20181273 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220126

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20181273 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/27/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/26/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Matthew Reid [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20181273 Version:• * 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Bug Headwaters
County: Wilkes
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: BugHeadwaters_100084_MY1_2021.pdf 20.92MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

{SV
y c '` Yea
MONITORING YEAR 1
WilkesBUGHEADWATERS County, NC MITIGATION SITE
ANNUAL REPORT Yadkin River Basin
Final HUC 03040101
DMS Project No. 100084
January 2022 DMS REP No. 16-007406
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
USAGE Action ID No. 2018-01788
DWR Project No. 2018-1273
Data Collection Dates: October 2021
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

10111,
41/
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
January 24, 2022
Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
NCDENR- Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: MY1 Report Review
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site,Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin: 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100084
DEQ Contract#7617
Dear Mr. Reid:
On January 3, 2022, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) regarding the Draft As-Built Baseline Report dated December 8, 2021. The
following letter documents DMS feedback and Wildlands' corresponding responses and revisions to the
MY1 Report.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment: Please include a discussion regarding the request to change 3 fixed plots
to 3 random plots in this section. Please include the email correspondence with the IRT in Appendix F.
Response:A discussion has been included.
2.3 Stream Assessment: Please add the following statement or something similar following the pebble
count data discussion:The IRT reserves the right to request pebble counts data/particle distributions
if deemed necessary during the monitoring period.
Response: The statement has been included.
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan:The IRT should be notified prior to any adaptive management
activities occurring on the site.This includes supplemental plantings.A phone call may be sufficient,
but larger efforts may require species lists, quantities/density, planting area, maps and whether
selected species deviate from the approved Mitigation Plan.The IRT will determine if a formal
Adaptive Management Plan is necessary.
Response: The IRT has been notified, and correspondence is located in Appendix F.
Murdannia is widespread on the site. All stream channels and wetlands are affected. DMS
recommends discussing this problem with the IRT and developing an Adaptive Management Plan for
this issue.This invasive species is aggressive and difficult to control and will likely be an ongoing issue
throughout monitoring.
Response: The IRT has been notified, and correspondence is located in Appendix F.
WWildlands Engineering,Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

Tables 4 and 5: Please add the dates that assessment work occurred on to these tables.The IRT has
requested this information be included on these tables at the 2021 Credit Release Meeting.
Response:Dates are now included in Tables 4 and 5.
Please include figures displaying the crest gauge data to illustrate the occurrence of bankfull events.
Response:Crest gauge data in included in Appendix D.
Thank you for your review and providing comments on this submittal. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at [phone], or by email ([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
WWildlands Engineering,Inc. (P)919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225 • Raleigh,NC 27609

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
312 West Mil!brook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

BUG HEADWATERS MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1-2
1.3 Project Attributes 1-3
Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment 2-1
2.1 Vegetative Assessment 2-1
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 2-1
2.3 Stream Assessment 2-2
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern 2-2
2.5 Hydrology Assessment 2-2
2.6 Wetland Assessment 2-2
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan 2-2
2.8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary 2-3
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 1-2
Table 3: Project Attributes 1-4
Table 4: Updated Vegetation Plot Names 2-1
FIGURES
Figure la-c Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Culvert Crossing Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Section Plots
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final i

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Table 12 Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plots
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
IRT Correspondence: Random Vegetation Plots
As-Built IRT Comments
IRT Correspondence: Adaptive Management Activities
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Wilkes County, approximately 9.5 miles
northwest of the Town of Elkin.The Site is on two adjacent row crop and livestock farms in the foothills
of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is near the border of the piedmont and mountain physiographic region
but is technically in the piedmont.Table 3 presents information related to the project attributes.
..1 Project Quantities and Credits
The Site is located on two parcels under 2 different landowners and a conservation easement was
recorded on 22.50 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration, enhancement I, and
enhancement II of perennial and intermittent stream channels.Table 1 below shows stream credits by
reach and the total amount of stream credits expected at closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES it
Mitigation Mitigation
Project Plan As Built Mitigation Restoration Ratio Credits Comments
Segment Footage Footage Category Level (X:1)
Stream
Big Bugaboo 868 869 Cool R 1.0 868.000 Full Channel Restoration,
Creek R1 Fencing Out Livestock
Big Bugaboo Constructed Riffles, Fencing
Creek R2 981 981 Cool El 1.5 654.000 Out Livestock, Internal
Crossing
Big Bugaboo Pond Removal, Full Channel
Creek R3 1,764 1,756 Cool R 1.0 1,764.000 Restoration, Fencing Out
Livestock, Internal Crossing
Big Bugaboo 394 390 Cool El 1.5 262.666 Graded Bankfull Bench,
Creek R4 Fencing Out Livestock
UT1 389 390 Cool R 1.0 389.000
Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT2 R1 505 505 Cool ElI 2.5 202.000 Fencing Out Livestock, Minor
Bank Grading
Raised Riffle Bed, Fencing
UT2 R2 80 78 Cool El 1.5 53.333 Out Livestock, Utility
Crossing
UT2 R3 436 440 Cool R 1.0 436.000
Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
UT2 R4 314 301 Cool El 1.5 209.333 Bank Grading, Fencing Out
Livestock
Full Channel Restoration,
UT2 R5 741 729 Cool R 1.0 741.000 Fencing Out Livestock,
Internal Crossing
UT2A R1 135 134 Cool ElI 2.5 54.000 Fencing Out Livestock, Utility
Crossing
UT2A R2 445 445 Cool R 1.0 445.000
Full Channel Restoration,
Fencing Out Livestock
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-1

UT2B 168 167 Cool Ell 2.5 67.200 Bank Stabilization, Fencing
Out Livestock
Pond Removal, Full Channel
UT3 1,412 1,384 Cool R 1.0 1,412.000 Restoration, Fencing Out
Livestock
UT4 128 131 Cool Ell 4.0 32.000 Fencing Out Livestock
Total: 7,589.533
Stream
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 6,055.000
Enhancement I 1,179.333
Enhancement II 355.200
Preservation
Totals 7,589.533
Total Stream Credit 7,589.533
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits.Table 2 below describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.
Table 2:Goals, Performance Criteria,and Functional Improvements
Objective/ Performance Cumulative
Goal Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Criteria Measurement Monitoring
Resu Its
ER stays over 2.2
Construct stream Minor deviations
Reduce erosion and and BHR below
Improve the channels that will Cross-section from design due
sediment inputs; 1.2 with visual
stability of maintain stable monitoring and to in-stream
stream cross-sections, maintain appropriate bed assessments visual vegetation.Will
channels. patterns, and profiles forms and sediment size showing inspections. be treated in
over time. distribution. progression MY2.
towards stability.
Install habitat
features such as
cover logs, log sills, Support biological
and bush toes into communities and There is no
Improve required
instream restored/enhanced processes. Provide performance N/A N/A
habitat. streams.Add woody aquatic habitats for standard for this
materials to channel diverse populations of
beds. Construct pools aquatic organisms. metric.
of varying depth.
Fence out livestock.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-2

Objective/ Performance Cumulative
Goal Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Criteria Measurement Monitoring
Resu Its
Reduce shear stress on Bankfull events
channel; hydrate adjacent Four bankfull recorded for Big
wetland areas;filter events in Bugaboo Reach
Reconstruct stream pollutants out of separate years 3 and Reach 4,
Reconnect Crest gauges UT2 Reach 5,
channels with overbank flows; provide within
channels with appropriate bankfull surface storage of water monitoring and/or pressure and UT3 in MY1.
floodplains transducers UT1, UT2 Reach
and riparian dimensions and on floodplain; increase period. recording flow 1, UT2A Reach 2,
depth relative to groundwater recharge 30 consecutive
wetlands. elevations. and UT2B
existing floodplain. while reducing outflow of days of flow for
stormwater; support intermittent exceeded 30
water quality and habitat channels. days of
goals. consecutive flow
during MY1.
Reduce sediment and
Stabilize stream nutrient inputs from
stream banks; reduce
banks. Plant riparian There is no
sediment, nutrient, and
buffers with nativerequired
Improve water trees. Construct bacteria inputs from performance N/A N/A
quality. BMPs to treat pasture runoff; keep standard for this
livestock out of streams,
pasture runoff. Fence metric.
out livestock. further reducing
pollutants in project
streams.
Survival rate of 13 of the 15
320 stems per One hundred vegetation plots
Provide a canopy to acre at MY3, 260
shade streams and planted stems square meter have a planted
Restore/ Plant native tree vegetation plots stem density
improve species in riparian reduce thermal loadings; per acre at MYS, are placed on 2% greater than 320
riparian zones that are stabilize stream banks and 210 stems of the planted stems per acre.
buffers. currently insufficient. and floodplain;support per acre at MY7. area of the Site Winter
water quality and habitat Height
goals. requirement is 7 and monitored replanting will
feet at MY5 and annually. occur along 1.75
10 feet at MY7. acres.
Visually inspect
Permanently Establish Ensure that development the perimeter of
protect the and agricultural uses that Prevent the Site to
conservation No easement
project Site easements on the would damage the Site or easement ensure no encroachments.
from harmful reduce the benefits of the encroachment. easement
uses. Site. project are prevented. encroachment is
occurring.
1.3 Project Attributes
The Site includes the headwaters of Big Bugaboo Creek.All project reaches and the majority of the
watershed areas are contained within two farms, the larger of which is owned by Horace Randle Wood
while the smaller is owned by Gaye Swaim. Mr.Wood has owned the property and used it exclusively to
graze cattle since 2012. His property was historically used for grazing cattle though tobacco was also
cultivated on small sections of the property. Prior to construction, the Wood property remained mostly
non-forested cattle pasture with cattle having access to all surface waters on the property other than a
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-3

pond just below the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek and UT2 and short reaches of both of these
streams just upstream of the pond. Cattle access had severely degraded a majority of the streams.The
Swaim property has been in the family for over 60 years and had primarily been used for row crop
agriculture. Prior to construction, it was used to cultivate corn and soybeans.There was an in-line pond
on the Swaim property that received heavy sediment loads whenever the fields were tilled due to the
absence of a vegetated buffer around the pond.The remaining portions of the watershed outside of the
Wood and Swaim properties are mostly cleared and used for pasture and row crops, although there is a
pocket of forested area on the southeastern side of the watershed and wooded riparian corridors are
present on the far upstream and downstream ends of the Site.Table 3 below and Table 8 in Appendix C
present additional information on pre-restoration conditions.
Table 3: Project Attributes
•ROJEC
Project Name Bug Headwaters County Wilkes County
Mitigation Site
Project Area (acres) 22.50 Project Coordinates 36.32139 N, 80.98432 W
Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Yadkin
USGS HUC 8-digit 03040101 USGS HUC 14-digit 03040101070010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01 Land Use Classification 86%agriculture, 12%forested,
2%developed
Project Drainage Area (acres) 322 Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
ESTORATION TRIBUTARY SUMMARY INFORMATIO
Big
Parameters Bugaboo UT1 UT2 UT2A UT3
Creek
Pre-project length (feet) 4,007 389 2,076 580 1,412
Post-project (feet) 3,996 390 2,053 579 1,384
Confined to Moderately Moderately
Valley confinement Confined
Unconfined Confined Confined Confined
Drainage area (acres) 322 7 65 17 96
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial
DWR Water Quality Classification C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing) F4/B4 B4 F4b A4 G4
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed) B4/C4 B4 C4b B4A C4
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable Stage III
EGULATORY CONSIDERATION
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and
DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes No.4134.
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes (Wildlands, 2020)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) N/A N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 1-4

Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project.The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic
assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 3: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional
Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the MYO Annual Report (Wildlands,
2021).
2.1 Vegetative Assessme
In the approved Mitigation Plan (2020), only fixed vegetation plots were proposed on the site.After
discussions with the IRT(Appendix F) during as-built, it was determined that random vegetation plots
were required for the Site.Three vegetation plots were switched from fixed plots to random plots.The
three fixed vegetation plots from MYO that were switched to random plots were VP 3, VP 5, and VP 15.
The table below are the vegetation plots with the updated name changes.
Table 4: Updated Vegetation Plot Names
Updated Original Updated Original
Name for Name for Name for Name for
MY1-MY7 MYO MY1-MY7 MYO
VP 1 VP 1 VP 9 VP 11
VP 2 VP 2 VP 10 VP 12
VP 3 VP 4 VP 11 VP 13
VP 4 VP 5 VP 12 VP 14
VP 5 VP 7 RVP 13 VP 4
VP 6 VP 8 RVP 14 VP 5
VP7 VP9 RVP15 VP15
VP 8 VP 10
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in October 2021. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 40 to 607 planted stems per acre. Out of the 15 vegetation plots, thirteen are meeting
the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Fixed vegetation plot 12 and random
vegetation plot 15, are both located along UT3 which was the bottom of a former pond. Both vegetation
plots are not meeting the interim requirement with only 40 planted stems per acre surviving in each
plot. Herbaceous vegetation is also abundant across the Site and includes native pollinator species
indicating a healthy riparian habitat.The riparian habitat is helping to reduce nutrient runoff from the
cattle fields outside the easement and stabilizing the stream banks. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation
Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot
Data.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The MY1 assessment indicated only a small number of planted trees survived in the old pond bottoms
along the right side of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and both sides of UT3 (Figure lb-c).The visual
assessment of the right side of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 indicated some planted trees survived, but
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-1

not at the appropriate densities to meet the MY7 final requirement of 210 stems per acre.The visual
assessment of UT3 indicated only black willows (Salix nigra) are becoming established.The major cause
for the tree mortality in these areas is likely highly saturated soils.These areas in the old pond bottom
are naturally low spots in the floodplain and have standing water on them for a portion of the year.
These areas will be evaluated and planted in the winter of 2022 with woody stems more suited for
saturated conditions.The low stem density areas are only nine percent (1.75 acres) of the entire planted
acreage (19.00 acres). Even though many of the planted trees did not survive the saturated soil
conditions, herbaceous vegetation, including pollinator species, is thriving. Refer to Section 2.7 for more
information on the management plan for the low stem density areas.
Murdannia has grown throughout the existing wetlands (6.61 acres) on the Site (Figure la-c).The
invasive vegetation was treated in July 2021 using a chemical treatment but follow up treatments will
occur in MY2. Refer to Section 2.7 for more information on the management plan for Murdannia.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in October 2021. All streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. All 18 cross-sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull area
and width-to-depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Pebble count data is no longer
required per the September 29, 2021 Technical Work Group Meeting and is not included in this report.
The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary
during the monitoring period. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table and Stream Photographs and Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data.
stream Areas of Concern
Murdannia has spread from the wetlands into the stream channels on the Site (Figure la-c).The in-
stream vegetation was also treated in July 2021 at the same time as the wetland treatments. Due to the
amount of in-stream vegetation throughout the channels, some sediment deposition has occurred.
Once the invasive vegetation is removed, it is expected the sediment will flush through the system.
Refer to Section 2.7 for more information on the management plan for Murdannia.
2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull events were recorded on Big Bugaboo Reach 3 and Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5, and UT3. All channels
are on track to meet the hydrologic success criteria of four bankfull events in separate years.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on intermittent reaches (UT1, UT2 Reach 1,
UT2A Reach 2, and UT2B) for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year.
Intermittent reaches maintained baseflow from 102 to 211 consecutive days. Refer to Appendix D for
hydrologic data.
2.6 Wetland Assessment
The extent of wetlands will be reverified during MY5 to document wetland acreage was not lost due to
stream restoration. No performance standard is tied to reverification.
..7 Adaptive Management Plan
Supplemental planting will occur in the former pond bottoms along the right side of Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 3 and both sides of UT3. Due to saturated soil conditions, a mixture of bare roots and live stakes
will be planted in the winter of 2022.While species selection will be dependent on nursery availability,
the current plan includes black willow (Salix nigra), silky willow(Salix sericea), elderberry(Sambucus
spp.), and button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) as live stakes and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-2

river birch (Betula nigra), box elder (Acer negundo), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata) as bare roots. Refer
to Appendix F for IRT correspondence.
An aggressive treatment will occur during MY2 to treat the widespread Murdannia in the wetlands and
stream channels. Depending on the effectiveness, multiple chemical treatments may occur between the
end of May and August. Refer to Appendix F for IRT correspondence.
e..8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Out of the 15 vegetation plots, 13 are exceeding the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per
acre. A mixture of live stakes and bare roots will be planted on 1.75 acres during the winter of 2022. All
streams within the Site are stable and meeting project goals. Murdannia was documented across stream
channels and wetlands and will be treated aggressively throughout MY2. Bankfull events were
documented on all stream reaches and greater than 30 days of consecutive flow was recorded on all
intermittent reaches, fulfilling MY1 success requirements. Overall, the Site is meeting its goals of
preventing excess nutrients and sediment from entering the Yadkin River tributaries and is on track to
meet final success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 2-3

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy,J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites:An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 2008.Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Accessed at: https://saw-
reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilm ington-District-Mitigation-Update.pdf
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2020. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project Monitoring Year 0 (MVO)Annual
Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report-Final 3-1

e'
',, , a
•
- • I
#fl
*-
' sl;'�, - FidurP 4 s
x' ' �' I� `ern
• III i�� �0PRfu czt3 4_
_ - -• ; 1 a a�
, " UT2A
R
UT2 • each 1 •
,,.') -1 I -
\ Sr -
-
� ,I • - '�
' UT2A
:ram` ��� �� _ 3
- r
4 x 0 ‘ 3'' • _ _ _ •
te r, ,i /�
•
nRe.Gh4 ��' \ —�s �
(1. iiiii- r
i
' iq + Brig Bub' �Creek ?
ir
Aik *
ilt
t.t. 1,-
Fi• ,�441741111H ;�►
Re.,:h1. 4 -
it
1
•
lik . :lir
: " J- -i. -,
i r}i Q Hg 17g�b00 ..1 s .
': t I 0 ♦■ ' Re.Gh�3 '
ili •
' IP‘‘ 411, , ,/ . // . ,, ., 'si, . ..1 i 'a* .
•
11,11P „. ,
. .... ., -
ii- ,. , .
, ,
/ /Ili .410.00
,, 4-fi ' l' • .-• , ,
w • t
♦ / \ I /
\ \il \• =r
♦ /
Iiirlir
`♦ • „z
41111
*114,„ �~ .1'`/"‘y\ �/ i -1
�� , x.4 \ !/� / DU Dangt1b roo r _ . Conservation Easement
��
. 1 �, �// ;r/ R ad' 3 VAInternal Crossing
likx
J RJ
i.'"' •'4 iii. . ,
-
1 A, l_ // ��� Existing Wetlands
X \, �;� �,; -
r t v 7 v� Ephemeral Step Pool BMP
i ,y; i o / _ j/� Pocket Wetland BMP
.
►� + `l Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1
i \
C3Bg o cc) „„,.
-- Criteria Met- Fixed
4'' 0 - Criteria Not Met Fixed
-
1.11 Y O Criteria Met- Random
gl44 O Criteria Not Met- Random
_ git_Al � •tip-k••- -I- {
Stream Restoration
‘a .., Stream Enhancement I
— Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
g =g Fence
• v. Utility Line
�• Cross Sections
0.- 0 Reach Breaks
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key
W I L D L A N D S 0 350 700 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I I I i I DMS Project No. 100084
N Monitoring Year 1 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

1 a . cif
0HIV
.. Ili ° Ill
I�.4 4 I
ti
i 6 III n�
I1ULS
II' �4li
II; .( Reach 9
/ ill
111 old
>
IP � �t UT2A
/,' „�� Reach 9 M/I/ 7 ,
Reach 111 II
. - - ,..../17, 7
Ili i i' %
ii, _� - — s ue ^,/
o
of UT2A
'. yr
t
Reach ,g4
4 n� , WO
,� Ig STA 201+36: Riffle covered in
sediment at As-Built. Will be
Reach C) repaired or maintained as needed.
j*, /ter . '. A =• ''
0411141116,
's7� s.. i
ii \—-•�
;)' . . . . . . . . \%‹. . Ir<%'. , '0
• /•? --.0_,.- , - --z ...-f,.0�
il
I, , lag Bugaboo( r
/ Reach 9 ' 1-• .
;,..;,..-.. 7 • IV fr , A- i 1 4
• x _ , .47,; ., ..•., . 44 ail tilt I, ,
Conservation Easement Stream Restoration Stream Area of Concern- MY1
.-
j Internal Crossing Stream Enhancement I Murdannia
Existing Wetlands — Stream Enhancement II 0 Reach Breaks
Ephemeral Step-Pool BMP _ No Credit Photo Points
Et Bugaboo @jr)2113
Reach /// Pocket Wetland BMP --- As-Built Bankfull 0 Barotroll
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1 Fence 0 Flow Gauge
Criteria Met Fixed --- Utility Line Structures
Vegetation Area of Concern- MY1
• • _ - Cross Sections
• • • Murdannia
2018 Aerial Photography „r'
Figure la. Current Condition Plan View
0/Zi WILD L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I l I l I DMS Project No. 100084
N Monitoring Year 1 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

n�
" f
M.
r _ Conservation Easement — No Credit ;j
- i Internal Crossing --- As-Built Bankfull 1% %`
Existing Wetlands Fence -1/ , It
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1 _-
- Utility Line i� �
/
Criteria Met Fixed F Cross Sections - = = —_ �� ,
O • . � ,
Criteria Met- Random Stream •Area of Concern- MY1 UT2B %1 -, • i IM
Vegetation Area of Concern- MY1 Murdannia la ' Reach
� Low Stem Density 10 "r
}\ / 0 Reach Breaks Murdannia ,f
��� / ��
Photo Points 1 r�
Stream Restoration 119M '
Crest Gauge s 4,0
Stream Enhancement I Flow Gauge Reach 01 4,*
, /
c I/ t
Stream Enhancement II /!Structures
ii� /l
�r..f I� r: (RN
III Reach 4
e XS13
XS
�1 i' ! 14
%% r '/I
ill 1 III
' - ill ':'?1 0\ '"
� �, '% �
I -r �1
ifitri 41110' I k ,1*:::' ,4
' '- III �.
�i ,-. j / i
-1414 1141"/ / •
s _: / ,�` 0 Et Bugaboo
'Allle#
, � y�. r Reach
i
a
4 %1 /
, At+ ,,,, //.
. _ 4
tP
�
//
//
/i r
//. O.. a; . en . .,,,, 4
i • • • • • // ,,r�
-'e� /
re
I
r / . ,.. ._ . . _ .. . _ . _ .
Bugaboo C
��' . . . — Reach B _ _ _
.......
/0°,
A/
' ,/ rAA i •, -
- ,,, , 018 Aerial Photogr._Q- .
Figure lb. Current Condition Plan View
el/1P W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I i I i I DMS Project No. 100084
N Monitoring Year 1 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

4111111
mum
>�t#
r
s
•
it
�`• •• , ,raw♦♦♦ ,,,
r��N���
'.♦. \ Abp..--ttii, %, Nii,
_ s .
,,,....
4/ v
fri.1,. g ,...„--
. . . . r- ;
, •
UT3 . : :II -• /' .
PP46 �
;tip. K. \� %, r
.; `, , % /fir
'.-' =+ f au Bugaboo(g, {
-•,.-7-,.. • • _ - .I,_*.:a p-,-.'44 i1.Parr,i N-
!d )�� �� . . . I Reach�3
�, 1. �/
4•
11 �
\I. =i, :o...±. - -;.,;:-,,, ,f,/
Fr 111 ', \ 7./.,74t
/-' ill -,,,,,
-... It14. - .16,,i4- - . , . .
. r .r*.'f� . • —� v1► 1) k
ir:
-.,g. ,. ,i
'� iX W \
Nr-
Ct Bugaboo CL'3 A -I-51 ,)'1 ' "
A .` 13
Reach 4 ►
r � Conservation Easement — Stream Enhancement II �� , Kr ' I10
11► L
'4A Internal Crossing — No Credit Lir
Existing Wetlands --- As-Built Bankfull x. - 0�'
of
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1 _ Fence • ox
Criteria Met Fixed --- Utility Line A_
Criteria Not Met- Fixed = Cross Sections -
OCriteria Met- Random Stream Area of Concern- MY1 '1 '
OCriteria Not Met- Random Murdannia •• 4"
Vegetation Area of Concern- MY1 0 Reach Breaks
>C Low Stem Density 0 Photo Points '
Murdannia 0 Crest Gauge
Stream Restoration Structures Si,
Stream Enhancement I it
i •
Figure lc. Current Condition Plan View
OZWILDLANDS 0 150 300 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I I I i I DMS Project No. 100084
N Monitoring Year 1 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Big Bugaboo Reach 1-4
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 3,996
Assessed Bank Length 7,992
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 25 25 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 58 58 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
UT1
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number' Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended ootage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 390
Assessed Bank Length 780
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 15 15 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 4 4 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT2 Reach 1-5
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
ajor Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 2,053
Assessed Bank Length 4,106
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 22 22 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 30 30 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
UT2A Reach 1-2
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
rChl
Category Metric Number' Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended ootage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 579
Assessed Bank Length 1,160
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 14 14 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 7 7 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT2B
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 167
Assessed Bank Length 336
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 4 4 100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection influence does not exceed 15%. 0 0 N/A
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.
UT3
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number' Unstable Performing as
Performing
as Intended ootage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 1,384
Assessed Bank Length 2,768
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control 0 0 N/A
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of 23 23 100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT4
Number
Stable, Total Amount of %Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing
As-Built Footage Intended
as Intended
11
Assessed Stream Length 131
Assessed Bank Length 256
Surface Scour/ Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from 0 100%
Bare Bank poor growth and/or surface scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank Toe Erosion 0 100%
modest,appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational,slumping,
Bank Failure 0 100%
calving,or collapse.
Totals: 0 100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control 0 0 N/A
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection influence does not exceed 15%. 0 0 N/A
Visual assessment was completed October 27,2021.

