20020694 Ver 2_Mitigation Information_20130829

LITTLE BUGABOO CREEK
EEP ID (IMS #56)
USACE ACTION ID # 200220955; 200900224
CLOSEOUT REPORT
PROJECT TYPE: STREAM
Proiect Setting & Classifications
County
Wilkes
General Location
Ronda, Wilkesboro
Basin:
Yadkin
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont - Foothills
Ecoregion:
Northern Inner
Piedmont 45e
USGS Hydro Unit:
03040101
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
03 -07 -01
Wetland Classification
NA
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Monitoring Year 2
Fall 2006
Monitoring Year 3
Fall 2007
Project Performers
Spring 2007
Source Agency:
WRP
Provider:
WRP /EEP
Designer:
Earth Tech
Monitoring Firm
Earth Tech; Ecologic;
URS; Equinox
Channel Remediation
WRC - Biohabitats
Plant remediation
Equinox
Property Interest Holder
NCDENR Stewardship
Visual and Vegetation
Monitoring
2010-2013
ED
I
i Iyi/ATEF? (}UALITY
Overall Proiect Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Instituted
2002
Property /CE
Dec -02 to Feb -03
Mitigation Plan
Aril 2002
Permitted
July 2002
Construction Completed
Nov 03 —Feb 04
Repairs
May 2004
As -built Survey and Year 1
Apt-2005
Supplemental Planting
A r 2005
Monitoring Year 2
Fall 2006
Monitoring Year 3
Fall 2007
Beaver Control
Spring 2007
Monitoring Year 4
Fall 2008
Stream Repairs
Aril 2009
Supplemental Planting
Aril 2009
Built El asset above stock
trail crossing
April 2009
Monitoring Year 5
Fall 2009
Vag Monitoring Year 6
Spring 2010
Storm Damage
Nov 2010
Visual and Vegetation
Monitoring
2010-2013
Beaver Control
2011
Livestaking on Mainstem
Dormant 2012
Invasives Suppression
Growing 2013
Additional Hydro and XS
Monitoring
2012 -2013
Beaver Control
2012 -2013
Closeout Submission
Sept 2013
Major Storms
May-July 2013
Invasives Suppression
Growing 2014

Project Setting, Background, and Performancb Summary '
The project is in Wilkes County, NC and was designed and permitted in 2002 It is in the western piedmont- foothills with an overall project drainage of about 5 mZ and is part of the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River Basin The watershed is rural with nearly half being forested and dust over half in agriculture that includes a significant proportion of pasture with about 2% being low density
residential and roadways Other than the northwestern portion of the watershed, the topography includes significant relief, rolling hills, with many steep valley side slopes, particularly in the
projects northeastern and southwestern drainages as well as the —2 miles of mainstem directly above the project (see topographic map below) Many of these valley slopes are maintained as
pasture similar to that immediately surrounding the project boundary, which exhibits significant compaction Collectively, this likely contributes to the somewhat flashy hydrology that has been
observed on the site
The project involved the restoration of 3,914 feet of Little Bugaboo Creek, 2,328 feet of an upper and lower tributary and an additional —250 feet of the upper tributary acquired and enhanced in
2009, 4 5 years after the original construction The latter took place at the same time that channel repairs on the mainstem were completed in 2009 and was driven by the desire to address the
significant stressor that this reach represented This —250 foot segment remained accessible to livestock, had an undersized culvert, and was covered in very large, mature stems of Chinese
Privet Sediments and manure were accumulating in the bed upstream of the culvert in significant quantities and were being periodically flushed down to project reaches At the very top of this
reach was a fenced, forested area with higher slopes This one 250 foot segment represented a significant stressor that EEP was unable to address with the landowner during the original
restoration effort and has subsequently enhanced the protective continuity and function of the project
The restoration plan reported historic channelization of project reaches, unrestricted livestock access, removal of riparian vegetation and the presence of a mill dam dust below the project that was
estimated to impound water and accumulate fine sediments approximately halfway up the project mainstem (see fig 1 below) The combination of these factors, the aforementioned hydrology,
and a significant sediment supply led to extremely severe lateral and vertical instability, as depicted in the pre - construction photos below The mainstem and lower tributary were described
predominantly as F channels with BHRs of 2 3, and 3 9 respectively The majority of each project reach was devoid of bedform diversity and any instream or riparian habitat The restoration
involved a PII approach with an E channel design target for the mainstem and a C design target for the tributaries specified in the mitigation plan, although the W/D ratios were nearly identical
near or at the Rosgen stream type break of 12 The project approach included the installation of a native riparian buffer, livestock exclusion, stabilization of lateral drainage features /draws,
construction of more stable channel geometries and the introduction of stream structures for improved habitat, bank protection and grade control
Shortly after construction, the project exhibited areas of adjustment or instability associated with a storm event and the project underwent repair and EEP was dissatisfied with many of the
structures built on the lower tributary The contractors were instructed to rebuild and replace these Additional areas of concern developed in the year immediately following final construction
and took the form of bank erosion primarily on meander bends, many of which had subsequently stabilized/arrested or were tempered with the continued development of vegetation The bank
stability issues primarily occurred on the mainstem between the upper tributary to dust below crossing in the middle of the project In general, many areas demonstrated toe retreat and steepening
of bank angles, which is typical of many meandering streams in the piedmont as banks that are not in depostional zones (e g point bars) and were originally constructed at lower angles lose their
herbaceous cover with the onset of canopy These areas are not considered areas of concern, because they adjust to these conditions and then remain relatively stable with the woody root mass
that has taken the place of the herbaceous cover However, there were other areas of active scour and mass wasting that did develop By year 4 and 5 these too seemed to arrest and were not
advancing further in terms of seventy, frequency, or extent, except for one area upstream and surrounding the confluence with the upper tributary spanning mainstem stations 20 +00 to 22 +00
Page 2 of 27

