January 2020

UT2 near Station 16+85 in January 2020, view downstream. The flagged rebar in
the photos is the old location of gauge 3. WSP employee is indicating the thalweg
and showing the depth of flowing water.

Small headcut in UT2 near Station 16+85 (January 2020)
Headcut in UT2 near Station 16+95 (March 2020)

Just downstream of small headcut in UT2, view downstream
Dam blowout around existing concrete outlet pipe (US end of UT2)

UT3 near Station 11+00 showing channel in January 2020
MW ''
m6i---
UT3 in near Station 11+50 showing channel in January 2020

im
L
@
-,`
\ t
a
r,

Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7 - Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Plot
MY5 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y

Table 8 - CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By Amanda Johnson
Date Prepared 2/5/2020 15:08
database name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0.mdb
database location J:\193678-01 Little Buffalo Creek\WAT\Docs\report\Support Files\3. V1
computer name L18US-D8243Z07
file size 60100608
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. T
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, deac
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
PROJECT SUMMARY---------
ProjectCode
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
94147
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Louis Berger is restoring the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Yadkin -Pee Dee
48265.23781
12
12

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII����������IB

Appendix D - Stream Measurement &
Geomorphology Data

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrx Lk=LMaLmamm

. Baseline Stream Data Summary
0.,
Buffalo Creek -
Little ,
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®m®®®®®mm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®®®mm
- •.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®®®®mm
•
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm000mmmmmo
ML
Table 0- ... Summary
BuffaloLittle -- ., ,
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®®®®mm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®m®mmm
•.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm000mmmmm©

0- Summary
Little .. -- ., , -
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®mo
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®mo
- •.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®®®mo
•
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmo
ML
IM
0... Summary
BuffaloLittle - -- ., ,
�mmm®®m®mo®mmmmo®®®®mm®m©
�mmm®m®®mom®mm®ommm®®®®m©
• .����®®®�®o®����o®®®®®®®tee
•.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmm0000mmmmm©
UWMUWMUWM

0
a
2
`w
w
E
R
R
a
O
a
H
An
0
`w
a
E
R
R
a

0
2
0
a
a
E
R
R
a
00 �
2
0
a
a
E
R
R
n

m �

111111111111
1�1���1981�1
�II�I�111111
1��1�11�1111
1�111�11�111
111�1111��11
��III�II��II
1�11�@I�@III
1�11�111�111
1���11��1111
IIIIIIIIIIII
�nnnm��
19��111�1111
11111�11��11
IIIIIIII@III
ISIIII@II@I9
1�1111@I��11

ammmu
�'��������o�
�mii�inu
�nnnnm
�nnnnm
11�11��111�1
I�I�BI1�119�
�911�1111�9�
111111111111
�IIIIIIIIIII
�miimm
.
��������e���
11��@II�II��
191�1�1�1111
���1�1�1����
19�11���1111
�9191�1101��
111111111111
1�11�1�1����
1�1119�11@I�
111119111111
.
��I��IIIIIII
11�111111@II
111991111111
�nnnnm
1��1�11�11�1
@911�11�11��
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII
111�111191��

I
oil
I
oil
I
oil
Rollo
11111111
oil
oil
oil
HIM
all
SON
III

oil
oma�n
I
�
oilll
IIIII�
■ooao.ie
o
Mill
im
im
im
11111
inn
1111
ien
11111
sm
�i
i
sm
�i
■m
�i
oil
1111111111111111111
e
Illli
olilloolo
IN
mn
�i
e
ill!
�I
IN
sm
�i
oil
Illlli
Illill

■ne■.e�
a,
im
III
Hille�
Hil
Hill
Hilloil
l
sm
so
III
sm
so
■m
so
III
so
Vial
�i
111
■m
�i
e�
11111121111111111i
oil
III�I�
�I
II�II

Mill11111111IM1111111
oil
11111111111
oil
■en■
im
im
im
sin
1111
ien
Illli
oil
a a
a
a
9
a
sm
�i
sm
�i
■m
�i
■m
�i
illl
�I
sm
�o
Illlli
Illill

I
I
oil
oil
oil
I
oil
im
im
sin
1111
11111111
11111
ei
oil
1112111111111111111
■m
�i
a
�m
Illli
1111111101111111111
IN
rm
�i
Oil
illl
YI
i
sln
�I
len
Illlli
Illill

1 'lll�
111����a
I
IN
IN
im
im
im
im
isn
Illli
11111111
1111111111
INS
oil
o
o
o
a
a
9
�
1111111111
sm
si
■m
�o
om
�i
mn
illl
it
1111
sm
�i
ern
Illlli
Illill
mmE
Ems
Em;
sq
E
mEa
m
E_-
€m
m
�Em�#
3m
=ma
add

Figure 3 a-k — Longitudinal Profile Plots

Chile 8uffala Creek Mainstem-Reach 1 —THW As-Bu ilt 12/2014 —T1VW MY109/2015 T14W MY2 09/2016 —THW MY3 09/2017
Longitudinal PvoNe, As-huiit Stationing 22+OO to 25+77-37 —TIiW MY41012019 —THW MY512/21319 —MS-1H —MS-IP
■ TOB MY5 ■ Ws MY5
64) -
641
640
639 -
636
637
636
2200 2250 2300 2350
Little Buffalo Leek Malnstem-Reach 3
Longitudinal PT of{e, As•hu i I t Statian [Fig 48+12.42 [O 50+56,51
630
c
•�° 629
r
m
629
627
4WD
2400 2450 2500 2550 24i10
Wan" (it)
—THW As-built12J2014 —THW MY10912015 THW MY2 09/2016 —THW MY309/2017
—THW MY410/2018 —THW MY5 W2019 ■ TOB MY5 ■ W5 MY5
—M5-2R —MS-2P
WW 4900 495A 5000 5050 51.00 5250
Station (ft}

Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem-Reach 4
Long iwdioal Profile, As -built Stationing 63+70.48 to 55+21.37
625
624
623
k
c
0
0
622
6i1
11T2 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
Longi ludinai Profile, As-h u i I S[ati on i ng 13+78-56to 14+29,80
641 _
640-5
1_
640
639.5
r
639
a
m --
W 6395 —
638
6375
637
1340 19M
-
A.
■
-THW As -bulk 17j2Iri4 —THW MYI 09/2Q15 THW MY2 09/201E
—THW MY309PO 17 —THW MYA 10JZ01$ —THW MY512/2019
■ TOB MY5 ■ Ws MY5 —M5.31P
--THW As -bulk 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015 THW MY2 09/2016
--THW MY309 NW —THW MY410/2018 —THW MY512/2019
■ TUB MY5 ■ W5 MY5---UT2-SR