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acrea:e 19.00
Mapping
Definitions Threshold(ac) Combined %of Planted
Acreage Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0%
Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
0.10 1.75 9%
Areas criteria.
Total 1.75 9%
Areas of Poor Growth Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance 0.10 0 0%
Rates Standard.
Cumulative Total 1.75 9%
Visual assement was completed October 27,2021.
Easement Acreage 22.50
Mapping Combi� %of
Definitions Threshold Easement
Acreage
(ac)
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage.Include species with the 6.61 29%
Invasive Areas of
potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term or 0.10
Concern
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary. 9,188 If* 100%
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
Easement of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common 0 Encroachments Noted
none
Encroachment Areas encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no /0ac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.
*In-stream invasive vegetation(Murdannia spp.)was documented in all stream channels using linear feet instead of acres.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

L.
$ - - `"9 f rkt9 t a �; 97Zyam ). v ,::„ e � 7' F �, r- • — 1 '.i_Z'7'''',V..P.P'. 1.!'i.
ryd .3` ''',1? + �tF.x� �4 �" _, t� `S 4 f 4& £ "- AN ;3 ' Y's F \ c i
,,p
't '�. `Ta r
�4�r 'i-- ,a 't�` ; 5
rr Fs{YCa- , �;--,r w'rf'\ tl s ' � ' + -`� ek9r Aa• C ax� "�\isy y'V"t . . ti e °� � "T•� 44 4 1 " a� , 1 fr . . -' _t � , � �� e 1 ' 1 a^�' �°° ` \- � hxa F4�� ;zxr E
y , ; a " ,# - � _ k .-�
PL
sx - 1 : �' r e _ �� `- � _- ;, k i -+3 latri3 `'i kl'e r 4 �
A.- - ..
,'�x .�. ; y7 ,,'m,.��as ,rdiu,._•� �. _ _ .��, • - - h d �.n�if ^'-,av
PHOTO POINT 1 Big Bugaboo R1—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 1 Big Bugaboo R1—downstream (10/27/2021)
4 3 cry - 4.-iz, '� q- \ - - � ' m ` >�y �F.._s. � ,
w M
iR, .•r, x�- �',-'- „ > xs"k° #ri f..r ''• _ ` q f r 'g fi',r d'a
-alb 5i 5 r x , -l i i�a • a — -a . J a i
/y/
PHOTO POINT 2 Big Bugaboo R1—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 2 Big Bugaboo R1—downstream (10/27/2021)
40 It.-
_ej;A'-; ' - - e t ti t, � �1
rr
k t r 17'•
*,
ass - x' -' t -
•
•
k'-''''.11''''',`,.f ...---,,,,. t—- ,-,,V.•-`.'',4----,--.. ,
, .. i'...,-:N.,..-"N":„ ''''• , ' 'ge...•,..-.•'
ilv
„.4
.,. a ev s q: v*.s t,
'v� +E.}}off ,f yn err
In VIA; lit �:. '� P,P$ T' • �s�r"'sue 4b
PHOTO POINT 3 Big Bugaboo R1—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 3 Big Bugaboo R1—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
kill Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

Sh, ; P 0.Pf i��� �^ ' - 1.
e
u.
„„,
Y
_ s. - ,—,, , ,--„-.1...-.- V ...,.ir'".., -40ri''''Y'""'r .11 ',1=', ?,',',A,-r. ‘:':1'`..,.
0,
PHOTO POINT 4 Big Bugaboo R1—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 4 Big Bugaboo R1—downstream (10/27/2021)
r
�3 pia i ► i r I--1- = k�
4 i
", ,f * 2�r1 ,�t=5 k'
y�a
'3.
•
f 1 A - _l t Y 6r fi f ,I ��' 4+,ry T Y,
�s" F ' ;'L f qr: .• gg '` ��II�,,x A`- .Y1 it;b L
•
. it YF. .r L ,tArt 'r;b,n \ - f�.✓...�4N R141F,. iFZ ', - n1 S
PHOTO POINT 5 Big Bugaboo R2—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 5 Big Bugaboo R2—downstream (10/27/2021)
I k
' 4N •
� / d•
, _ , '7,'..'- -. if. .411 ::,r--;r
_ - F`Nk § 'wa'
.. .........4,,,,,,,,..„tr$ ,.
- ;,..-_,„.„,., -;,..,. .,ii.,:,:,.;,-;7:--,.,._
_ ,,r,;\.,,_
i , - -.,,,„ _ 1
.. .. ,. _;:..--;,-,-,1:-.7,1-_,;',
§ LLLVVV!,,,,,
S vATM _
,j.-pper` S ,15`f 4, A ,,,„4. �L � ® 4• ' _ � '�
PHOTO POINT 6 Big Bugaboo R2—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 6 Big Bugaboo R2—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
tiiii Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

k;c f
�: ' 4"
'; ter } <
.. , _ _.1 i''. „.r.r_ )
, ./
(L/ f a 1i
PHOTO POINT 7 Big Bugaboo R2—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 7 Big Bugaboo R2—downstream (10/27/2021)
�a. ��� :'. = y Y u, xa a$ i ,pry �H�
{ '. > `.'y. -T �T° �P, x r-: _ 'i7�'Y atfr
� � �,� �. x} '^a"y �Xs.�. o-�
•
: .;0,„- •60.kri,„_,,,,
u
` t�- ,, r pa-•1 � � �v L �i:._ �`��' . � .'�'� Ra rr I � 5 "' J � '�6� �� �i.
f `
t n$. -., 1 x ',,y(.+a f_• -'�R 1 }F\ ,. ,k4" ry `rn
`'1 a > \ / +c k', -
PHOTO POINT 8 Big Bugaboo R3—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 8 Big Bugaboo R3—downstream (10/27/2021)
f
�� 1 1
. ;:?i fit' S t -7
. Y d. fi'Y� -• -'•'.
l'Itr
} r r. �3`�#4v i d-� f' lj \ � .� fir' _ __-,` C
�' jp
�i � s'� { Is��-, � 1 9 �' �C xis �' , .r� 1' !, ���'�
.,K fir � 1 �G r„ a,. �`µ > - i _ "�ti /b ,� `yes
a ��T r J7
•
fPHOTO POINT 9 Big Bugaboo R3—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 9 Big Bugaboo R3—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

� ..
,�y yh �„� � rs � � e x^s � zv
:"4.-^'l' Z_ -. ▪�'pr�} f• { i }� Y k Yx �i a ,. F "� f:
1�' ay.•' �" i 3 '7 � +� Svc ] �s 'n! �
•
? ffi4 r `" ▪ �$ s->ar��( ,s- � :;� x ,z -. E$s, r �� �.4 !ve s ry 5 i _
r _ s,. ,�
Vis
•
'"'1y � x s .' �' ". ' b W3 i 3 'S4' £' 'a.s j Cr Y E' 4F ^s'T"..,
•
t.,'-'1141'''..'.41,?''...4,r."4:friti:4;Nikl*.At' '''..4.'''-' ' -1")32''''7'''''''- '' -- .
, _ 1 Y� £+ �£ ` - _ -1 T{ 'x. 4.,fy h Y L
_ '-SF,'-,-''''.:,:'�' e'' -• ..4 -"`A' - -1, 'k� - '�•i-a,.`n _ _ r S r, hwrrS r• .
y .:.9 v _:`' 5.., _ •n' 'rF' •-'t s { i', '�.�i- y . r P
- r % A.� - —, j i-- - r at p -'��"`,,. .k S. -�'� - l i�, e'! ` h '�
_T- .s w rim ' x.he,. '' yM,;- i ' • c ' { �;
-;; I 4 r „ ',y..s-, ' -"9I .-Y, f _ y "'- A yv�_ -� r �4.�-h qr-h
' !nFf' - �."i +, �` ► r �- t 9 F'rt� .1 ;c y 4=t" .i
PHOTO POINT 10 Big Bugaboo R3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 10 Big Bugaboo R3—downstream(10/27/2021J
4 t A
°r
r
•
,,yam a - .�� :.„, 'L .r
_ A �' .'"q-4,t,.Z'4,:r,.',,,?i-vl1,k 4;,,,-.,•;--'-.,.':,.,.-,-.2---00;,M4
•,-..- - .k'.i;l'4•ji.'otkm'''--rA,•., - e F
▪ -r,..,i•-41.:,,A-,
;I.- .-e,''
y y-' Ex. -- .s__y„▪ v 't- yam - } r 'r r• • ' .-,''.,.'.-....'.'."'.';''_
- C' ) -
f k1,4.,,4':.,4,•'j4,r,r-f,,-
c i Y' g4 LSk -J Ef.! i -T• 1 'l,''1.",:f„:
.t P / :V, :
,, ' -. - k,Y'r/ r, ? 4 r ;., �.�xy ';;4yam
•
3,r' zti s 3 7 y ri r Y
, , ." • k t '`•Z i fir ,t i` ' - + h rr
PHOTO POINT 11 Big Bugaboo R3 pstream(10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 11 Big Bugaboo R3—downstream(10/27/2021)
.,.—u
1.4,,,,,;...,,,,-,,,,,..,,,,:,,,,.,,,,,,.„,:.
,.,
,..
�r�r '. ,,,,. ..., .__ , . �
� ea.,:
g��r � k�r ^ �.�• d � � � : 4 ^ s � ; �r ��'--.
°� � � rye y .,,,..-,,,• ,-....,,,,,,,,„,,,...„„,...,,.,_,...._..,.;� s �E Y,E � - � F�„� y , �i r �' z� „�$• `„e9 �* , ::: ._..„...,,,,,I.,
,-,
K' ?ic .r x t7� o, / _e .
� %�r ,yx �err_ ..� moa � „'?� :,,,, t ,j-; ,4r,7 7._ , f�
• t j ,s^ , « '0 ".'
PHOTO POINT 12 Big Bugaboo R3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 12 Big Bugaboo R3—downstream(10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

a fi t�' ," 4. n t-s;. - ' 1 -. ^s3" .,r 9 } p - sma .,,,,,!F - i ''. +1 ,
•
s 1 x , t N x ' - s w '� ,3 t o
.,:,V,''..1',1•'',;.•-t-:-:e„.';.''„.'•.•:-„.'..r•..,,s W:.
..' 'r-i%'4Y W}(�`}E gym. 4 ` y0 x. _ '.r "f,"�iy"r - a ; 'f .., a.1 •,. d r ,` �.1 - yr \s ,.5
1 Y S '4 h t r i-3:t .1i J vt `,. L 9eE"' fi"i 4"y' f i
k r pA- 7 s. 4 y r 1 ,, ,.' '� - k - +;z+i M '`'e 3 ha a 4- -
.,::;,:fx.X,,,0 ,Q;1-30-VY,671:0•P'''''''-k' -:'''''''''''''''' * b 1‘ ---- - "`"-'-'",---,"/..4- -41k,-;:t-1001-o-t-iu'o"."t';.-,-."4.„,,,-N*17.7.g- ':.,-N.I.-""4,11":"..t."
e7.7:,,,,3!,'.:P4-',--:?-:(_,-.-_,-2.1.-.4-z;I-,... 4;;;-1,w-y.-.'-t-4.-,..ii-„,),?$.,:-.'..AV:v*-$1;7-21,
" 4 C� r _`": :.w yr '', fir. dk y
> • y
1�. Y iw-. � yr y Y' • 3,.'il'�4 C -1„ � � -5 st• r _ • 6iF w W
A� b 4 � <} � 3l FF l --y 1
PHOTO POINT 13 Big Bugaboo R3-upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 13 Big Bugaboo R3-downstream(10/27/202.1)
r '} s' t y4 .r � �., r " .4., a r 4 : e ' y
.
��.i�� `� ,li,
�ors ° i ,, r� ' - �` -� _ r 1 l�
� � ' • �.,�'_ i t - Y� 4 J � -gam
r
PHOTO POINT 14 Big Bugaboo R3-upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 14 Big Bugaboo R3-downstream(10/27/2021J
1
Tom. b ry, --. .. .. _ fti _ / "k
,-,,,,,i-.0„.4.4,:liertif,-*:,...i-',qt-- .
s.tria ,„-.4,.„ ,e. „_,,w_17,., 5,1,,,,, ..,.
ir..**, -.,,o,ey,.v,.., , .;.+..,,:::., .\ i.?.,...A, :,...,. :b" .. ::::-L;c:.,',::,. : : 1. ._.::, .,
0 l'-
'd a
PHOTO POINT 15 Big Bugaboo R3-upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 15 Big Bugaboo R3-downstream(10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
till Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