The cuts in the outer meanders here were definitely active and prompted the channel repair in this area 2009, which included supplemental planting in other areas along the mamstem with
additional livestaking throughout the project Subsequently, in 2010 a large storm generated other areas of bank erosion on the mamstem and lower tributary and also produced 2 significant
structural cutarounds on each reach The monitoring performed by EEP between 2010 and 2013 indicated that some of these areas stabilized while others have advanced Additional livestakmg
on the mamstem was also carried out in 2012 The year 3 report (2007) indicated that the proportion of bank instability ranged from the high single digits to the mid teens, but by year 5 (2009)
reporting indicated this had reduced to the low single digits in terms of the proportion of bank which had yet to stabilize The storm in 2010 increased this upwards again and as of an April 2013
assessment approximately 5 5 and 6% of the mamstem and lower tributary respectively exhibited some form of erosion with about 3% in each case being considered active Bank pins were
installed in July 2012 Of the 35 installed, 6 demonstrated bank retreat in 4 or 5 areas as of April 2013 (ranging from 0 1 to 1 4 feet — Mean = 0 85 feet), with remainder exhibiting no retreat for
an overall project mean of 0 15 feet The cross sections surveyed in year 5 were resurveyed in early 2013 and have shown some adjustment XS 3 and 4 on the mamstem exhibited some
movement, but with concomitant deposition on the opposing bank, while XS 5 is definitely continuing to migrate laterally with some enlargement of the area of XS 6 The latter was primarily
toe retreat XS 1 on the lower trib exhibited a shift of its thalweg to the other side of the stream, while XS2 exhibited stability Four additional riffle cross sections were shot in 2013, two on the
mamstem and two on the lower Mb to contribute to the overall riffle mean for comparison to the design cross sectional area The overall mean nffle area for the mamstem was 53 ftZ (n = 5) in
2013, which compared favorably to the design of 56, but there was variability ( -35 — 75 ftZ) The tributary varied between 21 and 33 for a riffle mean of 27 ft2 , which was the same as the design
target Another significant flood occurred in July 2013, which attained a maximum stage about 3 feet above the bench (see hydrograph below) and demonstrated flows 1 -2 feet above baseflow
fora 3 -4 day period This was a somewhat rare event with extended flow duration and the channel responded with new scour in some areas and worsening of some existing areas with additional
bank pin responses Of the 35 installed, 25 demonstrated some bank retreat for a mean of 0 66 feet The total bank erosion amounted to 8 and 6% for the tnb and mamstem with 4 -5% in each
case being considered very active as of the August assessment However, the flood features are routinely accessed (see over bank hydrology section below) Wrack and fresh deposition were
observed frequently throughout the project The number of overbank events represents a minimum count given the methods used Examining the crest gage that was put to place in 2012, it can
be seen that 2 overbank events were observed in that time frame even with a period of gage malfunction with 2 additional near overbank events
The project was designed and constructed in the earliest period of stream restoration in North Carolina and aspects of project implementation were not in keeping with current practice and
understanding and also include what are now identified as risk factors such as structure placement downstream of meander bends increasing in- channel storage capacity (t e , pools in the
upstream section of riffles /runs), E channel design targets coupled with Priority II approaches absent expansive floodplams and advanced woody vegetation, as well as meandering floodplams
These factors coupled with the aforementioned hydrology and sediment supply as well as the legacy sediments in the valley from the prior impoundment likely contributed to the instability that
was observed However, the proportions of the project channels that demonstrate active instability are relatively small (4 -5 %) as of the April 2013 observation Even with these localized areas
of instability, the project exhibits good mstream habitat and diversity of bedform and the majority of the project is exhibiting stability The project represents a significant improvement over the
pre - existing condition
Although the easement is narrow in some locations, the size, density and diversity of the buffer is generally excellent Chinese Privet began colonizing the site during the monitoring period but is
being treated in 2013 and 2014 along with other mvasives, which have emerged Three of the 14 vegetation plots did not meet the planted density requirements, but averaged about 500 stems per
acre When including volunteers, the average is about 1400 stems per acre ranging from 283 to about 3400 The species count ranged from 3 to 13 per plot with a total of 26 native woody
species observed site wide
Page 3 of 27