VT3 to Me Buffalo Creek MaTnstem
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 10+00 to 12+15.05
651
650
649
648
647
646
645
950 1000
tTT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
tongitu d Ina[ Prof I e, As bu ilt Stationing 14+66.62 to 20+90.79
Extended to 20+90-79
640
Gm
_ 636
y� 634
632
630
—TH W As -bunt 1212014
—THW MY3 0912tl17
A T0$ MY5
IC60
— THW MY109/2015
tHW MY4 10/2019
• WSMY5
1100 1150
Station (ft)
THW MY2 0912016
—THW MYS 12/2019
— UT}3 R
1200 1250
-THW As -built 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015 THW MY2 09/2016
—THW MY309/2017 —THW MY410/2018 —THW MYS 12j2019
■ T09 MY5 ■ W3 MY5—UT3-29
—UT3-1P
628 —I iV— 1
1454) 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 195u 2wo 2050 2m..
Station (Tt)

UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Malnstem
L ongit udinal Profi le, As-6ui l t Stationing 21+29to 22+32-4%
F#tended to Station 22+32.49
631
630
629
629
627
7
w
626
625
624
623
2125 2135 2145
—THW As.WM 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015 1HW MY tli9/2016 THW MY3 09/2011
—THW MY410/2018 —THW MY5 12/2DIS ■ TOB MY5 0 WS MY5
2155 2155 2173 2185 2195 2205 2215 2225 2235
5tatlan (ft)
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
Longitudinal Pmfi le, A5-b u iit Stationing 24+05.13 to 24+50.74
625
624
623
—THW M-built 12/2014 THW MY1 09/2015 THW MW 69/2016
— THW MY309/2017 —THW MY410/2018 —THW MY512/2019
■ TOR MY5 WS MY5--111'3-3R
62.1
2380 2535 23W 2395 Z" 240S Z410 2415 2420 2425 2430 2435 2440 2445 2450 Z455 2460 Z455
Station (h)

[TT4 to Litde Buffalo Creek Mainstem •THW As -bull[ 12J2b14 --1 H W MY109/2015 THW MY2 09/2016 — t"W MY3 WWII
Y
Longi tudinal Proii le, A bu i It Stationing 14-21.25 to 18.30. 57 --THW MY410/2018 —THW MY512/2019 ■ TOB MYS ■ W5 MY5
—11T4-SR—L1T4-tp
11T7m Lkth BPHaIo Cr kMalWlme—IHWA"Lww 1'7,17[I14 —THW MYl ❑9/2015 THW MY2 rl9IMIO — THW MY70912017
lvngit�tfl�I n�Pflk, A\�lUl1[ Ste=Ia,deg 11.0 Nto 21426,11 —THW TAY4 11/2018 —T1[W MY5 12/201-3 ■ TOB MY5 ■ WSA9Y5
■ eOCNYANCNIY4 M LOG VANE MY4—L7T7-1R—Lrr7-SP
�1T 7•[N —tFU ,TP1 —4T75TP2
Eil9
517
615
•
�i 613
G09
71 La
•
■
■ •
—
607
11gT 1y00 1410 Von1900 21p0
SNOW (ft)

1 1' 1 1• 1
1
f l I f 1 1 1.1 � 1.1 1 1 i:il •1

Figures 4a-q - Cross-section Plot Exhibits

m U
�wcEi322S3_E
o'a�
-o -oo
c
F E
m
ws
o:
m o v
2i W
mVl
"
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v
1
1
0
1
m N
1
1
> Y
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 I
1
w
v o 0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
1
1
1
1
\\
1
E
1
1
1
1
o
en
1
1
1
1
ml
0
1
1
1
1
5 0
1
1
m
ti
> > Y
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,
1
1
m O
1
1
JC N
u o
E
1
1
o ao
o�n
o�n o�n
o
o�no�n
o�no�no
3 O tp
m
t�0 t�0
t�0 t�0
t�0 t�0
t�0 t�0 t0
t0 t0 t0
t0 t0
J X

3
s
m
m U
ao
go
_
F o
N
W
`
m
.O
mo.�
c
m
p p
K w
0 E
0
v
a
m
o
oss
o
a m
1
m
c o
o �
n o 3
�
N
o
0 > >
1
1
1
0
o
c
o
mo�
1
1
1
n
E �+'
ry
�
c o
Y �
N
o0
o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
yyyo
m
� x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

N U
a
o
�wcEi3
2 2Sa"6
E
rnnF
c�
E
cc cc
,�e�oov
wsF
0
ulmmm�����
W
Jfq
in V M M ci m N m I�
(11) O011ena13

N U
Q
El
w
chi 3
2 2
3 3._
E
rn a F
w
a a
o=
E
N No
m
w
N
0
v
0
v
v
o � �
p o 0
N
a Y Y
Q � �
M
UI
Q b W
N
C O O
O N
o p
N N
'p
a �
LL > >
1
I I
1
o
E
0
c
c
.c
0
c
o
� o
c o 3
m
v
1
1 I I
1
O
�
co
w o
C C
O
Y y�
N
u O
lJ a
O O
3 � M M N .-I O O N N Of0 0fO N
p tMp tMp tMp tMp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp
m (14) UOII-813
X

N U
a
W t
`
a o
� o
m
a", '
m"
o
�wcEi3
2 2Sa"_
E
°' o.�
0
N
O
a Y
o
ry
ry
a o
�ry
m
0 0
n j
r �
iE
0
ry �
m
m
w
� o 0
ry ry
o
o'
n o ti
o
o
o
1
1
E
0
m
c
.o.
c
0
0
0
0
c
o
m
1
1
1
N
b
N
C
q O
Y y�
N
u O
o a
0
o
ory
m
N
N
N
N
N
N
(14)
UOII-813
X
i

E
Q
o m'"512m-
Elm
�wcEi
3
2 2
Sa"_
E
°'ate
c
F E
c
w
s
0 0
_
O O O O O O O
a a a a m m m
(4) UOl;en913
v

a
c
o
F O_
to
v
Om
cc
l m
�T
Lu
22a°-_E°'ate
-S -o
cQ
F E
c
ws
,oc
u) m
m m
LL LL��
2i W
o y
0
v
o �
o �
o
m
a �
Q �
m
ry
n o
n
�ry
m
0 0
n j
F �
x�
v
v
Q��
�oo
o
orv,
n O1
o
o
E
0
c
«
om
�o
m � 3
v�
` o
u
o N
� w
m O
«i
(u) uoi;enal3
F N
7 X

M�
a
o
w
v'`
m
o
�L
A
2 2
SS"_
E
rnaF
c
p p
K w
o f
a
a
o�
a�
a
a �
0
ry
a o
�ry
m
ti
0 0
n j
F �
co
x
m
voo
c
0
0
o �
1
1
1
E
0
ao
c
.c
0
'c
0
y
o
c �
m � 3
v
1
1
1
E
5 m
v
i
o
0
_o
o
m
a o
ry
m m co co �
v v v v v
�
H
7 X
I
i