•
f :
, Y '
Y. - - - f - � 9a t r.. - «
•
• ' ip. RsES x Y e 7 d si ,, Y -u s4 � � y k y g : �fx r . ,g k .- srk • s --�� :
a a...''';5 .. rY+6 7 i, h �sfr} { i 'e 1, I -,T `r r I 77`' :''Y� *�.. �'� ii
4,11_,..:„..t,..,,„.--;„..-,„,.....,..--e.''......Pc"..;t: .....1.7.
, 4 t )a ,ter "
Y'. 1.44 f taw . .,:ir 1 - _ r ,.i3c _
-- -.- -
„6„, -,, .4„ --1.. , - ,-k-
..,., ,. ..
PHOTO POINT 16 Big Bugaboo R3—upstream(10/2.7/2021) PHOTO POINT 16 Big Bugaboo R3—downstream(10/27/2021)
Y H rr3, g
.,
4 f
4
'
�l wi.�§ -"'k 1v$'
Y F�
r t
PHOTO POINT 17 Big Bugaboo R4—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 17 Big Bugaboo R4—downstream(10/27/2021J
4 Y �Y ....a,
sy4 +!
r r. x
Y
' 4„. _ "„ ^fit' �3`�'
•
• ' `z fv .r�t ;,,§$ s ' a"�' a " s' uer- r .:,, _ i,.....„..,..,,i,..:..„ ..,,.. ._ . p
I '
. , , . ., .,
•,;(:ttisiv,.ft.-4_, :4-0,i.:,•,••,,,,..;;....,.2.4
,, _ . ....,„.3;i1i,... ., „. ., • •„..i.,•_,......::_i_.f.;, , .
,...iit , . ,..,..,,,.....„. ..,...„.
t,i., Allp att4:.....'..._-------
PHOTO POINT 18 Big Bugaboo R4—upstream (10/27/2021)) PHOTO POINT 18 Big Bugaboo R4—downstream(10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•
a i! fi ii ¢
--' .�.� ��• ,A4A 6 Yk' s 3 `. " - ..,_e,_`n - - : �✓� �:y��, : fi wrYy S
iN
•
i$•
'- 4i ; ' x t � yI � �r Jr . , 'ti-.` J
»',•.S 11
/ .. "`.-., >„"f �`am ig
—
PHOTO POINT 19 UT1—upstream(10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 19 UT1—downstream (10/27/2021)
' ' :' e ' ik' 110,6., '
,,,,, ,.. _e:-,-,..i, f' ,,514,114,0;_ , ,isii:''— ,":4,a, ,,,_...n2'7 '
4, t
, ....... ‘,..,,,,,,,, ._ ,, . . _. _,_,_-**',. i..-. ._.,,„Njot-*4,,--„Iwirili‘ --, -'1,4riCe*:,-• .,AI.--,-,— ''''
- ''''''':.4. -,,,.:, t- -.. A �`
:40.0r..._. 1._44...r,..- ..-.-,,,
-, ,,-,i.,.
,,.......4.44, -,-_.
,_:„.4.,......7„4.4...„. _..-
•v y- gs K _g ,'a �G i el;')..."-,'
k' .....4--, ---,-- '---\'
I
PHOTO POINT 20 UT1—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 20 UT1—downstream (10/27/2021J
� : ..
ice` � L
g.:' p` ,
+ {,r Afar
ir
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1—upstream(10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 21 UT1—downstream (10/27/2021J
e M Site
AppendixBug Headwat A:Visualrs
Assessmentitigation Data—Stream Photographs

d" a �► 1 /" af4 ! r _'!r ram[,- 'S.., i �qy
t.
l t .r bi 3 -7
u �✓s obi a k� ��^
'��`a lk
t '.v\ 'F3� - - y',,Cfy Y r4 3'� [ 1 �,Ytw>f k A.
5.
a Y �;" sh'°� o „ -r., ", - �,. 1� ,yc g' �# "'a�frV - ' 4 - r
•
a. `4 k„ i ,t-s k,-- ,, ''" ' "�.'':` - '� ,---`. ice'+^' h, ....
i " j -ea ses ,4 - �, .,'r ",`'a' ,,....., k t :"' ' - : • S - ,
• y t,,! - - `�r,,n , xy ,at '-T v:,'_ ,f` f i ,` - roc yh_•n' Sfs�
l W 3 ati tas�� F+
SAC -t'f d $`-� z . j - _ .; f, b Y� }q, f
I x $
.SS��. .,,y � "� s y '�� �}"- -.. ::. } mod" � �'e' ��s�� a �"7° „.
"P'�'1" Y 'r 7 -- _ r am ' " `4- J iS•
PHOTO POINT 22 UT1—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 22 UT1—downstream (10/27/2021)
-,, ri,
v
:' c ate • 'A'�. Fs �e u
�� y r i F, 1�k�'. .,•sr•°€.fit ,' � s k,1 a
• � i� p - ,--- e,,,r - - �' ` 3 �G tr � ' � uX` Yh R'T 4Y.z J P
,.: , ?� :. #-.�, N ,1!' 4 -?�`0, 'ta RM ...�/ • i P "'� j tl kt`"' r 'A ��k�i , Y -s `,•-,
PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 R1—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 R1—downstream (10/27/2021)
,� F
+n y
- T.41E -44*. ' - ,,,,
,*R " p 3r � • _
, ..'--,--. e.4 ..74.'4.1,,rr•'-'# rr rr—, 4, ,. 0-1,„•,..,
At ( 4 Y ,,i.t-- - '-'"' "
- Yf'F, 43
e .�" ry�[�>(� 'r., y.; yc ��jjpp $qtk..'* \ :;S -,p Y a�'- -{ • \',-
�N T' R�. L ,, 4 ills," • k _n .C' ..a .A "`-g Y.- .fq•,Z}"'. -. . .
PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 R1—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 R1—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
kiditi Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

'
•
4
,.� _ •r- + �a . ',/ x may` '
}L rnr _ y f rf �. it
e•,J ``t'� a{"fir 1 �'.,.t --' Y j wIto...,,,,„ - -
PHOTO POINT 25 UT2 R2—upstream (10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 25 UT2 R2—downstream (10/27/2021J
Fit & YN T
, -. sr Ufa d
#- . --,,a,54
1
rsi, fA €,
r ' .
PHOTO POINT 26 UT2 R3—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 26 UT2 R3—downstream (10/27/2021)
G �
�
s
" a �' Sz - _ • r, ,. mo t!' €5: - wi.-.++
:-. 4.1 i"' ca S �r" Y
"-- t $ �E ^ i x i'�y ak SY : , iat .$' i]�' .,
..71114;° - ,h w'ma
.",-- ......"(--•,.1-y:'I,,
' ..y,3 TT i;p ,p ,�III, d /1 i'6, � - °t z . n, r '^`
�!► - `. �....) m-. ., 3' I Y, t #.A`�'*�'. .',4�i 'w' . -?a. ' . i• 'r a °s ':'tE a.'F�..r�.• ,,SS�%i
PHOTO POINT 27 UT2 R3—upstream (10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 27 UT2 R3—downstream (10/27/2021)
e M Site
AppendixBug Headwat A:Visualrs
Assessmentitigation Data—Stream Photographs

x Rf e 4„, 4.' l .! 9c�i I, 4 ,?,n r r -'.'i y� .r D, r " ` t t dtY.� �„ (tiro.
v_ t-.. -A, .1' ,..5.'4.*,,/. .1'. ,,,.' :-:-...„..i.'T4-nt„,p'''v6-. '...-ti...-qt-,t.:' --"-,;''':'. - ,,,, , —:
! �lx,t, Si d r. �r�"' �.._, ii`-R i, -h tV Sl t'
s .ems s x - k x„ -} s > F.. tr �-
•
"eti
.,
" 'r"t-�`* '� � �Ci �.- ��aL`R ", � �
ei
�fi: r '1 _. lg� s4 1,
• s ,Y D�rY ' - �.-- -- _
' i'
PHOTO POINT 28 UT2 R3—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 28 UT2 R3—downstream (10/27/2021J
5 A A v v
z
rot l i' 7 1 4 ice' -
-r.'.0,,i.-i''e,._,.i,„14.,.'E2.KL.,.',.Zt.:„.`r,:'',7,,:',;:,:,eA',n"trI_-i..-I2-:-r,?"Lr',;F'.i'.f.:'m.#`'`''..-04...:_..1'14E_-.._z16-.•.„i.1...,,*-„--v.,-,&",A1',1-,4.tt14.-I..4„I.p-,,--.:i,,,,ri„,x:-,i,,A,.5,,4-,-ks,°!_•,tV?.,„,,_',-',;„„;,.t=,.,'.ts-t,',1r[',,'',,,'„''.,..1',-..-.-".:-'k,1_s,-k'.-''„;,1„rr„-,.1..:--'‘*4.'441,,4;,..,.„-4,:,*j1'r",„;0.1,'-,.,,'-.;7,i.A 47.4,.,.-*,'%-.-..,1*-'l,'',...,..-.,-0.,''1,.*4,,c-,.-,,.-.'t7:Ni V-;!7„-\'.::,-"11.4,g:,''-;---'-.'V 0,-.4,.'•q,i'fo/-J-;.l!.'
4 ^v ifs& -•k•f ^--= p i d'�'t � - r- : * l`\F,�S r i i.-
,
,-
'i
''t'
,.,
.''.''.
w r z ; r, y w �? , 3 w a
sF rc. •• I ti. rt r ✓..f, .,-- ,4.. ,yx e\. i4, y ,C,
aC'rr k e h six
÷ 4 'P %F•-`4 f K14'f `y .1 13 ' !
= j,, -L: ......ff, 'r P ' i-,7: t"' ,c craw+,_(-.t f ,: r , a..
a d*Vpv r kVh4%', * '`may+ tic- - - `�:I' _., c +*i t':'�e`k ' ' ; .D s' 'g i
'fas # , 1 ti' �-',.,_ 4, +tee' s ,q •
f^, , W -. r ,i, S'x. .,X.
44"ry?s ''�-`, 2 y,��+,4' oh \ 11 , •: "y`S 1 'tie "•-e a .
PHOTO POINT 29 UT2 R3—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 29 UT2 R3—downstream (10/27/2021)
" t' i1
Vet f,f
e° fi��a r •d, i � - xF g4
�" +n v rid '' Sa ! k :' �'4,.." ems
%1V: ' -,'•,'I
� ''
#. \ f r,
[
•
F E'.E.y 4 der. 1`.-
a� _v 9 ° ': axe \\
PHOTO POINT 30 UT2 R4—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 30 UT2 R4—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

r1 „1� t c% e3 j
•
;,y3 - ' r q y0°'^` yx,a, 1oid ° ''' �.:i,�+Y 'ati ' ' - ,"-; rog!,
� f� ' , ''f ,,, ate :
I�� fir ° ..`- �_ i. �r� •t } �4
sue ,__h .y4 dL . f ' Ir ;"r G ^>�E ->" "
t
-' .. � Sam - ; - j , ' o t
' C-+rT'' 5.: '�,- s y '_.T w bw• '- — w e + .% E'S r-..--Ili-. ' . Y'E .x �}
..,. • i�.� •1 `.�'pe` 7 b
v 1 '� I � 77`t,' I i` ��:�F" •�s ,Y� !3` .L. ' P, x 7 X k• -
`- ',sue i - - .t 1
� - ? I f}� 'l yic S- l , _ l f 1f S
PHOTO POINT 31 UT2 R5—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 31 UT2 R5—downstream (10/2_7/202.1)
i •
rn� _ _
4 - -d. _
. _1 h. J .�?
R A z -
t �' y x e a - ti .,�_.4 ,fir " ram\ s. 3 _
$x_ #}� 'S 3 1, e �i tlf ,fi -.` 4 ', Yw., k
4-{r v l 7 �� �s r .:'' . . , f _K `L,-
r�,{�., e ,•. fit ocr ., dry,. K�� F .r - -_i J- 1 .y,. '
�8 �t� \t� r - S .Y. �+�ip�Y.y �-.'.,-?-A--, �+� -i ,� � 1 h.
'tea a. �j:.�,dt ! r ' "G mot„ ^,h f - .a _'"_ . t ,,. ,
• aai r ; r ,r. c. \ in 'r - fi t
.0. 4f
Et A �.-, ��t *x t ' - • - p_:
1 •" tea` ! .L. 1 _ 1 - :_ vrr - a�` :_ L6;
PHOTO POINT 32 UT2 R5—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 32 UT2 R5—downstream (10/27/2021J
rx,-
' =,"1'1•:"_".'',-''J.::-.4t';t-,i440.1,1:''-'4,"! .',''V.::"!,:;-::'1:,?"e,,,I,.I`==-":1?r-. ' .3'-' -'"" '
I ' K
y -s_r 3'� ,St',-n't�'�_` \ 5 _ .. _> yp xV 4 e '*,s a A �'S,��x`' ax"•E
- �t':•. � 9v', v '� t -.r - I dr 1. � '-- y 3 gc--�,'f� a --
� �x�.; � '� � __ e • �� 'b�� h` gals y ' , '�
.. tT y L 4 htil
t.. o�j f ` �'�..' s 57:r .�.- , lira.
PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 R5—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 R5—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