Goals and Obiectives
1 Provide a stable stream channel that neither aggrades nor degrades while maintaining its dimension, pattern, and profile with the capacity to transport its watershed's water and sediment
load
2 Improve water quality and reduce further property loss by stabilizing eroding stream banks
3 Reconnect the stream to its floodplain or establish a new floodplam at a lower elevation
4 Improve aquatic habitat with the use of natural material stabilizations structures such as root wads, cross vanes, woody debris, and a riparian buffer
5 Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat and bank stability through the creation or enhancement of a riparian zone
6 Exclude cattle from the npanan zone and establish stable crossings for cattle movement
7 Stabilize and enhance small drainages entering the site
Success Cnteria - None were explicitly stated in the development or AB documents but the following can be inferred
1 Morphological Stability
2 Floodplain access (2 bankful events per 5 year period in separate years)
3 A diverse and adequately dense riparian buffer (using 260 stems per acre criterion)
Page 4 of 27

Mitigation Components
Restoration
-Segment/Reach
STREAM
Mitigation
A pproach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage/Acreage
Creditable
Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation Units
SMU/WMU
Little Bugaboo Mainstem
R
2240
3914
3914
1:1
3914
Upper Tributary-1
R
102
439
439
1:1
439
Upper Tributary-2
E1
249
249
1.5:1
166
Lower Tributary
R
890
1889
1889
1:1
1889
Sums
3232 (5 mi
6491
6491
6408
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian Wetland
Non- riparian
Total
(SMU)
Units
Wetland Units
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
WMU
6,408
Page 5 of 27

Figure 1. Li�tle Bugaboo Cree k, (#54)
Asset end ,Mon`rt�oring Fea` rep tAgp`
pN I
SIR r
N
v''
. z
i�
- Wile gu9aboo MainslPm ' ^
ti
a•
s

v
x
Mapte ® S l opogra hic Serib T`" ©Mip ech R , I 8-933- X 00 °
pi .corn/topco Q «' C1
1f Maptecfv Lo _ >•e's ' v
a .e
,
Watershed Area
p 1- ::-�< 1.39 sq miles
rk
Q ,
!we
ten•\ �t .1 _ a ♦ • �.
, n
`�����.; is � I ��. —r.� I ,•\ / A
1 I Jam( 1
Watershed Area
o
3.45 s miles '
Source: USGSQuadrangles: 0 1,250 2,500 5,000
Thurmond, NC, 1971; Ronda, NC, 1971; N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
Feet NCDENR_DWQ_
Roaring River, NC, 1966, Traphill, NC 1968.
ASHE J— SORRY Figure 2 - Watershed Topography
ATAUGA DKIN Little Bugaboo Creek Restoration Plan
Wilkes County, North Carolina
� C DWELL ALEXANDER RED L � �.�

0
E
w
0
n
w
u
_ n
r7
N
n
M
N
Y
Site
Legend
CkA Chewacla loam, 0 -2% slopes, frequently flooded a Rn
MaB2, MaC2 Masada sandy clay loam, 2 -15% slopes, eroded
Muc Masada -Urban land complex, 2 -15% slopes
PaD Pacolet sandy loam, 15 -25% slopes
PcB2, PcC2 Pacolet sandy clay loam, 2 -15% slopes, eroded
RnD, RnE Rion fine sandy loam, 15 -60% slopes
StB State fine sandy loam, 1 -6% slopes, rarely flooded
F]ToA Toccoa sandy loam, 0 -3% slopes, occasionally flooded --
w Water --
0 1,250 2,500 5,000 N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
Source: Surry county Soil Conservation Service, NCDFNR DWQ_
Soil Survey Field Sheet F -6, 1988. Feet
ASHE
BURRY
f t I Figure -Soils Y --
4u.
WATAUGA
�l
,.n.
YA KIN j Little Bugaboo Creek Restoration Plan
Wilkes County, North Carolina
CA WELL !ALEXANDER ) IREDE L