Q
ao
wt
=ow
o
�w
chi 3
2 2
Sa"_
E
rnaF
0
v
o m
m
0 0
- o
n' v
1
�
v
� o
z
o O
i
x
m
o �
m o 0
o Z
O1 �
� o
o
LL
1
m
1
�
1
0
m
=
0
,c
0
w o
c
m � 3
>
y y
v
1
1
1
No
�
ry
o
� m
m c
N O
V
O t�
� N
� w
m O
_v ui o in o �n o ui q N o �n
� O tp tM0 tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp
m (u) uoi;enal3
N
7 X

\§!\!!g)!5\!
f!{{
/)))))!!/!)!!
«/
}�
0
«
i§[
§
o
\m
\\(
�
!>>
/§
�
0
j c
(14) {
E ƒ
�I
�
�
\
|
}
�
7
�

ry U
a
W t
c
a
F o
N
v a
mm
o
�wcEi3
2 2
aS_
E
rnnF
co
o
a
a
a
N
a �
Q �
o
m
ry
a o
�ry
m
�
o p
o M
Y
H
'lf
V
UI
N
Q��
o
voo
�ry
�
ao�ry
.O O .i
LLY�
1
1
1
E
0
m
c
2
c
o
� o 0
O 0
m �
1 I I
v
1
E
M
C 01
�
�
N
N
� O
u
o
o
oo
m 0
F u°1i (14) UOR-aM
7 X

30
E
{|
e
.
|
+
|
..
a§§
./
|
�
`
.
|
|
�
.
|
�
|
~~
|
/\§
|
£
.
|
�
.
�
E
|
|
,
/
k!
|
|
E
,
!m
|
)}
|
}\
°
,(14)
UOII-83,
Eƒ

\))4}())6r
6
Lu
22a±,l-w
65
.
|
|
.
|
|
a
.
.
.
.
.
�
.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
®
j
|
|
$§§
|
|
|
|
£
|
|
-
#
~\
|
.
|
.
|
|
,
.
.
|
.
. .
e
!!
|
|
.
�.
0
,
/
_!

U
a
c
F o
N
v a
om
o
�wcEi3
2 2S
°"_
E
°'6
a
a
o�
a�
a
a�
II
0
m
0
O ry�
n y
�I
x
v
von
o�
o
� o c
o>>
LL��
0
m
0
0
�o
Y�
o
mop
'Il
Y
C �
N�
O
u
o N
3 o
m no 0
� (g) uoi;enal3
N
7 X
1

E
a`
p m
m
Q2im
Ea'N�
�wcEi322Sa"_ErnaF
v
a a
o
_
E
wsF
m
a
o
rvm
a�
a �
�
a
N
O
� n
a o
�ry
m
o �
m
a>
r �
m
x
v
v
Q��
o
voo
c
ry
o �
a�ry
90�
'
I#
0
E
0
ao
c
.c
o
c
m
o
2
� o
c N
m � 3
'Il
�
a
E
N �
C t0
b
N
N O
u
_o N
ai
� w
m O
m
. .. ..
� O tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp tp
n (g) uoi;enal3
m
7 X

E
12
U
Q
-
o w
F O
to
v
¢]
E�
2 cc
NO
lu0
22a
v
a a
o
c.
_ F°-_ErnaF
c�-So
N NO
m
2: W
O to
O.A.
0
� o
�
1
1
�
co
I*
1
I
1
E
�
�
0
1
1
\
>
1
1
1
1
0
n
O
1
I
�
�
m
0
I
1
V
�
y
�
1
1
v
1
�c
1
1
o
m
I
1
y
o
o
i
�
I
1
v
m
I
I
I
m
y
�
o
I
1
M
F
1
M
�
�
I
m
C
1
M
1
� p
Q
O
1
I
N
e
0
LL
1
1
1
N
v
I
I
N
1
I
1
I
ry
E
�
1
p
O
I
o
O
—
I
I
1
1
c
�
m
�
1
1
�
1
I
1
1
I
1
0
O
E ai
I
�
_
1
y Y
V
1
1
c o
I
N
a
3 N
m N O
N O O O O O O O O O
� (g) uol;enal3
N
7 X

a
tY�
oLu
a—°o
o
„ =_
c m
cam
�cNi3¢`2gym
w
2
n—o
OE
spinIMINININ
IIi1ImI11I
111410111
IIVImI11I
„L1®,1I,
„K,0IMILVE
,1I,
_
„gl\,1I,
Illo
'
I11111000111
.
111101111
11110
1
1111moti
1
11
Illo®INNIMINA
����I�
.
IIMIMI
Isloom
_
NINENINE
Ilmor"i
Iloilo,
111111
inlrirAl1inIIl
..
.

Figures 5a-q - Pebble Count Plots

■■■■■■
----------
■■■■■■■■■■
�
a
'5
a�
9
W
6
■
1---d
—[D
fB-P"puj
..
o
0
0
U
�
�
h
a
�
w
>
>
o
0
x
�O
Vi
O
7
Vi
O

7ua�iad anpelnu[n�
a
o �
�z •
P.
m
`t�
U
m
>
'O
i
a
a
a
a
a
a a
a
a
1---g
—ID
IEnP"P-1
o
°
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
U
0
W
•U
O
"
�p
V
�O
O\
N
N
��
�
p
a
Y
7
N
0
0
0�
(V
V
vi
co
N
M
r.
N
V
•o
'�
,�
�
ti
�,
ti
�
ro
ro
on
on
on
on
ti
ti
°
o
�
o
o�
o
o
�
>
>
o
a
�
r
�
�
o
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca

mmmmmmmmmm
Lq
QUEEN
HillIII�Il1
MENEM
MENEM
y
_r
r =
gJ
g
1---g
—ID
IB-P
Wpul
son0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
�
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o�
N
o
0
o
N
�
o
m
N
v
v
-I
o
�
L
�
�
o
P.
w
z
L
>
>
QI
clC.6
�
�
w
'O
p
T
�
�
�
�
cj
cj
�
�
�
-�
bA
,-•
ctl
ctl
�
bA
A
�
�
>
.
0

a a a $ a a a a a o
7uaa[ad anpeinum�
'j
aJ
U
E
a
m
U
m
� N
>
'O
r �
o
a
a a
a a
a
a
a
a
o
0
o
0
0
o
0
N
0
,n
0
co
0
o
0
v
0
o
0
N
0
o
0
m
0
o
0
ov
0
N
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
m
0
o
0
0
U
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
L
�Oy
aj
�cC
V5j
y
O
•
_'
v�
N
�
0
0
0
0
l�
O
m
o
m
O
O�
�p
N�
�
�
V
.N.
74
o
�
s.
x
N
�
�
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca

■■■■■■■■■■
EEME■■■■
LMEN■■■■■■
all
,III.
■_._._._._._._._
l�IV!
1-4■■■_■_■_■_
■■■■■■■■■■
s6 F
Sy a
r�
Zr/ ■
St ■
f
m
U
N
to � ■
P.
r
a
�
w i
7—nd
Saab
T.P.,Pul
0
U
�0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o�
o
N
O
O
r•.
r•.
�
O
�O
M
co
v�
V
�
r,
O\
V
�
M
�O
O
O
r•.
r•.
�
O
Y
L
V
�
�
O
O
GG
z
c
w
>
>
>
>
>
o
0
0
0
0
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca

iffilillill
,
MVIE
____::__:;:_
°a
'�r a
s
4 q
M
a
m
U
r
m
'O
gggggggggo�
M---d
—ID
I-PLIT-1
°
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
�
°
o
L
a
•�
Z
R
'G�
ro
ti
ti
�
m
m
bA
bA
OU
O
p
iC
�
ro
bA
bA
ti
ti
�
�
N
o
o
A
p
o
Q1
`\.�'
W
�'
'�
m
�
W
N
N
'.�.
'.�.
o
o
id
.�i
bA
, ro
,-.
,-•
�
a)
a)
O
>
>
o
a
_
o
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca

;uae.red -'ReF D
s
sz
z
z,
z
;uaoiad
ssel�
IEIlP1°?PuI
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
L
O
�
�
CC
�
y
M
oo
M
Vi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0�
4
Ni
D
O
O
h
O
M
0
M
O
Vi
7
0
N
oOo
V�i
N
4
O
�
a
O
•U
W
y
���•
0
ti
ti
U
U
U
ti
M�
C�
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q

\
0
2
� \\
||
e ) ||
~ ||
\/z
2r2y=,Erv>2%%yyzzzzzzzzzzz
e
j5
~
()-
e
@`]
|iz
(®\»)\}\±±
5\
j®
a{{gg/\
(°
N
N

s /
\ }j
\
;
s
\/z
2r%=,22,,,J2%=%33333333333
�
\�
$\$
Q
7
)(f
t�)
(\((������\
5\
j2
/
2e
a{{\J@\
jyy=
(
N
N

�
�
U
oa
o N
II
as
� II
a�
J II
8
go
;uao.red
-11M
D
8
8
8
;ue—d —D P-P1 Tlq
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
L
�•
N
Vi
O
Vi
7
0
0o
O
�O
N
Ni
N
7�
�•+
O
L
0
>
>
o
o
a
e
q
E
cC
U
7
0�
N
7
O
M
Ca
v�
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
q

M■■■■
1�►
■_
�■_■_■_■_■_■_■_■_��
1
Ymmm�m���Wi
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
,r
�! a
G
a
U
U
,Cy
V ■
m
U
m
� N
'O
■
l
g
g
W---g
g
g
—ID
g
IMPLIT-1
g g
g
g
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
�
o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
M
�
o
l�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
L
V
�
O
ccCC
�
O
E
w
�
�
o
Y
cC
m
ti
ti
ti
ti
pp
>
>
m
m
m
m
bA
p
o
p
p44
x
O
C
1"
,_,
N
N
ti
ti
bA
bA
bA
bA
vUi
vUi
�
o
N
o
o
A
p
O
U
>
>
>
>
o
o
:~
-o
0
M
O
�
�
r
M
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca

7ua�iag ange�nump
■ice-
■■■■C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
�
N
o
C
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�--
0
0
-
0
-
0
—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
y
L
�
O
O
,-•
N
O
O
(V
V
�
co
'"
�
N
M
V
�
�
N
N
��
O
O
00
Y
V]
CC
N
,-.
G'
fo
>
>
>
>
>
o
o
a
�
�
o
o
't
v
N
Q
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca

�
|
|
^ ||
: : /m,� _/ °
\zzzz/z
„
J%%%3333333
err»,_ae%%&22
\\zz
~
e
}�
\\(
�
)()
\2nZZs99e9m}m3,»=ma°2®3i«
)�|
|})
�\
j2

\
0
%
v ) ||
e m,__m
\zz
24477,v&27%%===%SSSSSSSSSS
�
t%
§k—
e
=ee
]�]
ƒ2nZZs99e9e}e3,»=ma°2®3&«
�\
a{{U4G3
jyy=
(
N
N

mmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmm
MEMEMEMEM
■■■■■11
■■■111
■■■■■■■■■■
n
s
J�>
M
a
F
m
� a
'O
z �
■
a
T3
JII
—d
—ID
[B.P
P.1
U
NO
0C
G
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
L
p
'�.
ro
N
ti
ti
ti
�
m
m
bA
bA
bA
bA
OU
o
o
A
p
o
U
N
vpi
vpi
�
�
N
v
0
N
�
o
Ca
Q
Q
Ca
Q
q

)
0
w33J3d3ATjBfn=D
�
/
e
,[B-P
\§_
2
==e
z§z
`
»
»
»
5\
\\
>
}
}
Ee
\®
(
N
N
//////

\
~
% }
`\�
. �
s }
j\<2222<<</Z2J22//2J<<<Z22\
�
j§.
\
Ht
Qf!
a
a\/
fs§
t4;
w
z§�
5d
a
:
's175
J
#
A-
/)`=J)zzzzee
b>
/
j°

Appendix E - Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Documentation of Geomorpho logically Significant Flow Events
Greater than
Date of
Date of
Cgs = C2*0.66
Greater than
Observation
Occurrence
Method
stage?'
Cbkf Stage?
Notes
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
2/27/2016
11/9/2015
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
2/27/2016
12/22/2015
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Surface Water Transducer
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
2/27/2016
12/30/2015
Rack Lines
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations.
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
9/19/2016
5/20/2016
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Surface Water Transducer
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
3/2/2017
1/23/2017
Rack Lines
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
9/18/2017
5/5/2017
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
9/18/2017
5/25/2017
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
9/18/2017
6/5/2017
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/15/2018
4/24/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/15/2018
8/5/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Photos/Surface Water
Hurricane Florence, photos taken during the storm by land
9/6/2018
9/16/2018
Transducer
Yes
Yes
owners
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/15/2018
10/11/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/15/2018
10/26/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/15/2018
11/13/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/15/2018
11/15/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
4/30/2019
12/20/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
4/30/2019
2/22/2019
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
4/30/2019
4/13/2019
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
7/10/2019
5/12/2019
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
10/9/2019
7/12/2019
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded elevations over
12/19/2019
12/13/2019
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
surveyed bankful stage elevations
1) As stage relationships have not been calculated for the Qgs event, it is assumed that an event that has surpassed the identified bankfull stage on site also passed the Qgs event
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project —Project #94147 — WSP —March 2020 —Monitoring Year 5