? t s i { - . ' ' rdo�h F . -
- .. 'Y� „ " 1� ,i ^��k y� a, 4t „ r - , F s !"l i ` 4 ak 3
.;:�F4'r, 0i+','..A ¢ y r " -, - -4 # i,. 4 ,a � ' i '' g - 14 F 'Yr•'y� a . , d4F� t laR• - K•b' , ' ^yw„ 9 gyf, • 'Sw�''R ai., I T - y � f ` "� -' a " m , ,.pii `'''. - $ � d 3r`' i 'F. t t •
s � ', &
•
•
i Yt" -w ,n, a -7s _w ?? "� 4-L s b ,{ : w4zuI
pi 1 r. ,•
*r. = `', ',,,6- 3 1.., '• Grp� 3
a , ,,—... ?T 4; ,� , : - .,mot r^ r _ -'" -.Fit‘:'--L.,''''':
-` .,r',may 1;, 'S� '+' Q4.., _ . =' - - _ ; _�'
PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 R5—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 R5—downstream (10/27/2021)
3
,. --
.. ; ' 4 �l'' �. fit' ,' 5
w , t 'Y4:4 f i 4s
a` �- Y/ 2i ?�fir nws - - _
PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 R5—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 R5—downstream (10/27/2021)
t
414.
ri sl:Wy• Ix
- , .,g.:..,,W," .!_:-..:" -°:;,a"tFt.`....,tzlpirslii0 A ----- .4.. IA ,' ' .
tt
t ,,,,,...„..,,, _ _.. .,,, ..„,„..,..., 4. , A::. ....:t:,. .,, -
PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 R5—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 R5—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
kidli Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

F
'� 41 ri k ey +•:5�fi F-.
% `° ••'°T�.z" � � --, _ �'T M� ��'J r 'a
iflt,
•
' - �,5. wad,, -x-_ - - % '
fir "$! ' „ - ai ''az g ._ • aq� 4 a :, y1' _a3x -- 61
yi r i �`' r -- '''A '; G x-' g a l .
��J
a �.� �raF r� � �f�
sL., '; Yam' It �__ J
PHOTO POINT 37 UT2A R1—upstream (10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 37 UT2A R1—downstream(10/27/2021)Y S. (,i - , - - ' \
rr
... • -'J, - a� yam.
-.4 `� { n 'Ira c - - �i 'v�Jr b'"�' ?°�'r RY A t
ve" '!'d ' t S t )a�
'fit'9. �'' . •• rr t { , rr { c *6 7 r .- 4 i-% w - a _,
,A,
M^ '� r ', r •1\ - a;; ,^ `�'., d `' - y l Y x ,� _ '
•
PHOTO POINT 38 UT2A R2—upstream (10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 38 UT2A R2—downstream(10/27/2021J
di A`r n
s
"TTz �
/ .. L an 3 §,, Fir}7 y
w i r1 - _ r ' r K'.a}, ,.,v' s!
! ,'�it7 L+ y 1� is ?
`t, -.- [?� ,- ,gal
iic
PHOTO POINT 39 UT2A R2—upstream (10/27/2021J PHOTO POINT 39 UT2A R2—downstream(10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

,Fir
- 4 Dina .it 7 ,, , y'-.e, " i,n ,, 'r m ,` *-9� g,`, � _ r �.. a"� yr i*, 4 �'.S'^ ,,
r +q; I4 r?rt^ ! : {R'a t m y . ! . yv .� 3 £ i .� „
�,,.''',t, , - n. 1� +"A" hot.,,,„,',-'" �tT-j , M.„` y y, r'' 3 't;l -
X tt -�"yi svi Y". kfa : - i. '4,. ti v %i '',,t•, 5 ' � f ",•'', '`ar- .:' f
K- ' "Cs SF W,.,?i 5 ' c 2 -+?0 d ,k. ', _Ct; •- ''' r Y�av,' x��-k. C�r7 r #x
"�'�+:�� �r '\. ^'- �," - � '#q �" p � + r ry'' xr '�'�� �ilk ley'-.- x
1. ; Li'*'.` Y '' ; w �'IP'" `� JS „ u, r 'P' °'� `J yatii `-�
_ X
."'!' 'ems- 7 n - c,Kpli_ e '� J s e ..- #� -' ;y �
yrj 'r� � i9i' �¢
�tr �3y, - . \; = ✓1. ,- 0,,, -' •-144 T JJ nf tx i-„ '�a �P, '.�. .t'�
,\ . - r- i .`,J r.r� ,' * -•,F''r ya
` tip -� frJ ® J:- - - - :e I
41
PHOTO POINT 40 UT2A R2—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT Q40 UT5A—downstream (10/27/2021)
1 ''N., -,,,v`'.0"riT1,1;,,A1-,‘,41 %,,`-',r' '''',..`,,,, =',1.,,.1 2,'1.„f", ,,V, 4-:--;.-',.'7,-,,.'-' ,,,crt,v,:''rs,.
% TC 4:.:- Y 4 M M R C
M - / 'P NxO, '!�" '.dPfr 'f� T tisY{
C
•
e aaf • r.� „ G c, s _,� mac,.
's
s a.
•
PHOTO POINT 41 UT2A R2—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 41 UT2A R2—downstream(10/27/2021)
if
".6 i,? , . ,
fre-1 .,.., ,_.
, . , .
.., ',";,.,..; .,i''',At.• , rkty,,,.o,
`}• � y ,E .�rS k;$%3�e, �- - y� s'q' - j � ,y _ z ,.- '
s 4 IN'tt 1S ?''":; • - . -, : / -� ° =
�_
},, v," •P.:M •
+ �
fPHOTO POINT 42 UT2B—upstream (10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 42 UT2B—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
tidli Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

•
*y, :��� 1y +dmn N"''r4 yq� T .T ;4 '4 4,. _ y , �s s 0 rye-' 'a' r ;fiA. t *. x.XT' , -
k $ �". s it r,k,I,A,�.P r-,5 -, k 0e .iice' Y L.i,,L';� #"
'' ram, r,8x'-Y�t -„` !�r' 1 '�' '.1 �': . < '``i°'.o <, %' :Ai-itss �, rN ., a '
-jx''� t - ! h.h T r'/ c„'r. Y�� .- - 9 �4.M �I k u,�r P t - ,, .�-.. F y "'`- ,�, '
'tg st Sy xr 0 - _
--i 3"+v' r". '& { ',* ' a°3 -,-f. .1 >,..�, c� -- Y ,, f" C-,.ti r 4 •�,-, F�..
�' '�.. ,, -4 i r ,.."' - 4 i. 9 '4' -1Y 'S, :��e '- [r'��'1 M.. e, i `r r , ` .t i,.$ .
x R,� •«�. - .3'°?:A ' ,�' ''f":f t {.� ' u' '' tip e a.Fv r� aZ _ >V�, - -;, ..4 t�,- € ���^ ,.f4 y .k ' -,ram '.€; �a is,t.- ` M','_ _ - -, tix ' `�". •1o.L-7' t -{-r�-
1 iC '$a �" „`y 1 t -z-P'h-_ -„,•- _ t om_—R ' Tyr z '4 3r " `C -':
s•4 i- '� ;1,1-� r1r'' d t l � ,Arr,C i\ „`3t - 1 _ _ .. r• L
"�- - 'r - aE '� lt� �,� w - 1 - _` 5 `�'i f v 9 a b *"f � ,
�4��E ,1, h "�'�.C- x . .... ;.. 'I ,, , +l r Y E ;am- K -----
��!•r 't;- w ,eo5%�, _:',sit ".y.,, 'i`,y J r �. yt �y� .'� @� , ; --; - - _� `
� � a g„� y'P' Z3- -� �5-1 ?}�C'� � 'f � ��4 � �� },F"-� � 5s ''a , a r`r -.w q� '._ � '
?`� � ;_ '- c, r ti, fir: z ^`A -�. f .:"...ire' ,, f - a,« ?, -�•
.
4.
"r • "t 'X S► der' _r,.
-a v .' \ � i" r -1' ,, - 5� '. 6 del . ilk,.�"+," - xH,*,�}s � _
PHOTO POINT 43 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 43 UT3—downstream (10/27/2021)
' , a f.. I �:
to ,1 r IE1, - _- 'Y.
SI
T rY
V. =' �e - .,r
1.
P'`fL4 y�- s_--� d` ix L. :�ir
{' art e `i a ,$" ,"#- k ST =`i, 4 �" tx - ..
=_46,,,- ,,....,,,,,clittr.,"y!... ‘-....*-. .,, .‘,.,7'10'.'NI% ...17,F ' !t '
..\.,,,,,,, . ,..4,-.:..-,,,,.."..._a_.4....i.„....4,..,...--.A4, ,..4.,,,..,„,,,fu•N•r• ,-.:,,,, -, if, -
i.
.mil a' s . fk:w, .a.P r
PHOTO POINT 44 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 44 UT3—downstream (10/27/2021J
la tp F a z -,; x 4 1
fir?' g r
1 . r .a ,s .� r
°` ri M4 >•. is � w �- > r : � ,. 1`�
•
C --,zf ..+ .�M-r ma's 1 -.T°` ,.. a,;t , a ..r yv tom:
&k 4i
. w `�, ` ' 0 mar �'
1 �
SR
y w�yX,a� � �. ¢ _ JG mi `j —.
. �;m °% wry , e.yE - '°� %. =' -
r+i . ] l/ ;r VJi
`i�idt' /'4ti
She i" F r _ ,TM, _4'� _ <�, p �, , `�F w�"` �� ��-.� s f�- rY�z-rM � `^ �.n3_�'J �t s - ---sY,t ,� ¢y,� +1a�'N iyrL� r� y � r YS�.,r�-P� L 1�' r , r &. F�+a C %�l k R< �r r }' E -t` " r
PHOTO POINT 45 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 45 UT3—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

'C • l df f + . . �f
r sue' . fi"1• r 6 r: P, - • �•v'Y-• sr sin .-
G +,.�k ,�g k,,`"i ,:i ,€? k a,-a $1.4. � .L � ✓2— ` • _ =bit ." r P.-. - ~i• -- :3
- 1 • __- •• 1• ee" xt i f_+ ` s+ � , r . a s_A
•
-'"r.- '-'1-.-L*47*.:S. ,1-:;-1'.i:::'••••-...: •:,-1:'ylt,,115, .,.,,,,, ,7-7.?.?:.-....,..,,, ,--.-_-__ _. .,-,
PHOTO POINT 46 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 46 UT3—downstream (10/27/2021)
•
_ . _.
. . . .
•
•�r E i 4 •L u? -S 7 Szrr :.
. . . .. . . .
. .••:
.. .. • ••
_. .
..
. . .
.,.,,„ 7
. . .
. .
.. .. ....
,..,,..1
• •
. . .... . .. . .
. •. .:. .... .
....„-,..,,,,„•,.„......„.„...„,.,:.„,...„...:. „.,.,...,„.....7:.„5,,,,..r.....„#.,„„......„:„. :7,r,t,&_., •.•4.4'-.•-' •-''':.;:-.--.1 .. ... .;,. - . .. : .... ...: .. .. .
fk f M vs d 5t*v S
1 w •
11 ttt f.^ g 'eAx p° 'e eta r
PHOTO POINT 47 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 47 UT3—downstream 021J(10/2.7/2
rw4 Teti _ i ��.. ...
ti
•
K
se i A
�
�t t °� yr E wy r;, ��, +. " ,�.,,' arc 144 1' .Ni.x a' .,',
s .iri . i! ', • :1 4i '4.' ,. ;W •e ar - .. .. . .o X •L rX9F.bN . 1 _C`...
PHOTO POINT 48 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 48 UT3—downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
till Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

sg qs � z
r .at A .
..
� a � %�� a .. •, Vie; - -
1- ,.qN -., ,'' __
PHOTO POINT 49 UT3—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 49 UT3—downstream (10/27/2021J
',
am�`` A
. d ! !
"- 1 ,�x - i 44C1 ,: . ''a Ry i d .. * "ty Mom __ �7'` y z
PHOTO POINT 50 UT4—upstream(10/27/2021) PHOTO POINT 50 UT4—downstream (10/27/2021)
pBug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Stream Photographs

CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS

1 1 , s y _
S -. f <' 4 t I ate ° 'i, .
x / x v� 95� y k J' t�, ,�
¢ } • -� y r _at.** - �~ • 3 M �P �. 1
`,1 yr` - S „ a °fi- q # -' - - _,v 'jna ,d ;� `s�'a ''�"r
14-1
.,yy - r - �J 7,3- ms.r _:,? , ,ram , -^� s+ ... v1,.,,, ,..,1 J x #��`
A .�' - 4 ' r „- t3.`_,4 , , Fop '' r �, - 'cam .
'A'i'i,..#--=.'_t4,,,)-.*.:,-:„,,,.--c4-r3-4:7‘.,W*1,,'„pr.'4l.4-"f".P.r4t:,.5_:c_V;,/A7_.,,7,I'Vit...,i"_t‹.,:t;,,,,V-,,ft.-1',:-.',--0,
` S 3�
-i ..,4 9 M- Fi r, ,;+
....,I,;„,,.P-7-,7!..•,;;„...,`".1„.:,,,.,,,..,,,.1,1-,.4-,,,,:
, ,,,,.,......,, ,„.,,,,..... „, ,1 ,I, 4 „--r.,
w-r". x wee F S' , 1'+,, ,p.- ''lfi, -
W ,,k,7,P, TI /1 n'',' ', ',.,r;, , , '
i.•'9, I.,. s,..• r
k:, -
Big Bugaboo Creek R2-Looking Upstream(10/27/2021) Big Bugaboo Creek R2-Looking Downstream(10/27/2021)
%r y,S s - rq.
Atir
Nr p � gip.
��`. fin . !x c� "e 1-7
`\_ ��9{Vg�1 r t^_a'ar r1 '4J 11; r� x F r ] - w 1 .J. � n�= �y ' r„r , ��
•
�' { �- -3 ! k .P '#'.�k`.,, r' '_� 1 -^?"-s+ 5N '' i"� � f - e sx s _
° � ,,ri --�k� �., ,' � Y ��� ry.¢�'��" � - _ ,�� {�'-�,t'�c�+:�' ,�qs�7�! �'a�yl�i� ��i . J�i�.,¢�w1 - 7.
I: `.,s v fi 9 f 3?#yr te't 'rs '$'C tE"r, k s yf4 A*a'*-- ,'{x,, ..f•
-e- £i'r 1 e.� r4,..?:.!f�"t. ` ,-,..a. -/- , F y •-ty"i�=�I v �1. •1 ,.
..�. 'fi '}': #+ 'Y~,..., } ry! r�,��e ppii E - jp f ! ,r _ I f• V -^-'
E` - �..0 .F` � 8'}i .f". •• ems"- �^F , .f.]r yT 'C 'h..�� - •-
{ - x� c f y ter, � 6'`�i
.an y ' � to sr �W
s2.z --_ a S< `s mfL s, `�% ''sa,f s1�t a$", ..rr: ..;.(•,..:1A.:".41:1;_'.'.•'•:;!- '.4''' '. ;t:.,•*'..,9,•• , .-:4;;;;4,-; ''' ;:'`.4. ,;.•e.,V' •''t:24%4 fi9;;14‘fi• .
'� + .+ ;.c L "
‘41
! !Ac M' w � j ..M [`. :' �- i x,�afS C r wr .
Big Bugaboo Creek R3-Looking Upstream(10/27/2021) Big Bugaboo Creek R3-Looking Downstream(10/27/2021)
W' 'Rj i 4,. d .\ L - 1
..;-IP-:7: 5;-''1 t.s'?,*,•"11011.114111101111
�` - J _ -4- 4S ifs.
_3 sat'V& ''�i-a k, 4 , n.� «i,
�W _ f 'r f'�'�a4 �.
,...
Y, P ibR<i w I .{ 1 i
-
-, , 4 * y AL .
. ,, ,„., .. „,..,
,..,.. .."T.',.1.1a,t., '-..., 'if—
/ r f'-,,'" ' isw i..1 .c‘ jst 4,''' t---- li ,fit,*,-- - 1 "s 5 i-4' }i` - ,i
k.
lla1ttt
UT2 R5- Looking Upstream(10/27/2021) UT2 R5- Looking Downstream(10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
141 Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data-Culvert Crossing Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

a
a N ), h-
r• s, ,: Y
Y M '� t �
•• /.. - 9 11 1 i t , « {
i v 1rin°de�jl-
I
is
FIXED VEG PLOT 1(10/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 2(10/27/2021)
i
FIXED VEG PLOT 3(10/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 4(10/27/2021)
py °
r 1•I \
5
FIXED VEG PLOT 5(10/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 6(10/27/2021)
aVili Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
141 Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

0541.111,
•
. •
p
V?
ao
r,
FIXED VEG PLOT 7(10/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 8(10/27/2021)
401111101111
a> .� ... - ft" l
P .: 1 ,.
'
rg
•, -7'''''';- . . ' 1. it .
FIXED VEG PLOT 9(10/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 10(10/27/2021)
M :
< 1,i `' -,
,, .., `
a 1 rt 1 3• Y. 53SrS p� S- S- - _
� _' '.fit.• - -_
is r. - - _
•
r,
�,£ynMa:. - l . -
FIXED VEG PLOT 11(10/27/2021) FIXED VEG PLOT 12(10/27/2021)
w Bug e M Site
Appendix Headwat A:Visualrs
Assessmentitigation Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

•
``pp
•,\•.
•
RANDOM VEG PLOT 13(10/27/2021) RANDOM VEG PLOT 14(10/27/2021)
•
RANDOM VEG PLOT 15(10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
1.61 Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data—Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 19
Date of Initial Plant 2021-04-29
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-27
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/ Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F
Scientific Name Common Name Shrub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU
Species Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1
Included in Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
Approved Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2
Mitigation Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU
Plan Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 1 1 5 5 3 3 1 1
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard 14 14 15 15 12 12 11 11 12 12
Current Year Stem Count 14 15 12 11 12
Mitigation Stems/Acre 567 607 486 445 486
Plan Species Count 6 9 6 4 8
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 29 33 25 27 17
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 2 2
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 14 15 12 11 12
Post Stems/Acre 567 607 486 445 486
Mitigation Species Count 6 9 6 4 8
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 29 33 25 27 17
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 2 2
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 19
Date of Initial Plant 2021-04-29
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-27
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/ Indicator Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot 10 F
Scientific Name Common Name
Shrub Status Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2
Diospyrosvirginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 1 1
Species Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 2 2 1 1
Included in Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
Approved Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 2
Mitigation Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU 2 2 1 1 1 1
Plan Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 2
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC
Sum Performance Standard 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 15 15
Current Year Stem Count 11 11 12 13 15
Mitigation Stems/Acre 445 445 486 526 607
Plan Species Count 5 8 6 8 9
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 27 27 25 23 13
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 3 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 11 11 12 13 15
Post Stems/Acre 445 445 486 526 607
Mitigation Species Count 5 8 6 8 9
Plan
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 27 27 25 23 13
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 3 2
%Invasives 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Planted Acreage 19
Date of Initial Plant 2021-04-29
Date of Current Survey 2021-10-27
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Tree/ Indicator Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F Veg Plot 13 Veg Plot 14 Veg Plot 15
Scientific Name Common Name R R R
Shrub Status
Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total
Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 4 4
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU
Species Mortis rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1
Included in Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 3 3
Approved Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 2 2 1 1
Mitigation Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU
Plan Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FACW 1 1 1
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 1
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FAC 3 3 1 1 1
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC 1 1 1
Sum Performance Standard 14 14 1 1 10 7 1
Current Year Stem Count 14 1 10 7 1
Mitigation Stems/Acre 567 40 405 283 40
Plan Species Count 7 1 6 4 1
Performance Dominant Species Composition(%) 21 100 40 57 100
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 3 3
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 14 1 10 7 1
Post Stems/Acre 567 40 405 283 40
Mitigation Species Count 7 1 6 4 1
Plan
Dominant Species Composition(%) 21 100 40 57 100
Performance
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 2 3 3
Invasives 0 0 0 0 0

Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
i
Monitoring Year 2
MonitoringYearl 567 2 6 0 607 I 2 IlamOym 486 2 6 0
Monitoring Year 0 607 2 6 0 648 2607 2 6 0
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3 Ill
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 445 2 0 486 2 8 IIIMMI 445 2 5 0
Monitoring Year 0 607 2 0 526 2 8 0 607 2 0
Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
i
Monitoring Year 2
MonitoringYearl 445 2 8 0 486 2 6 0 526 3 I 8 0
Monitoring Year 607 2 8 0 607 2 6 0. 607 2 8 0
Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
MonitoringYearl 607 2 9 0 567 2 7 0 40 2 1 0
Monitoring Year 0 607 2 9 0 607 2 8 0 607 2 8 0
Veg Plot Group 13 R Veg Plot Group 14 R Veg Plot Group 15 R
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1 405 2 6 0 283 3 1111
4 0 40 3 1 0
Monitoring Year 0 526 2 7 0 607 A 2 5 0 567 2 7 0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot"groups".Random plots are denoted with an R,and fixed plots with an F.

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 1 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 1
1433-
1432-
C
1431-
3s
m
1430-
1429-
10 20 30
Distance(ft.)
• My 0 -- MY 1 —— Bankfut Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,431.28 1,431.36
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.96
Thalweg Elevation 1,430.16 1,430.27
LTOB Elevation 1,431.28 1,431.31
LTOB Max Depth
4.03
1.127 1.040
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.71
',Ii
r
F
; * ; ,/
rto
x , f ,, {y
VA:
.:� r � ;Y,v � 'h i� a'k, � ._,� Ord.,: V 1C—h.ti1.0 ^410, - * 1.
r
.i �� � $F ud " h.� O ns,
y
f k �v TQ tl 4. f68 (I- S i T�'
so
ST f� r
c • +fi t,, E, } 7< <
ti a w' A �1'4 N i t§ Y 'F. . *%
{� sz :
-K / I:: I �' ''fs
i L
' J
Downstream (10/27/2021)
M. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 2 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 1
1432-
•
1:31-
R •
C
1430-70
N
LL1
1429-
I128-
10 20 30
Distance(ft.)
-r MY 0 -.- MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MY() MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,430.55 1,430.60
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.02
Thalweg Elevation 1,428.97 1,428.97
LTOB Elevation 1,430.55 1,430.63
LTOB Max Depth 1.582 1.660
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.61 5.85
_ r
Ea 1N d T wt<*z-� :,a..- +c r p . ,,, raR , 4,0% 4 t ''or
� 4y'5
•I .te .. v .E t
➢- 4 43.Y -. 1 �2 �M L
•`• L day,',. 1 t o 'AY,.:::
FX 1..-
-_,,i,. .„*.".'V44....)>1.-A"Wi-r. ";:. 0. -, .., . - • , ',,rr _ _.
}4 p A
ya gg q s ,yY -„E., � ',, 7.. € ,• ` JA -,.T� Y fi4y` r ; ,- `e„ i '%.,
_ -,,_.,,T,,,,:i.,,,,7..,.iz,1:4:,),;.:,,,,,,
e. Vi ', r� �s
\ __ k r'' •1 2 . -'ff `'' 40' ., -40- "•- ' '
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
14, Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 3 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 2
1413-
1412-
41/
• 1a11-
ll.[
1410-
14U9-
10 20 30
Distance(ft.)
w MY 0 -+- MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,410.57 1,410.55
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.04
Thalweg Elevation 1,409.27 1,409.27
LTOB Elevation 1,410.57 1,410.60
LTOB Max Depth 1.301 1.330
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 7.26 7.75
•
•
yGF
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
1141 Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 4(Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 2
14t2-
FP.."""ir
r
\_
1411- .�.
O 1410-
1,109-
1108-
10 20 3t7
Distance(it.)
MY 0 -4- MY f -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MY() MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,409.53 1,409.56
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.08
Thalweg Elevation 1,408.32 1,408.33
LTOB Elevation 1,409.53 1,409.66
LTOB Max Depth 1.205 1.330
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.20 3.72
tw;
•
• y y �
•
I r.da1
•
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
14, Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 5 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 3
13os-
i:::
•
Ll!
1385•
1334•
1.0 2.0 3.8
Distance(ft)
-•- MY 0 -4- MY f -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Buff[Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,386.16 1,386.25
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.84
Thalweg Elevation 1,385.21 1,385.29
LTOB Elevation 1,386.16 1,386.09
LTOB Max Depth 0.949 0.800
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.66 3.88
;444-
,
•
/rF l
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
141 Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 6 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 3
13a;-
1386
° 1385
1384-
1333-
1'n 20 38
Distance(ft.)
MY 0 -.- MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,385.13 1,385.34
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97
Thalweg Elevation 1,383.73 1,384.05
LTOB Elevation 1,385.13 1,385.30
LTOB Max Depth 1.400 1.250
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 4.66 4.28
•
�J
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross Section Plots