0 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200
Feet

Maintenace Plan View
4r
Legend •
•- •- - -•-- Silt fence xwr „ara tie
Road an Nrc
Top of bank
- -- - - - --- Area of d sturbance x X n
CS
�9 �SFR gTOM�gSeMFNT
f
2p
3718.4E SEMPO
96.127 --
'-v- I Install rock j -hook at end of meander at Station 20- W
Removed mid - channel bar: reshaped
left bank for proper cross - section dimension 1 t u
from station station 21+00 to station 21 +80
Installed rock j -hook at station 21 +90 . 2
- l N, d In
Installed rock sill —to mitigate headcut i t
\ i �,a a cb Io x ws a
�a i H \ ry rpdd'ti. 2 + 'r'w 25
xwE a, •. M1 j�.
Area
To existing gravel road I – . %RtiFi�' \ Installed rock to raise elevation
ofexisting cross vane
Access through pasture
NSF
'bFryT REp� \Gf\ ofd` \NP
Note:
1. Plan view maps not to scale.
2. Strmium placement on plan shears ore for location�only.
Actual placement shall be directed by Project Coord'filutor.
Cco stmcnan Scgaera:e: '3'• Construction Sequence (continued): St'?.po UiF '7
1. Obtain plan approval and other applicable permits. 12. Shape stream banks to design elevations and construct bankfull benches. Sloo from the back of the bankfull benches to existing ground
2. Stockpile sedin it and erosfA control materials on site. elevation not exceed 2:1,,4nsmll m -morom structures. Cover disturbed ground with solvaped sad meta or seed, femilin, and cover with coir
3. Stake sensitive areas. construction limits and corridors as indicated on construction plan matting andlor straw mulch by the e
4. Move heavy equipment qn site and walk through entire project with tnnnactor. 13. Remove pumps and temporary dikes from within the stream channel at the end of each day.
N S. Install temporary grovel construction entrances• as needed 14. Fertilize. It=. teed, and mulch all remaining disturbed areas at the end of each day.
6. Install sediment and erosion control measures around surging and stockpiling areas. 15. Upon completing a section, heavy equipment and pumps will be moved to the next section using log mats to cross existing tribnlaries and ditches
7. Haul boulders, and wads, and logs tee the site for building stream structures. 16. Insult permanent fencing.
S. Install temporary dikes and pumps necessary to dew ater the potion of channel being worked on each day. as necessary. 17. Upon glhnpletion of construction, all remaining disturbed areas will be repaired.
9. Project will be constructed by first replacing the CMP. enhancing the unnamed tributary, and completing maintenance on Litre Bugaboo CreektS. Remove all equipment and unused contruction materials. including any trash m waste. from project site.
10. Sequence contmctom so that the Restore the unnamed tributaries dtmensron and profile from the downstream end. working in upstream. 19. Feryjlize. lime, seed and mulch all remaining disturbed areas. '
11. Soil disturbance will be limited to only what work can he accomplished and stabilized on o daily basis. 20. A0,cr site is subdued. remove Ahemporary erosion control measures.
nd of each work day 2I . Install bam -root, container grown, and live stake plant material during the dormant growing seexnn.
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT GROUP Little Bugaboo Creek Mitigation Site Maintenance to Little Bugaboo Creek SHEET
Wilkes County, North Carolina Plan View I
P. O. BOX 387 336 -527 -1547 OFFICE EEP Project Number: 00056 OF 1
ELKIN. NORTH CAROLINA 28621 336 - 527 -1548 FAX
Little Bugaboo Creek 8
EEP Project Number: 00056
2009 Maintenance Report — Draft, June 2010

Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross - Section 3 - Riffle
1120
UT to Bugaboo Creek/ Project No. 00056
Cross - Section 1 -Pool
1110
1109
1108
1106
1107
1116
1106
'•
1105
e 1114
1104
LE 1102
1103
n_..
1102
�
1110
1100
1099
1101
1108
1100
1099
1106
0+00
0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50 0+60
Station
Year2 -11/06 �Year 3 -11/07 -' Year4- 12/15/09
-art -Year 5 - 12/10/09 — Closeout- 2/6/13
0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1 +00
Station
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross - Section 3 - Riffle
1120
1118
1106
1116
1105
'•
e 1114
-
LE 1102
m
1112
1101
v
�
1110
1100
1099
1108
1106
1113
4
0+00
0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1 +00
Station
-+� Year 2 - 11106 — Year 3 - 11/07 — Year 4 - 12/16M
—Year S- 12/1L09 - Closeost - 2/6/13
age 12 of 2
UTto Bugaboo Creek XS 2 -Year 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay
1107
1106
1105
'•
1104
m 1103
-
LE 1102
1101
v
1100
1099
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station
Year2 -11/08 —1-3 -11/07 - - ^- 1ear4 - 12115108 Year5-12f10109
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross - Section 4 - Riffle
1113
4
1112
1111
e 1110
1109
1106
m
1107
1106
1106
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
-+F -Year 2- 11/06 - *-Year 3- 11107 —Year 4- 12716/08
--Year S- 12/11109 —aeseoul - 2/6/13

Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross - Section 6 - Riffle
1100
1099
Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (0 -2000)
1098
Stations differ between monitoring years.
P; was
Bugaboo Creek/ Project No. 00056
Zn4-
a.. d..N
Cross-section 5 - Pool
1104
eneaolt d- to 1101aa balk
y
1102
1109
1094
109J
0+00 0+10 0+20 D+30 0+40 04-50 0+60 0+70
Station
1100
1107
�
°—
1105
a
d
11098
096
w
[i1
t
1101
1094
r
i
1099
1097
1092
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-0
+10 0+00 0 +10 0 +20 0 +30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0 +70
Station (ft)
Station
—*—Y earl -2/06 • Year2 -11/06 — t- -Year 3 -11/07
Year4- 12/16108 �Year5- 12/11/09 — Closeout2 /6/13
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross - Section 6 - Riffle
1100
1099
Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (0 -2000)
1098
Stations differ between monitoring years.
1097
1111
C96
95
1109
1094
109J
0+00 0+10 0+20 D+30 0+40 04-50 0+60 0+70
Station
—Year 1 - 2/06 .: Year 2 - 11 106 - -Year 3 - 11107
—Year 1- 12/16/08 —Year 5 - 12/11.09 �- 0weaat - 216/13
1107
Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (0 -2000)
Stations differ between monitoring years.
1113
1111
1109
1107
°—
1105
a
1103
w
1101
r
1099
1097
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Station (ft)
—Year 1 -2/06 —Year2 - 11/06 —Year 3 - 11/07 Year - 12/15/08 and 12/16/08 - Year 5 - 12/11/09 —2009 Water Surface 2009 Structure