Figure 6a-g — Water Level and Rainfall Plots

v
GJ
w
Little Buffalo Creek hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 1 Mainstem Upstream Restoration Site
45(ri
If depth is greater than
4.000 zero, stream is flowing
250
3-SW
3—OW
v
w
200 1
a
4
m 2.000 - — - - — -
� I
3 1.500
LOW
m am a� m H m n - c m m v� m
r�i rD.i _N rodo r� rgnn a o 0 0 o n o. r� N ry
Date
iu1 Rainfall (IN) Gage 1-UP PW Winstem Restaraann — — BanMil Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 2 UTZ Upper
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.4
0.2
2.00
100
0.50
d.oG
0.0 �.•.��ri.—.��s=arsrai_�av���•a�arrua��z:-
-
,���
�
`
0
o O 0
0
O
O 0
O
p
O
0
0
0 O a 0
N
N N N
ry M
N
N
N
N
S'y N
.i Q
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N N N
'-I r• N
Date
Rainfall (IN)
Gage 2_UT2 Upper
— —
Sankfull
Depth
Depth Required for NOW
D-00
2.50
2.00
N
v
t
u
c
c
1.00
0.50
0 00

y 1.i3DD
v
0.4pD 1L
U00
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 3 UT2 Lower
Gauge likely hurried In sedkment
I! Gauge ran
vutof
memory in I I New logger
3.00
August
installed
2.50
because It
downstream from
was
previous gauge
covered by
latapan-New
vegetat10n
gauge data used
and not
from 10/9/Mig to
2"gyp
found until
12/I9/2019.
N
winter,
d
L
Data
missing
7.50
From
m
8/21/19ta_
I
F
I
IU/sli9.
�
1-00
J
_ !L .— -_ i__ __
:IM.ui _ .._i. IL-
-
L t " i
w roro m m
vi
cn m a,
�
vpp� vpi
rn
a� c' °p� .ay'
Date
Rainfall ONi
Gage3_UT2 Lower
w —
Bankfull Depth
Depth Required for Flow
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 4 UT4
MIMI,
2AW
T
1P_ 1.5D0
r
a
a
� L000
Q.SDD
0 000 i4
«J IIpL� ILIJ
. . - J
:a-
J._I L �' � Jam'
W
~
cc
❑
T
O
+i
q
H H W
4 o q
p}
r!
O
�
C
q q q
0 � in
q q Q O
eel
N
.-I
N m r
0
Date
Rainfall (IN)
Gage 4_UT4
— — Bankfuil Depth
0150
0.00
2.50
2.00
N
C
1.50 r
m
c
s
1.00
O.50
ODO

COW
35M
i.onn
a
2.500
r
0 2-000
yd
[O
1-500
1.000
n-soa
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 5 Mainstem Concrete Removal
m mvy� vi m rn m m m ai c� m a� m m m
ti H •i
Date
Rainfall I INI — Gage 5_Mainstem Corruete Removal — — gankfull Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 6 UT3 Upper
3.00
2.50
2.00
m
c
L_
150 _V
G
1-00
0.50
0.00
0.9 r;o
piffcuities locatingthe gauge _ _ _ _ — _
18 caused missed downloads, A neW
logger was installed in October. ` u
Gauge data missing from 11/16/18 If depth is greater than
0.7 to 1019I19-
zero, stream is flowing
Os 2.00
Ol N
05 —
Gauge 6 was downloaded on 112812020and the graph was
0 extended to include more data So show a 3D-dayperiod of 1.50
a
OA contlnous flow since a majority of MY5 data were missed.
ro ry
p.3 — 1.o0
I'
0.2 -
D.SD
O.f -
���! i I 1 `lJ _ JI r
0.00
W Op m cn m m a+ m ow m m v� m m o+ m o,
8N ��.{{ ri rY M ri .r rl rY wt
N 5 O e-I u1 C M 00 N tom+ rl
a-{ N N N 'i
Date
s Rainfall IiNJ Gage 6_UT3 Upper — — Bankfull Depth

Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge 7 UT3 Lower
3
—00
is -- — —— — —————————--————— -- — —— — —— — ———— --4 aso
z
ulS
3.5
d 3
v
a
m
U) 2.5
v
0
D
0
O 1.5
a
R 1
0.5
Q
d
6
a o a o 0 �0�vv
Date
s Rainfall (IN) Sage 7_OT3 Lower — — Bankfull depth ❑ep[h Required For flow
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MYS
Gauge 8 UT7 Upper
2.00
Q.bQ
0.00
`c
42
en H r-1 ri m
ry N N N N N N ry N N N N N N j
on
r'I ri
Date
fa_ Rainfall (IN) Gage 8_upper LfF7 — — Bankfull Depth Depth Required Far Flow

Lille Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Gauge :11 UTS
3 00
30-day periods of continous flaw have 250
not been observed for multiple years in
UT5, therefore the gauge was removed
1n July. No data after 7/10/14. 2.00 ^
d
u
C
ro
1-00 ._
❑
M
oa
m N
°�
M M
N
N
o
N N
v
N
o o
N N
a
N
a
N
o
N
c o
N YV
v v o
N N N N
pate
s Rainfall (IN)
Gage 11_M
aankfull ❑epth
Depth Required Far Flow
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring- MYS
Gauge 12 UT3 Mid
2.o00
If depth is greater than
1.s w zero, stream is flawing
I
1-roo
1.400
y 1.200
r
w 1O00 - - - -
Q
m 0-800 I .
� I
i
0.600
0.400 -
0,200
1
n.no0
w m m rn m c� rn m m m m c� m rn c m
o o a o S o 0 0 0 0 o S
N
M N Q.
� tiG N O
M1� 00 Rf ei "I ri
Date
Rainfall (IN) Gage 12_UT3 Mid — — 6ankfull Depth
01%
3.00
2.50
2.00
a
1.So
a
1-00
O-SO
0.00

Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Groundwater to Surface Water Comparison, UT 3 Upper
653.6
653.4
6532 Diffculties locating gauge 6
653-0 Gauge 9 ran out of memory
652.8 caused missed downloads, 6eforedovmoadarthP..
652.6 therefore a new logger was inwrrett restart date was
652z installed in October, Gauge set after download. Data
0 t
652.0 6 data missing from issing
a27119from7Il1119to
I
651S 11/16/18to 10/9/19.
Z 65M
y 651.4
w 651�P
C 651.0
0 650.8
650.6 I
650.A
w 650.2 i
650.0
649-8 - -
649.6
649.4
649.0 I 1
6482
6648,6
4846491
m ea er m M m s» a m M m M m m m m
v v v v v v v v v v o ❑ o v v v
!V = N naal
H cf, f3 N N N N N n ry H
v
Date
Rainfall (uV) Gauge 6UT 3 Upper Groundwater Gauge 9 - - Bankfuil Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Groundwater to Surface Water Comparison, UT 3 Lower
676 s 3 nn
6263 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
G25.1
6Z5-9
625.7
- -
6255
-
Co fi25.3
625.1
Z 624-9 -
---
- - -
-
v 624.7
c 624.5-
P
6z4.3
-
- -
w 624.1
M 623.9
-
-
- - -
3 623.7
-
623.s-
623.3
i
-
-
I
- - -
62336212.7
622-9
...._-I�
622.5
�
�
C
➢
T
� ti
N
rV [- N
r� EP
�
Date
Rainfall l Wj
Gauge 7_t1T3 Lower ---
Groundwater Gauge 10
- -
Banktull Depth
2.50
2.00
iv
iS0 C
w
C
1,00
0,50
ODD
3.00
2-50
2-00
s
_C
150
s
1.00
0.50
0A0

638.5
638.0
637,5
637-0
636.5
C 636.0
z
635.5
d
635.0
a
634.5
v
634.0
c�
633.5 -
t
633.0
632.5
637.0
631.5 -
m
Q
�D
rl
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY5
Groundwater to Surface Water Comparison, UT 2 Lower
S ry ppN o ❑ N o ry ❑ a ❑ boy � ry a
N = N N N N N i-1 ry
5 N NI Q
pate
i Rainfall (IN) Gauge 3 UT2 Lower Groundwater Gauge 23 — — Bankfull Depth
2._,.
2.00
9.50
0.00

Table 13 - Continuous Stream Flow
Record
30-Day
Continuous
Flow
Gauge
Tributary
Met in
MY 1 Period
MY 2 Period
MY 3 Period
MY 4 Period
MY 5 Period
Current
Monitoring
Period
12/18/14-
2/27/16-
9/22/16-
3/12/18-
11/16/18-
1
Reach 1
Y
5/25/15
7/14/16
9/26/17
6/25/18
9/18/19
(159 days)
(139 days)
(370 days)
(106 days)
(307 days)
12/18/14-
7/19/17-
1/23/18-
9/5/19-
2
UT 2
Y
9/1/15
9/26/17
4/12/18
11/29/19
Upper
(258 days)
(70 days)
(80 days)
(86 days)
12/18/14-
2/26/16-
1/1/17-
9/18/18 -
11/16/18-
3
UT 2
Y
8/2/15
7/14/16
2/1/17
11/16/18
12/20/18
Lower
(228 days)
(140 days)
(32 days)
(60 days)
(35 days)
3/21/15 -
2/26/16-
9/19/16-
9/27/17-
11/16/18-
4
UT 4
Y
9/3/15
7/13/16
9/26/17
7/1/18
12/19/19
(167 days)
(139 days)
(373 days)
(278 days)
(399 days)
12/18/14-
2/26/16-
11/17/16-
11/7/17 -
11/16/18-
5
Reach 4
Y
3/13/15
6/12/16
7/27/17
6/17/18
9/13/19
(86 days)
(108 days)
(253 days)
(223 days)
(302 days)
12/18/14-
5/30/17-
8/18/18-
11/22/19-
6
UT 3
Y
6/22/15
8/26/17
11/16/18
12/23/19+*
Upper
(187 days)
(89 days)
(91 days)
(32 days)
UT 3
12/18/14-
2/26/16-
12/30/16-
1/24/18-
11/16/18-
7
Lower
Y
3/14/15
7/2/16
8/18/17
7/1/18
6/24/19
(87 days)
(128 days)
(232 days)
(159 days)
(221 days)
12/18/14-
2/28/16-
10/7/16-
11/15/17-
11/16/18-
8
UT 7
Y
5/20/15
7/13/16
7/30/17
7/1/18
10/1/19
(154 days)
(137 days)
(297 days)
(229 days)
(320 days)
11
UT 5
N
NA
NA
NA
-
UT 3
9/18/18-
4/8/19-
12
Mid
Y
NA
NA
NA
11/16/18
7/10/19
(60 days)
(94 days)
Note: Period listed for observed continuous flow is for the longest period of observed continuous flow based on hydrologic gauges at the project
site. Additional periods of 30-day continuous flow are observed at individual gauges besides what is shown in the table.
Note: loggers ran out of memory in MY2 (7/14/16) after changing the frequency recording to a shorter interval than being downloaded.
Note: Barometric pressure gauge was lost/damage in MY2 and replaced. Regional airport barometric pressure was used for compensation from
9/20/15 - 2/26/16 and is likely to cause periods showing no flow when flow occurred.
Note: Gauge 3 data missing from 8/21/19 - 10/9/19 because the logger ran out of memory after not being found until winter 2019. A new logger
was installed approximately 75 feet downstream from previous gauge location in October. The new gauge data were used from 10/09/2019 -
12/19/2019. Gauge 3 likely had longer/more flow events but reads were affected by sediment. The most conservative estimate is presented in
the table.
Note: Gauge 11 was removed on 7/10/19 after multiple years without recording a 30-day period of continuous flow.
*For gauge 6, data from 11/16/18 - 10/9/19 are missing because the gauge was lost. Since there were no data for a majority of MY5, the dates
were extended to include more data to show a 30-day period of continuous flow. The continuous flow period extends past 12/23/19. Regional
airport barometric pressure was used to adjust water levels for 12/20/19 — 12/23/19.