Cross-Section 7(Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 3
1376-
1375-
75
1374-
LL1
1373-
1372-
10 2Li 30
Distance(ft-)
-: MY 0 - MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Bulk Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MY() MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,374.22 1,374.30
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.99
Thalweg Elevation 1,373.09 1,373.00
LTOB Elevation 1,374.22 1,374.28
LTOB Max Depth 1.126 1.280
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.64 5.50
x? i
a5 +�
� 8dt � ev4
Y,�- .� �'' ,�. _ ��''y� t � dam.
t "
'" 4
Downstream (10/27/2021)
141
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 8 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 3
1375-
1s 7
1- -
C
0 1373-
ett
LU
1372- rx
1371-
10 r^_G 30
Distance(ft.)
MY 0 -4- MY f -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,373.57 1,373.72
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97
Thalweg Elevation 1,371.33 1,371.75
LTOB Elevation 1,373.57 1,373.65
LTOB Max Depth 2.246 1.900
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 9.80 9.14
x fie. ��p 4.�.`.i,�r�,p 0•1 2 is
+y 4`ac .
t y
�, W
{'"$Y �'T u,J .�! , .'Lt !yam�;. 9'.=
,N Ey" '
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 9 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 4
13s5-
1 364-
-
1363-
Lll
1 362-
1 361-
10 3.0 30
Distance(ft.)
MY 0 -.- MY f -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,362.95 1,362.93
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.01
Thalweg Elevation 1,362.22 1,361.85
LTOB Elevation 1,362.95 1,362.94
LTOB Max Depth 0.726 1.090
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.58 3.66
4irt
l4a • n4
\ 1 '
sr� _
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross Section Plots

Cross-Section 10 (Riffle) UT1
1., l-
1429-
t.-------j\N\N%.__.-•••
142d-
a
N
Lit
1427-
I 426
n 20 30 40
Distance(ft.)
MY 0 -r MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,427.68 1,427.86
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1, ,
LTOB Elevation 1,427.68427.22 11,427.8427.306
LTOB Max Depth 0.460 0.560
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.05 1.06
x
r t a
\t
z y..� �iwFY�, s x -
c •> c
- 4 k`+'`$may - �'+
• -- \'r-,mac� ?A.b 'i 4 A ie f
� • + ��
:�
-. 't` ' ,
•
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
141 Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 11 Riffle) UT2 Reach 3
o tacc-
ia -
c
zi
u.1
1a"-
II2v
CI1) n 30
Distance(ff.)
• MY 0 ••
- MY 1 -— Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
-- Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB Bankfull Area 1,427.• - 1,427.82
Bank a
on AB BankfullHeightR Area tio - Based 1.00 1.05
Thalweg Elevation 1,426.85 1,426.82
LTOB Elevation 1,427.77 1,427.87
LTOB Max Depth 0.922 1.050
•
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 2.50 2.75
4
ti
I
' "E A
S; .,-1 i' F:f -,,a ,;;It''
y A L ts';
lit
-,z3
:Li .
..4........, ., . . aro,..,..,....-s# ...,-
T;t� 't V- r ¢iSdPP e�9s x i°' - aaa 4
�.. � " ....k,i, .�
ite
Downstream (10/27/2021)
141
Bug Headwaters Mitigation S
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 1 (Riffle) UT2 Reach 4
141a-
1i,7-
C
o 1az6-
rti
4t4-
1• ia 3d
Distance(ft-)
• MY 0 MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built 8ankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
8ankfull Elevation - Based
on AB Bankfull Area 1,414.97 1,415.02
Bank Height Ratio Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.95
Thalweg Elevation 1,414.43 1,414.47
LTOB Elevation 1,414.97 1,414.99
LTOB Max Depth 0.545 0.520
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.82 1.62
r
. �.
a
s
� G� 5
—.� -4 �-!'", y� %a r 3« hq
1 9
' F y ��� � sir
1s �/:: to
��p � i � fId �fys
n stream Dow (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 13 (Riffle) UT2 Reach 5
1..1-
i4r0• L
_
C
o r-lG9-
d
0
LEJ �
1408-
1,107-
n ) n 30
Distance(ft.)
-•- MY 0 - - MY 1 —— Bankfull Elevation-Based on Ps-Buili Bankfull Ara
Current Low Top of Bank
MY() MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,408.33 1,408.33
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1,407.66 1,407.63
LTOB Elevation 1,408.33 1,408.33
LTOB Max Depth 0.668 0.700
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.50 1.51
lY I i �
414 • f'•y
—
.c
'', .;5,-, _
a+ 1 '
@
•
c
:`
i rF
3
§-h 1�r S i 3 ',..„,-,p:4'''''':"d
as V;. _
Ar
it
j c ?, s p,
ftgVi.,,.:-"'..,,,9,.„,„.--,1",-.--'-.*'*'; -40,..,,,Ye,,_,,,,--1'
,48: ,
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
14, Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross Section 14 {Pool} UT2 Reach 5
' ,.
a09 _mow
1
:Ift;L'a .
c
is
V.
IL
1406-
1405•
10 ^_0 90
Distance(ft.)
-r MY 0 -, MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,408.04 1,408.04
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.98
Thalweg Elevation 1,405.79 1,406.04
LTOB Elevation 1,408.04 1,407.99
LTOB Max Depth 2.255 1.950
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 10.58 10.16
�sH
- ..b._ �,- ,�,- ems. -
4
:4! ' ; *a: a r
MCI - - • "1..' 4tt
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 15 (Riffle)1151-
UT2A Reach 2
1450-
c
� 1449-
7
ill
1448-
*icer
14.17-
n 1G 2a 3d
Distance(ft.}
• M' 0 4 MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-eased on As-Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,448.11 1,448.14
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1,447.42 1,447.50
LTOB Elevation 1,448.11 1,448.14
LTOB Max Depth 0.694 0.640
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.68 1.70
yh
r
4
, i
,, �` B. ° v ,x
', .F 9#>, -- to h , r€ : y i.- ' . -.
Sy , a ,-4s. `. A, � , ar Y S' ,, s� � T-- °&r r 1.gyr y
vol..
A�F.r ye - K#.R -4 .x .;',�r �- q, - ,w�iC ,7t,
'+ `� Q $,4. ,-: ',,I.'n ; .ice" __ '. :'` . s<�a ..'�"� .-
•r F
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross Section Plots

Cross Section 16 (Riffle) UT3
lap -
1382-
•
C -"--------.1____ ....vo...\‘
0 1381
../14 - ---;47-1---
re
Lil
1380-
1379-
10 20 30
Distance(f1)
MY 0 -- MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,380.54 1,380.54
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-
Bank Area 1.00 0.87
Thalweg Elevation 1,379.64 1,379.51
LTOB Elevation 1,380.54 1,380.40
LTOB Max Depth 0.896 0.890
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.31 2.49
Y 1
; � i # ,
-� Ufa "� ',
i - -----
3 ut Tom. \11,
,�� AID
5't !<E - may' ^. 1 1 -1_i
i
y
tee`:
Downstream (10/27/2021)
141 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 17 (Pool) UT3
1 1-
1370-
•2 13E9-
to
N ` '
LL[
1368-
1367-
10 20 30
Distance(ft.)
w MY 0 -.- MY 1 -- Bankfull Elevation-Based on As-BIM Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,369.27 1,369.34
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.96
Thalweg Elevation 1,367.93 1,367.90
LTOB Elevation 1,369.27 1,369.29
LTOB Max Depth 1.333 1.390
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 6.00 5.57
"
ap .ry� ir?...
.l F S'n,` lj
1.1
' . ,
Downstream (10/27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
141 Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Cross-Section 18 {i�if#le} UT3
1370-
S.
Ll!
1368•
1367-
ti
1•o 20 30
Distance(ft-)
w MY 0 --I— MY 1 —— Bankfull Elevation-baed on As-built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area 1,369.11 1,369.17
Bank Height Ratio - Based ,
on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97
Thalweg Elevation 1,367.87 1367.89
LTOB Elevation 1,369.11 1,369.12
LTOB Max Depth 1.245 1.230
LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.85 5.46
. -u•. M v ,.$
4'"
P - '
�. - �� � '' 4',.-. 4 ' ,, a'�� { sue ,
* �:�'[ .h f': �# fir,.Y`� `�`E ' Y ) ','
M ' `a Y rF +� . lto Al-*''.
Are f 21 .. , -� s''' J"�' `� "``": 'a`"g- ' ��, J' p"
70A s ;, a "S .attE `',i '�} P
Downstream (10/Ilei
27/2021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C:Stream Geomorphology Data—Cross-Section Plots

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
PRE-EXISTING ONITORING BASELINE
IMI°
CONDITIONS (MYO)
Parameter Big Bugaboo Reach 1
Riffle Only Min I Max n Min I Max Min I Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 11.3 1 6.5 6.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 14 1 8 14 80 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.3 1 0.5 0.6 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 1 0.8 1.1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.5 1 3.3 4.0 1
Width/Depth Ratio 36.3 1 13.0 11.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1 >1.4 12.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 3.3 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 31 80 61
Rosgen Classification F4b B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 10.9 1 12.4 19.3
Sinuosity 1.04 1.02 1.02
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0330 1 0.0315 0.0346 0.0350
Other
Parameter Big Bugaboo Reach 2
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.2 1 9.0 9.3 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 16 1 11 20 19 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 1 0.7 0.8 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 1 1.0 1.3 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.4 1 6.0 7.3 1
Width/Depth Ratio 5.3 1 13.5 11.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio 3.9 1 >1.4 2.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 50 66 49
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 14.1 1 20.4 32.7
Sinuosity 1.07 1.02 1.02
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0228 1 0.0196 0.0216 0.0217
Other
Parameter Big Bugaboo Reach 3
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.0 1 10.4 8.3 12.5 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 9 1 23 52 48 80 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.1 1 0.8 0.5 0.7 2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.4 1 1.2 0.9 1.1 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 6.6 1 8.2 5.6 5.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 1 13.0 12.2 27.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1 >2.2 3.8 9.6 2
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 1 1.0 1.0 2
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 65 66 23 34 2
Rosgen Classification B4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 34.9 1 34.0 16.2 20.5 2
Sinuosity 1.01 1.16 1.16
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0230 1 0.0173 0.0189 0.0171
Other

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
CONDITIONS DESIGN (MYO)
Parameter Big Bugaboo Reach 4
Riffle Only Min I Max n Min I Max Min I Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 18.6 1 11.8 8.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 23 1 26 59 20 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 1 0.1 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth 1.2 1 1.3 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 14.1 1 10.3 3.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 24.6 1 14.0 21.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1 >2.2 2.3 1
Bank Height Ratio 2.7 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 37 84 20
Rosgen Classification F4 C4 C4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 54.5 1 48.3 9.2
Sinuosity 1.03 1 1.02 1.02
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0160 1 0.0127 0.0138 0.0166
Other
Parameter UT1
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 11.6 1 4.2 3.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 20 1 5 9 19 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.2 1 0.3 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.4 1 0.5 0.5 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.7 1 1.4 1.0 1
Width/Depth Ratio 50.7 1 13.0 13.3 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 1 >1.4 5.1 1
Bank Height Ratio 5.0 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 24 53 32
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 6.9 1 3.9 3.2
Sinuosity 1.01 1 1.00 1.00
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0350 1 0.0329 0.0362 0.0387
Other
Parameter UT2 Reach 3
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.0 1 7.1 4.7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 1 16 36 19 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.5 0.5 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1 0.8 0.9 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.0 1 3.8 2.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 23.0 1 13.0 9.0 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1 67.0 4.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 3.4 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 34 >1.4 45
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 13.8 1 14.6 10.0
Sinuosity 1.10 1.04 1.04
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0520 1 0.0244 0.0266 0.0301
Other