1115
1110
0 1105
cc 1100
°' 1095
w 1090
1085
UT to Little Bugaboo Creek
Longitudinal Profile, Year 2 and 3 Overlay
Overlay adjusted by matching cross section 1.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Station
—Year 2 - 11/06 —Year 3 - 11/07 Year 4 - 12/15/08 Water Surface 2008 Structure
Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (2000 -4500)
Stations differ between monitoring years.
1102
1100
1098
1096
—
1094
1092
h
__
d
1090
w
1088
�^ -
'
1086
1084
1082
2000
2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Station (ft)
Year 1 -2/06 -Year 2 -11/06 -Year 3 - 11/07 ---Year 4 -12/15/08 and 12/16108 Year 5 - 12/11/09 -2009 Water Surface 2009 Beaver Dam A 2009 Structure
1115
1110
0 1105
cc 1100
°' 1095
w 1090
1085
UT to Little Bugaboo Creek
Longitudinal Profile, Year 2 and 3 Overlay
Overlay adjusted by matching cross section 1.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Station
—Year 2 - 11/06 —Year 3 - 11/07 Year 4 - 12/15/08 Water Surface 2008 Structure

Table VIII Mornholoev and Hvdraulic Monrtonnn Summary
little Bugaboo Creek
EEP Project Number 00056
Parameter
Cross Section 3
Riffle -
Cross Section 4
Pool
Cross Section 5
Pool -
Cross Section 6
Riffle -
Dimension
Mvl
M2
Mv3
MY4
MY5
Mvl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
NM
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
271
193
224
208
456
206
14
226
225
175
313
273
19
173
196
178
133
132
157
209
Floodprone Width (fl)
913
91
805
95
95
688
493
>50
>50
60
528
>50
>55
>55
55
39
45
38
45
45
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
632
457
513
605
652
34
216
424
417
371
47
31
392
421
592
206
231
21
235
426
BF Mean Depth
23
24
23
29
14
17
15
19
19
21
15
11
21
24
3
12
17
16
15
2
BF Max Depth
47
42
32
44
51
37
261
29
3 71
35
51
44
46
45
521
241
25
22
23
33
Width /Depth Ratio
116
82
97
72
319
125
91
12
122
83
208
241
92
72
65
155
77
83
105
103
Entrenchment Ratio
34
47
36
46
21
33
35
>2 2
>22
34
17
>1 8
>29
32
28
22
34
29
29
21
Bank Height Ratio
-
1
14
1
1-
I
I
I
I-
14
1
1
1
--
1
I
I
1
WettedPennicter(fl)
30
218
242
24
496
229
158
243
25
195
362
324
241
225
258
193
148
153
176
241
Hydraulic radms (ft)
21
21
21
251
1 3
15
1
17
1 7
19
13
1
16
19
23
1 1
16
l
1 3
1 8
Substrate
d50 (m11)
5
6
7
18
35
029
13
] I
99
11
029
094
069
02
045
2113
48
46
69
45
d84 (mn)
15
64
18
18
38
2331
59
17
37
110
2
48
30
11
6
54 5
130
901
110
rTahle VIII Mnrnholnvv and Hvdranhr Manitnnno Cnmmary fennt 1
Unnamed Tributary
FB Project Number 00056
Parameter
_ Cross Section I
Pool
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Dimension
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
235
138
151
146
156
188
174
148
126
147
Floodprone Width (ft)
52
>427
>47
>45
>45
324
>81 0
>50
>51
>51
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
383
233
255
293
333
307
305
269
28
323
BF Mean Depth
16
17
1 7
2
2 1
16
18
18
22
25
BF Max Depth
38
35
37
35
37
32
32
31
35
38
Width /DcpthRatio
144
82
9
731
73
1151
99
82
57
67
Fntrenchment Ratio
25731
>3 1
3 1
29
17
>4 7
>3 4
4
3 5
Bank Height Ratio
I
1
I
I-
I
1
I
I
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
257
175
182
189
198
207
196
178
153
176
Hydrauh(, radius (ft)
15
13
14
1 6
1 7
15
16
15
1 8
1 8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
1 021
121
0381
89
43
234
221
551
7 1
94
d84 (mm)
1 071
681
901
451
231
5131
681
1001
34
33
- ftM ate M m to i S- ammary� Little Bugoo }TbclA. 3 pg� & a
a
Parameter
XS-3
Riffle
XS-4
Riffle
XS -6
Pool
XS!
Riffle
XS -1 Riffle -
Extra
X3-8 Riffle
Extra
Dimcnafon
Record rlwmwn (datum) Used
11128
11097
11002
10965
998 155
995 669
Baakfull Width (11)
207
194
452
194
304
148
1 ioodp -., Width (11-)
>97 2
>50
-100
>50
>50
>30 3
Bankfull Maan Depth (fl)
31
26
25
20
25
23
Bwtkfua Mus Dcplh (ft)
48
34
65
31
43
32
Bankfu9 Cm +a sccnonat Ara n'
64 1
50 8
114 2
387
752
345
Oankfull WtdthNgah Rntm
6 7
7 4
17 9
9 7
12 3
63
Bankiuil Intrenchtrrcrt Ran-.
>4 7
>2 6
>2 2
>2 6
>1 6
>2 1
Bankfi ll Bank I k,glit Ran-.
1 10
1 1 2
1 0
1 0
10
1 1 0
�Tebic,thl a 2013 Morpboiogy BcltHydratilic9Mooiitoring StimmarypUT to Little
�B blrboox', �� !%q fl
Parameter
XS -1 Pool
XS -2 Riffle
XS-UT1
Riffle Extra
XS-UT2
Riffle
Riffle
Dimension
Rc ord Elevation (datum) Used
1104 430
1103 213
999 666
994 556
Bankfull Width (R)
186
151
11 5
150
Floodpronc Width (R)
>50
>50
>50
629
BankRill M— Depth (ft)
20
22
1 9
18
BankfullMax Dxpih (R)
34
33
28
26
BmItfull Cross Sectional Area R-
36 3
33 4
21 4
271
n ..bf a ❑t aa,m....a, o... ,,
n c
a o
c s