Appendix F - Supplemental Information

IRT Site Visit Minutes

Little Buffalo Creek — Old Mine Road, Gold Hill, Cabarrus County
June 19, 2018 — IRT Site Visit Meeting Summary
Attendees: Paul Wiesner & Kelly Phillips, DMS; Mac Haupt, NCDEQ/DWR; Kim Browning, USACE
Louis Berger: Robin Maycock (Project Manager); Matt Holthaus (Engineer); Douglas Parker (Botanist);
Alston Willard (Field Tech/Intern)
Purpose: To provide IRT an opportunity to visit the site and make comments prior to closeout.
Coverage: The main channel from Reach 1, just north of vegetation plot 11, to the cattle crossing in
Reach 5, as well as the lower portions of UT-2, UT-3, UT-4, UT-5, and UT-6.
Reach 1
The group walked in the pasture, north along the east fence line of Reach 1.
The small tributary, outside of the easement area
• The IRT recommended an additional 20 feet of fencing in this area to create a filter/buffer for
the tributary to protect water quality in Little Buffalo Creek. Any increased filtering capacity is
better than the existing conditions.
• Source of maggots is assumed to be a dead cow. It was pointed out that Marcus (tenant) owns
several stock yards and tends to buy poorer cows with the thought of improving them.
• Consider speaking with Marcus about keeping such cows elsewhere and/or to Phil Cline about
potentially adding fenced area. (DMS Note: We can't add conservation easement to the project
at this point for numerous reasons. Any additional BMP type measures would be acceptable.)
Invasive species
• Upon crossing the fence, an area where mature Tree of Heavens were removed, to prevent
seeding of the disturbed area to the north, was pointed out. Kelly stated that this had been a
good idea.
• Invasive species maintenance is ongoing with another treatment occurring in the fall.
The bare area around Vegetation Plot 11 was examined.
• The small area where soil sampling results showed copper toxicity was pointed out and the
anecdotal history of copper mining in the area was mentioned.
• The lack of trees in a narrow band encompassing vegetation plot 11 was examined. The soil
sample report was shared, showing low nutrient soil, as well as that the area being shallow to
rock, and wet.
o It was noted that on the stream side of this area, there were healthy willow saplings,
and on the upland side, healthy loblolly pines.
o Robin suggested spreading the beaver dam soil and debris on the bare areas and the IRT
agreed that it would be a good area to add depth and organic matter by adding the
beaver dam debris and accumulated sediment.
o Paul recommended random transects (100 meters square) to be more representative of
the vegetation in the area.
The beaver dam area was examined.
• The IRT asked how long the dam had been there (since approximately November) and when it
was removed. Robin stated that the beaver were trapped and the dam was breached in March).
• As beaver dam had been breached prior to the growing season, the trees survived, with the
exception of small area behind the dam.

• The IRT team asked why Berger was waiting until the fall to reshape the dam area and Robin
replied that they would prefer that it coincided with replanting and surveying trips.
General rule of thumb for performance tolerances at closeout were discussed:
• 5% of entire restoration length for streams.
• 10% of entire restoration area for vegetation (DMS Note: Site specific factors such as the area
of copper toxicity are considered on a case -by -case basis.)
Buffer width:
• IRT stated that the buffer width appeared to be narrow just north of the bend.
• They explained that buffer width should be 50 feet or greater and too much length without that
buffer width would be a concern.
• Thus, prior to closeout, Berger should measure and verify buffer widths.
Reach 2
The group then turned south, following the main branch. A turkey on her nest was encountered near
vegetation plot 10. The group crossed under the bridge into Reach 2. The group primarily walked down
the channel.
UT-2 was thoroughly examined:
• Flowing water was observed in the channel.
• The area was impacted by cattle following construction and has a shallow slope and as such,
water is backing up, forming a linear wetland type system.
• The area was pointed out to be in a landscape position that is known to have seeps and UT-2 is
fed by a pond.
• The consensus of the group was that as the trees matured they would transpire the
accumulated water and help the stream maintain a channel.
• IRT recommended getting good photos year round to show the channel structure during each
season.
• IRT requested that Gauge 3 not be replaced where it originally was but moved to the mid -point
of the stream length of UT-2 where the channel is clearly evident.
• Installation of the gauge at an increased depth sufficient to record water levels beneath the
channel was also requested. Correlation of the gauge water level reading to continuous channel
flow is required for this type of installation. An accompanying groundwater monitoring well was
also requested.
• DMS suggested random vegetation transects for this area.
• IRT noted that the tree density was sufficient but was concerned that their vigor (i.e., size) was
not where it should be.
• IRT recommended additional plantings in this area with larger (5-gallon) trees of at least 4
different species.
• IRT stated that they would be looking for a defined channel with a history of flow and a lack of
these two features would be an issue.
• Matt stated that if the gauge was in a pool, it was correlated to elevation to show continuous
flow.
• DMS suggests continued monitoring and documentation of the "linear wetland areas".
Measured lengths should be discussed and documented in MY4 and MY5 reports. Detailed
observations of any channel adjustments within these areas should be made and presented in
the reports.

Reach 3
A small area of undercutting on the main branch was examined:
• The area appears to be stabilizing with tree growth, with no mass wasting, nice substrate, and
connected to the floodplain.
• IRT stated the area looks good.
UT-4 was examined near Gauge 5
• IRT stated the area looks good.
Reach 4
The left bank riparian corridor was examined (where the cattle had gotten in and grazed):
• IRT expressed concern about the size of the tree saplings.
• IRT recommend replanting with more mature trees (5-gallon) of at least 4 different species.
• At closeout, IRT is looking for trees to be at or near 10 feet tall.
• IRT believes if the area is left alone (not replanted) this area could be a concern at closeout.
Enhancement level 1 area on main channel (concrete removal area):
• A small area with scour was examined.
• IRT stated it was not significant and had no issues with this area.
The lower portions of UT-3 (ash grove):
• It was pointed out that Berger did additional work in this area that was beyond the initial scope.
• Berger asked about incorporating the extra section of work that had been done into the credits
(this would require a mitigation plan modification).
o IRT highly recommended against trying to modify the existing mitigation plan to
incorporate the extra section of work Berger completed as it could potentially open the
project to additional monitoring.
o IRT suggested that Berger note that extra repairs were made in the final report and to
also mention it at close out.
UT-3 was thoroughly examined:
• The tributary was found to be flowing.
• Bare banks along UT-3 were pointed out as well as the fact that the willow live stakes had leafed
out this year (had not the prior year).
• IRT recommended deploying a gauge at the mid -point of the stream length.
• IRT was concerned with the size of the tree saplings in this area and recommended planting with
more mature trees (5-gallon) of at least 4 different species.
• IRT recommended getting good photos year around to show the channel structure during each
season.
Reach 5
UT-5 was thoroughly examined:
• The tributary was found to have no flow but contained some wet areas.
• Gauge was moved to mid -point of the stream length
• Kim stated that she considered UT-5 to be a grass water -way.
• Mac stated it was likely not a stream.
• The soil was examined and found to vary between hydric and non-hydric.