Overbank Events -Bugaboo Creek
Date of Observation Date of Occurrence Method (s)
2/4/2005
Unknown
Flood lain Indicator Photos
12/2/2007
Jan -07
USGS Proxy
12/16/2008
Aug-08
USGS Proxy
12/16/2008
Nov-08
USGS Proxy and Photos Doc
12/10/2009
Unknown
USGS and Photo Doc
1/29/2010
Jan -10
Photo Doc - Fresh deposition and wrack
1/28/2011
Unknown
Photo Doc - Fresh deposition and wrack
12/26/2012
12/26/2012
90% bankfull occurrence
1/17/2013
1/17/2013
Continuous Stage Recorder
1/30/2013
1/30/2013
95% bankfull occurrence - Continuous Rec
7/5/2013
7/5/2013
2 X bankfull - Continuous Rec
Fresh Flood deposition Jan 2011
Page 16 of 27

Current Plot Data (MY6 2DIO)
���EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
►�
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEiC
EEE
EEnE
m
�
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���
EEEC
EEE
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEiC
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEiE�
EEE
!
�EEicEEEEEEEEEEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
R46okeberry�EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEE7E
��EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE�EEEEEEEEEE
• �' I��EEEEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
©EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE�E
���EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
D����
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
L�ffi'���
EEE
©Eie
EEDEC
EEE
EEE
EEE
E
©E
EEE
E
©ic
EEE
EEE
EEEE�
EEE
iDiDic
�L�"��
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
����
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEEEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�'���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���
EEE
©
©
©E
©E
EEE
EE
©EEE
EEEL
E
©E
EEiCEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
TE9•":�'�l��
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
' 1���EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
��EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEiC
E
©E
C��f��
EEE
E
©E
EEE
©E7ie
EEE
EEE
EEEEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
��EEEEEEEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
��
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEEEEE
EEEEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
MOW
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEEEEE
EEEEEE
EEEEEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEic
EEDEL
EEE
EEEL
EiDic
EEE
EEEiDiDic
E
©E
EEE
EEE
EIE3E
���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
��EEEEEEEEiE�EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
©EEE
©EEE
EEEEE
���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE'.EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EE�CEE
EEE
�
northern red oak
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
�r���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
��EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���EEEEEEEEEEEE
©EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
��EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
©EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
���
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
EEE
.. .
®
©EEEE
EEE
EEEv
©
®E£
EEE
©
®Ei�
EEEE
iDE
©EEE
EEE
EEEL
EEE
EEE
0000
©ooaoo0oo©
. .
EiDEEEic
EEE
FEEL
EEE
EEEG
© ©E
iDEEL
E
©E
EDEDiE
©E)E'
EEE
E
©iE
EEEL
Page 17 of 27

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
Although some localized areas of instability remain and some severe, they were attributable to
the factors outlined above and the proportions of the project channels that demonstrate active
instability are relatively small ( -4 -5 %) as of the August 2013 observation Even with these
localized areas of instability, the project exhibits good mstream habitat and diversity of bedform
and the majority of the project is exhibiting stability Its floodplam is accessed regularly and the
size, density and diversity of the woody vegetation is excellent The project represents a
significant improvement over the pre - existing condition and EEP recommends regulatory closure
as proposed
Contingencies
After groundtruthmg the easement shape that EEP was in possession of, one area (see project
remediation map above) below the confluence with the upper tributary was thought to be in
error However, GPS data used to perform that groundtruthing were later proved faulty and the
easement shape as depicted above is in fact correct, indicating that approximately 300 feet of
fencing will be moved outward to match the correct easement line The current buffer widths
range from a minimum of 27 feet to 69 feet (mean of 46 feet) spanning this area
Page 18 of 27

Pre - Construction Photos
Page 19 of 27

Page 20 of 27

N
W
O
N
N
Op
c�
a

Post - Construction Photos

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
56 — Bugaboo Creek
The Bugaboo Creek project (located on Little Bugaboo Creek) is located in the Bugaboo Creek
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), as identified in the 2009 River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) document for the upper Yadkin River basin (EEP, 2009). The Bugaboo Creek TLW
(14 -digit hydrologic unit 03040101070010) is 24.6 square miles in area and drains a
predominantly rural /agricultural landscape in northeastern Wilkes County, just north of the town
of Ronda. The TLW is characterized by 44% agricultural cover, 25% degraded (non- forested)
riparian buffers, 15 animal operations and 39% water supply watershed (WSW) waters.
Impervious cover is less than one percent. Neither Little Bugaboo Creek nor Big Bugaboo Creek
(into which Little Bugaboo flows) are noted as impaired or impacted by DWQ in the most recent
basin plan (2008 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Plan) or the 2012 303(d) list. However, there are
no DWQ monitoring stations on Little Bugaboo Creek. No NC NHP significant natural heritage
areas (SNHAs), natural heritage element occurrences (NHEOs) or NC WRC priority aquatic
habitats are documented within the TLW.
Major watershed stressors identified within the 8 -digit CU comprising the Yadkin River
Headwaters (03040101), which affect some stream reaches within the Bugaboo Creek TLW,
include in- stream sedimentation (from unstable stream banks and agricultural runoff) and
degraded riparian buffers. As stated in the 2009 RBRP, primary CU goals include limiting
inputs of sediment, nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria from active farming operations, the
implementation of agricultural BMPs within high - priority subwatersheds, and the restoration of
water quality and aquatic habitat within impaired or degraded stream reaches.
There are no other EEP mitigation projects within the Bugaboo Creek TLW. There are several
agricultural BMP sites that have been implemented within this TLW since the mid -1990s [see
Figure A -1 below], funded through the Ag Cost Share program, according to data provided by
Tom Hill (NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services — Division of Soil and Water
Conservation). The specific BMP types include grassed waterways, livestock exclusion/fencing,
vegetative filter strips, waste storage ponds, pasture renovation, stock trails, cropland conversion
(to grasses), and new /alternate watering sources (wells, troughs, tanks). There is also one
agricultural BMP site within the TLW that was funded by the NC Clean Water Management
Trust Fund program in 2002.
Project documents indicate that pre- restoration conditions at the Bugaboo Creek project site
included actively eroding stream banks, degraded riparian buffer vegetation, excessive cattle
grazing and unrestricted access of livestock to Little Bugaboo Creek and tributaries. The EEP
Bugaboo Creek restoration project has resulted in the restoration of more than a mile of stream
channel, the planting/restoration of riparian buffer acreage and the installation of farm BMPs
(including exclusion fencing and alternate watering sources). The Bugaboo Creek project should
directly benefit aquatic habitat and water quality by significantly increasing stream stability and
nutrient filtration, thereby reducing local sediment and nutrient inputs, as well as fecal coliform
bacteria.

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
Figure A -1. Bugaboo Creek Project Site and EEP TLWs
Ivor a B Creek -
SORRY
Bugaboo 6 . r �, kit=henR+vw
Creek -
_ o _
�Yy
WILKES
Eldn
c
N
-
_ Joneevie 'YAD K9 N
r'a
a Ronde
�°e _
SQ'4r p Yk = G -
Upper Yadkin 1
Kerr Scott ...: Math WYkes o = .south -Peep Oms,
Reservoir LWP • - °
Legend
• EEP Projects - 2013 Closeouts
• EEP Projects (Tier 1)
= Agricultural BM Ps (Yadkin 01) °
& 319 Projects Hunting creek
/
G4YMTFSites
EEP Local Watershed Plans N
EEPTargetedLocal Watersheds W E EEP 2013 Project Closeout 0 1 2 a �r,„�7,
Q Catalog Units Bugaboo Creek (Yadkin 03040101 Mlles l.k�.: �,�,I
QCounty Boundaries S g � Rev: 12June2013