• UT-5 was considered by the IRT to potentially not be a stream and is considered a clear credit
risk.
UT-6 was examined:
• The tributary was found to have flow and has historically had flow.
• IRT no comments.
• IRT no need for a gauge.
Cattle Crossing
• IRT — cattle crossing looks good and the re -enforcement looks sufficient. There was no evidence
of recent cattle access within the conservation easement.
• Asked about a hot wire for when cattle cross (had one, but the solar pack was removed by the
landowners).
• Asked about why the gates weren't kept closed continuously (maintain cattle access to water).
• Asked about alternative water (had gotten a cost proposal for a well but was too expensive,
researching other alternatives).
• IRT stated that they were not familiar with the blue pickle barrels but were good with whatever
we wanted to try.
o Verified that the blue barrels would be in addition to the existing fencing.
o IRT recommended waiting to see how the new re -enforcement was working before
installing the blue pickle barrels.
• IRT stated the biggest concern with the cattle crossing was continued maintenance by the
landowners.
• The easement modification was brought up (at state property office for review) and the IRT
expressed no concerns and made no comments regarding the easement modification.
Miscellaneous
• Paul would proceed with getting Berger paid for MY3.
• IRT requested that MY4 and MY5 reports include discussion on initial planted acreage versus
replanted acreage (as percentages).
• IRT recommended providing before and after photos of the site in MY5 report for their closeout
review to understand the uplift that has occurred.
• IRT was complimentary of Berger's efforts to keep the cows out and appreciated that Berger
staff visited the site frequently enough to be familiar with it and its issues.
• The possibility of an additional year's monitoring was brought up
o IRT stated this was a possibility due to low vigor on the tree sapling growth
o If an additional year of monitoring was requested, it could be tailored to just vegetation
o Paul stated that the IRT, in the past, has been very reasonable in requesting additional
monitoring years
Action Items:
1. Color code stream centerlines on CCPV maps for MY4 and MY5 reports to distinguish levels of
restoration effort.
2. Remove beaver dam and spread debris on the copper area and the bare area around vegetation
plot 11.
3. Deploy new gauge mid -point of stream length UT-2. Installation of the gauge at an increased
depth sufficient to record water levels beneath the channel.
4. Install groundwater well on UT-2 in conjunction with new gauge.
5. Replant around UT-2 with more mature trees of at least 4 different species.

6. Measure linear stream length that may be considered a linear wetland at closeout for more
accurate number in the winter. (DMS Note: This should be measured in both MY4 & MY5 to
track any changes. Measurements will be much easier in the dormant season).
7. Replant the left bank riparian corridor of Reach 4 (cattle grazed area) with more mature trees of
at least 4 different species.
8. Deploy new gauge mid- point of stream length UT-3.
9. Replant around UT-3 with more mature trees of at least 4 different species.
10. Conduct more vegetation transects around Vegetation Plot #11, UT-2, Reach 4, and UT-3.
11. Take lots of photographs of the tributary's in flow, at different times of the year, to show the
channels.
12. Include this meeting summary in the Appendix of MY4's report.

Supplemental Planting Location Exhibits

Ada "I Naa SN01-3a oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-
MLZ ON `46191ey
�aa3�g a�pna»aRed qgq �� S33In 2135 N011Vsn1iW J0 NOINNIN
oil vsn dSM iN OIL S]OiSl Bl M
1N3f 021d NOI1dN01S32� Wd3N1S
)iii2io oivAj l i 3i11N
1
o
D
I
a-
i Ld
Qgig w
LDt
( Z�
z LZO4
a za>
( N e p3#
LLJ
cD I
1 as
N
z \
aaly
'D H 1
�, se
MINIM-
o�
m �
m
o,

SNOINIA3d©se0�100N _3 ds«_
«� ON _
_za q_ :« w« «:« cn « «rw:
u__mm«w« ««««
aiana« e«w:ma«»« w:a:
s«:«««::«m :)}
! �
) is ,
Lo
a \?
2 ■& } g. .
s ` ��� •,,,!
CU
/ \
\\ �,
it _
z 2|
2^ § \■ \
m «■
( V.
: \ �
2 ���

Ada o Naa oisti3a oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
109LZ ON `46!aleTJ SS3IO213S NOILVO111W SO NOISIOIO
�aa�lS all!n n dS qEq 1O3f'021d NNO11V b01S32l VWV3b1S
sn
oil VSfI dSM
>1112iS oivAj l i 3i11Ii
a
g W_
12
LD
Z� a
oars^ ..S CUs��
,. (U Y Nei c
\

Ada o Naa SN01-3a oN SWd D34�N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
109LZ ON `46!aleTJ S]13IAd3S N011V0WM d0 NOIS1010
�aa33ui vna» dSAA q �� 1S3f'02ld NOILVb01Sl2l MV3b1S
oil VSfI dSM
)iii2io oivAj l i 3i11Ii
o$ I¢ ag LD�o
LLJ Q �
�4is
¢ ¢
Z69
Z
J Q
dE
4acu
o o�
<�
W.
(U J
d o
z �
ztag ��s3
d p$II 2S$
\ ^oR Qg
cuFR� wt.
N

3— NHJ Naa SN01-3a oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
MLZON `46191BTj S]13IAd3S NOIIVOlUM d0 NOISIOIO
dSAA Jaa3JS na» q � � i3lrO2ld N
3ui vS
NOLVd ]OiSl2l MV3b1S
oil fI dSM
)iii2io oivAj l i 3i11Ii
cLd
L7
W
¢gas
# I a
Zpa
was" oaf '$ Z1,;
¢d
two C I JCL
.;gT�
au>OD cl#
os�<
cu
(U `"avow Nm4
a \
w�
l D
Lo
o
¢u�
d o
_j z=N 4
a
sal
ao
8
�a
N9. 1
C3
o
o /
o
�J
0
o I

3— NHJ Naa SN01-3a oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
MLZON `46191BTj S]13IAd3S NOIIVOUM SO NOISIOIO
Jaa3lS allin 4E4 1O3f'021d NN011V b01S32l noo VWV3b1S
oil VSn fI dS dSM
)iii2io oivAj l i 3i11Ii
:g
o � 7 L7
Z '
r
o<>«
cua'^.m
ro �
D
J
�O
0
(1J

�dD a o NaD SNOIN 33 oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
MLZON `46191BTj S]13IAd3S N011V0WM d0 NOIS1010
laa3IS .ui vna» ej dSAA q i3lrO2ld Nnoo NOILVb01Sl2l MV3b1S
oil VSfI dSM
>1112iS oivAj l i 3i11Ii
o i
I
I � I
I
Ie
I
I
fi I I
I u
tl 1
� D
o�
I
�o
I I
I
tl1
j D

Ada o Naa SN01-3a oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
MLZON `46!aleTJ S]13IAd3S N011V0WM SO NOIS1010
Jaa3lS all!n n dSM
qEq 103f'021d NN011V b01S32� VWV3b1S
oil VSfI d
)iii2io oivAj l i iiiin
ao
PP
Ld
Q�
a ZU
CL
aJ
5 \q
Z4z
�0 \
Rj \
s
iP

Ada o Naa oisti3a oN SWd-0340N woo dsm mmm
1 9910-d ON asua31-1 o
MLZON `46,aleTJ S]13IAd3S N011V0WM SO NOIS1010
IaaJlS all!n n dSM
qEq 103f'021d NN011V b01S32� VWV3b1S
oil VSfI d
)iii2io oivAj l i 3i11Ii
-------------
a
1
g a
a �