Appendix B. Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project
includes a portion of the following parcels.
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA/56 BugabooCreek.pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred
to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
Bowman Bauguess and wife,
Wilkes
Conservation
DB 898, P 432
1.330
Nancy Bauguess
Easement
Frank K. Bright and wife,
Wilkes
Conservation
DB 898, P 385
0.010
Jannette H. Bright
Easement
Charles N. Jordan and wife,
Geraldine Jordan; Kenneth
Jordan, and wife, Margaret
Wilkes
Conservation
DB 903, P 317
3.820
Easement
Jordan
Charles W. Woodie and wife,
Conservation
DB 904, P 380;
7.046
Gloria Woodie
Wilkes
Easement
DB 1082, P 289
Charles N. Jordan and wife,
Wilkes
Conservation
DB 907, P 122
1.720
Geraldine Jordan
Easement
http: / /www.nceep.net/GIS DATA/56 BugabooCreek.pdf
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred
to the DENR Stewardship Program, which will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.

I nc=
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200220955 County: Wilkes
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property
Owner NC Wetlands Restoration Pruram
Attn: Jeff Jurek
Address- 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1619
Telephone Number 336 - 733 -5208
Authorized
Agent NA
Address
Telephone Number
Size and Locs;tion of Property (waterbodv. flighw"Y name /number town etc.: - The - project is
located along Bugaboo Creek and Little Bugaboo Creek, north of Roaring River, Wilkes County, North
Carolina. The site is located in the Yadkin River Basin.
Description of Activity: This permit authorises stream channel excavation and relocation, the placement
of fill material (stream diversion plugs), and tho installation of in- stream structures (including coin fiber
rolls, log and rock vanes, root wads, riprap, etc.) associated with the construction of the Little Bugaboo
Stream Restoration Project'. Impacts to existing waters of the U.S authorized by this permit total 6,30
linear feet of stream channel. See attached special conditions.
Applicable Law: _Section 404 (Clem Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only_
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number
27 Nationwide Permit Number
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and /or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit verification does not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Todd TuAweh at telephone number 919) 876 - 8441 extension 26
Regulatory Project Manager Signatu
Authorization Date _ July 15, 2002 _ Expiration Date July 15 2004
SURVEY PLATS, F ELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORK fF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CF:
ann i7nn ,3 nTRG# 022i qvu aovg l £Z859L86T6 LZ 80 ZOOZ,9Z'Onv

�<
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 200900224 County: Wilkes USGS Quad: Ronda
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Address: ATTN: Mr. Gregory Melia
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Telephone No.: 919 - 715 -0476
Size and location of property (water body, road name /number, town, etc.): The proiect site is located off Hoots Road
(SR 2014) approximately 3 miles northwest of Ronda, in Wilkes County, North Carolina. The water bodies include
Little Bugaboo Creek and an unnamed tributary to Little Bugaboo Creek, both are within the Yadkin River Basin.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit MODIFICATION verifies permanent impacts to 200 linear
feet of stream channel within Little Bugaboo Creek for the purpose of restoring damaged areas of a previous
restoration site (NWP 3). In addition, permanent impacts to 285 linear feet to an unnamed tributary to Little
Bugaboo Creek are verified for stream enhancement (NWP 27). All work must be in compliance with the plans
attached to the permit application. Since the purpose of this work is stream restoration, no compensatory
mitigation is required. This permit contains Special Conditions (please see below).
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 3 and 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and /or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation. unlea
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation tinder the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management .
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal.
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Monte Matthews.
Permit Condition: 1) Due to previous information concerning this site and the overall need for repair work, additional
monitoring will be required. Therefore, the 5 (five) year monitoring period will restart with the implementation of
impacts verified under this permit. If 3 (three) consecutive years of monitoring shows a successful and stable project, the
Cotes Representative may eliminate the remaining 2 years of monitoring.
2) Since the restoration work to the unnamed tributary is for mitigation, all standard 5 -year monitoring requirements
apply.
Page 1 of 3

Corps Regulatory Official Monte Matthews Date February 13, 2009
Expiration Date of Verification February 13, 2011
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public To help us ensure we continuo to do so
please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at oul website at htto / /reeulatoi v usacesunev cow" io complete the sur%e)
online
Page 2 of 3

Mitigation Project Name Bugaboo Creek
EEP IMS ID 56
River Basin YADKIN
Cataloging Unit 03040101
ADolied Credit Ratios: 1'1 1.5 1 2.5*1 5.1 1 1 311 2'1 5'1 1'1 3.1 2'1 5 1 1.1 3'1 2'1 5'1 1'.1 3'1 0.5.1 1*1 1'1
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/09/2013
O
A
o w
Z K
N
N aM
oU
2
R d
W
n �
oL
Z W
N
°' a
o u
2 a
r 0
A
'm o
'" d
U
~
f
mU
U
A«
m
«
ms
U W
m$
U a
W
m 0
O
~'.
Z
p
Z
O
r
a
O
Z
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
6,242.00
249.00
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits feet and acres):
DWO Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
1999 -0492
1999 -20833
NCDOT TIP R -2239C -
Widening of US 421
6.141.00
133.50
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
101.00
115.50
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/09/2013