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
CONDITIONS DESIGN (MYO)
Parameter UT2 Reach 4
Riffle Only Min I Max n Min I Max Min I Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.0 1 7.1 6.9 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 1 16 36 13 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.5 0.3 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1 0.8 0.5 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.0 1 3.8 1.8 1
Width/Depth Ratio 23.0 1 13.0 26.5 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1 >1.4 1.9 1
Bank Height Ratio 3.4 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 34 26
Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 13.8 1 14.6 5.0
Sinuosity 1.07 1.07 1.07
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0369 1 0.0282 0.0307 0.0334
Other
Parameter UT2 Reach 5
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.0 1 8.4 4.2 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 1 19 24 25 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.6 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1 1.5 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.0 1 5.4 1.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 23.0 1 13.0 11.6 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1 >2.2 6.0 1
Bank Height Ratio 3.4 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 34 48 18
Rosgen Classification F4b C4b C4b
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 13.8 1 18.8 3.6
Sinuosity 1.01 1.06 1.06
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0200 1 0.0183 0.0200 0.0175
Other
Parameter UT2A Reach 2
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.0 1 5.1 4.8 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 12 1 6 11 14 1
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 1 0.4 0.4 1
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 1 0.6 0.7 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.0 1 2.0 1.7 1
Width/Depth Ratio 11.0 1 13.0 13.5 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.4 1 >1.4 2.9 1
Bank Height Ratio 4.8 1 1.0 1.0 1
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull 58 84 40
Rosgen Classification A4 B4a B4a
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 8.3 1 7.3 5.9
Sinuosity 1.04 1.03 1.03
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0490 1 0.0454 0.0514 0.0398
Other

Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
CONDITIONS DESIGN (MYO)
Parameter UT3
Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n
Bankfull Width (ft) 7 1 9.5 6.6 9.2 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 9 1 21 48 90 2
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.8 1 0.7 0.5 0.6 2
Bankfull Max Depth 1.1 1 1.1 0.9 1.2 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 5 1 6.8 3.3 5.8 2
Width/Depth Ratio 8 1 13.0 13.1 14.6 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1 >2.2 9.8 13.7 2
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 1 1.0 1.0 2
Max part size(mm) mobilized at bankfull 43 54 24 30 2
Rosgen Classification G4 C4b C4b
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 21.7 1 24.6 9.7 19.8 2.0
Sinuosity 1.04 1.21 1.21
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0199 1 0.0142 0.0154 0.0164
Other --- --

Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Big Bugaboo Reach 1 Big Bugaboo Reach 2
Cross-Section 1(Riffle) Cross-Section 2(Pool) Cross-Section 3(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,431.28 1,431.36 N/A N/A 1,410.57 1,410.55
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 0.96 N/A N/A 1.00 1.04
Thalweg Elevation 1,430.16 1,430.27 1,428.97 1,428.97 1,409.27 1,409.27
LT082 Elevation 1,431.28 1,431.31 1,430.55 1,430.63 1,410.57 1,410.60
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.127 1.040 1.582 1.660 1.301 1.330
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft) 4.03 3.71 5.61 5.85 7.26 7.75
Big Bugaboo Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Reach 3
Cross-Section 4(Pool) Cross-Section 5(Riffle) Cross-Section 6(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area N/A N/A 1,386.16 1,386.25 N/A N/A
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area N/A N/A 1.00 0.84 N/A N/A
Thalweg Elevation 1,408.32 1,408.33 1,385.21 1,385.29 1,383.73 1,384.05
LT082 Elevation 1,409.53 1,409.66 1,386.16 1,386.09 1,385.13 1,385.30
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.205 1.330 0.949 0.800 1.40 1.250
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ftt) 3.20 3.72 5.66 3.88 4.66 4.28
Big Bugaboo Reach 3 Big Bugaboo Reach 4
Cross-Section 7(Riffle) Cross-Section 8(Pool) Cross-Section 9(Riffle)
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,374.22 1,374.30 N/A N/A 1,362.95 1,362.93
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 0.99 N/A N/A 1.00 1.01
Thalweg Elevation 1,373.09 1,373.00 1,371.33 1,371.75 1,362.22 1,361.85
LT082 Elevation 1,374.22 1,374.28 1,373.57 1,373.65 1,362.95 1,362.94
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 1.126 1.280 2.246 1.900 0.726 1.090
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ftt) 5.64 5.50 9.80 9.14 3.58 3.66
'Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
'LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked
above as LTOB max depth.

Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
UT2 Reach 3 UT2 Reach 4
Cross-Section 10(Riffle) Cross-Section 11(Riffle) Cross-Section 12(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,427.68 1,427.86 1,427.77 1,427.82 1,414.97 1,415.02
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 0.95
Thalweg Elevation 1,427.22 1,427.30 1,426.85 1,426.82 1,414.43 1,414.47
LT0132 Elevation 1,427.68 1,427.86 1,427.77 1,427.87 1,414.97 1,414.99
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 0.460 0.560 0.922 1.050 0.545 0.520
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ft) 1.05 1.06 2.50 2.75 1.82 1.62
UT2 Reach 5
Cross-Section 13(Riffle) Cross-Section 14(Pool) Cross-Section 15(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,408.33 1,408.33 N/A N/A 1,448.11 1,448.14
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 1.00 N/A N/A 1.00 1.00
Thalweg Elevation 1,407.66 1,407.63 1,405.79 1,406.04 1,447.42 1,447.50
LT082 Elevation 1,408.33 1,408.33 1,408.04 1,407.99 1,448.11 1,448.14
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 0.668 0.700 2.255 1.950 0.694 0.640
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ftt) 1.50 1.51 10.58 10.16 1.68 1.70
Cross-Section 16(Riffle) Cross-Section 17(Pool) Cross-Section 18(Riffle)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7 MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MYS MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull'Area 1,380.54 1,380.54 N/A N/A 1,369.11 1,369.17
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB Bankfull'Area 1.00 0.87 N/A N/A 1.00 0.97
Thalweg Elevation 1,379.64 1,379.51 1,367.93 1,367.90 1,367.87 1,367.89
LT082 Elevation 1,380.54 1,380.40 1,369.27 1,369.29 1,369.11 1,369.12
LTOB2 Max Depth(ft) 0.896 0.890 1.333 1.390 1.245 1.230
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area(ftt) 3.31 2.49 6.00 5.57 5.85 5.46
'Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation.
'LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation).Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above.The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked
above as LTOB max depth.

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Table 10. Bankfull Events
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Reach MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Big Bugaboo 8/15/2021
Creek Reach 3 8/18/2021
10/6/2021
Big Bugaboo 8/17/2021
Creek Reach 4
UT2 3/31/2021
Reach 5 6/12/2021
7/2/2021
8/18/2021
UT3 9/1/2021
9/18/2021
10/6/2021
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
Annual Precip
Total 40.56*
WETS 30th
Percentile 43.05
WETS 70th
Percentile 53.13
Normal
*Annual precipitation total was collected up until 10/27/2021.Data will be updated in MY2.

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge:Big Bugaboo Creek R3
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
- 3.5
0.5 - - 3.0
x - 2.5
w -
3 0.0 — - - - - 2.0 w
c
'm
m 1:- 1.5
0.5 1.0
hI1i1i - 0.5
-1.0 I I I I '.I - Ili IL
ii II YL I I I 0.0
li v a 2 a o z° o
Rainfall —Water Level - - Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge:Big Bugaboo Creek R4
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
- 3.5
0.5 - - 3.0
x - 2.5
E
'
. 0.0 — — — — 2.0
w cm
g - 1.5 1:
0.5 1.0
., _ J . I. . [di . _ 0.5
-1.0 I I I I I I I I Ikil I I 0.0
c a m c . a +' >
�° ii 5 Q 5 a in O z° a
Rainfall —Water Level — — Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge:UT2 R5
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
Surface water and bankfull data is skewed after
-
July 25,2021 due to thick in-stream vegetation. 3.5
I
0.5 - 3.0
x - 2.5
c
w �fi :..-
0.0 — - - I _ I 444_ _ "Nwpok - 2.0 4
`-, ' M c
m M"'""_ z
g - 1.5
0.5 - 1.0
hi11
- 0.5
10 I I ? i .J _ lii` i . Iit II I II I I 0.0
c a c un a +' >
�° ii 5 Q ro
5 a in O z° a
Rainfall —Water Level - - Bankfull

Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Crest Gauge:UT3
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1.0 - - 4.0
- 3.5
0.5 - - 3.0
- 2.5
w
3 0.0 — — i 2.0 m
c
°1 'm
g - 1.5 1:
0.5 - - 1.0
..II _ 11 J . L ,. [ ill III. - 0.5
10 I I I I I I I . - I I 0.0
c a m c . a >
�° ii 5 Q 5 a in O z° a
Rainfall —Water Level — — Bankfull

Table 12. Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Max Consecutive Days/Total Days Meeting Success Criteria*
Reach MY1(2021) MY2(2022) MY3(2023) MY4(2024) MY5(2025) MY6(2026) MY7(2027)
UT1 210 Days/
210 Days
UT2 Reach 1 102 Days/
107 Days
UT2A Reach 2 211 Days/
211 Days
UT2B 189 Days/
189 Days
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Bug Headwaters:In-Stream Flow Gauge#1-UT1
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1432.5 - - 8
2 10 days of consecutive stream flow
• - 7
•
— t 11432.0 -U
oisik
\II
-1. 11j-L -N
71\-\..n
II
56 9
4 :9>W -
2 1431.5 — ~ 3 a
r1
II - 1
1431.0 I I I I . • I II •� - i1 .�1 1 II IIII. I lit' I -I I Ili I I 0
C C be a > U
LL Q S Q Cl) O Z Daily Precipitation Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Bug Headwaters:In-Stream Flow Gauge#2-UT2 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1460 - 8
102 days of consec tive stream flow
• - 7
1 I14j— 2 - 6
w 1459
I ' S c
� �. •,., .._,
iksiA jkr
o
~ - 4 to
a
.2
W � � V - 3a`
1458 I �` , ili , I I
2
II - 1
1457 I 1 .I I . • I II •� - 11 ,•1 , II J II. I huI I -I I Ili I I 0
w LL Q S - - Q 1 O Z Daily Precipitation Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Bug Headwaters:In-Stream Flow Gauge#3-UT2A Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1449.5 - - 8
2 11 days of consecutive stream flow• 7
1449.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6
i 5 c
c
o
4; Asik I Lii
1448.5 � 4 Y
ro i :.
w JI ( .0
W a4. `
— 3 a
1448.0 I i I 2
` - 1
1447.5 I I .I 11 . 1 11 " - Ii 1 IliIIIJJ.I I -I I• 1 ilk 1 1 0
a)
LL Q S Q 1 O Z Daily Precipitation Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

Recorded In-Stream Flow Events Plots
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Bug Headwaters:In-Stream Flow Gauge#4-UT2B
Monitoring Year 1-2021
1420 - 8
- 7
1419
w I Ar �89 days of consecutive stream flow S
c
c I I iks �1 \
I o_
0
1 11 4 Y0.
1418 ~ � 3 a
I rd._ , I I - 2
./r j
II
- 1
1417 I 1 I I . • I Il " - 11 •.i 1II J II. IhuI I -I I 11k I I 0
19 w LL S Q S Q 1 0 Z Daily Precipitation Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th&70th Percentile

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Task Completion or Deliverable
Submission
Project Instituted NA June 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved September 2020 September 2020
Construction(Grading)Completed NA April 2021
Planting Completed NA April 2021
As-Built Survey Completed May 2021 May 2021
Stream Survey April 2021
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) October 2021
Vegetation Survey April 2021
In-Stream Vegetation Treatment July 2021
Stream Survey October 2021
Year 1 Monitoring December 2021
Vegetation Survey October 2021
Stream Survey 2022
Year 2 Monitoring December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Stream Survey 2023
Year 3 Monitoring December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
Year 4 Monitoring December 2024
Stream Survey 2025
Year 5 Monitoring December 2025
Vegetation Survey 2025
Year 6 Monitoring December 2026
Stream Survey 2027
Year 7 Monitoring December 2027
Vegetation Survey 2027
Table 14. Project Contact Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100084
Monitoring Year 1-2021
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Designer 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso Millns,PE Raleigh,NC 27609
919.851.9986
Wildlands Construction
Construction Contractor 312 West Millbrook Road,Suite 225
Raleigh,NC 27609
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring,POC
919.851.9986

APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation

IRT Correspondence:
Random Vegetation Plots

1/4/22,9:46 AM Mail-Carolyn Lanza-Outlook
RE: Bug Headwaters Veg Plots
Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Tue 10/26/2021 5:12 PM
To: Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>;Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Hi Carolyn,
That's fine if you make plots 5 and 15 random, as long as the veg in the pond bottoms is captured
annually. I couldn't tell from the map that the wetland was already forested, but if supplemental planting
occurred or the outside edge of the buffer was planted, I'd like that area captured in a random plot at
least once during monitoring. It also helps us see if invasives are present in unplanted areas. It's also
important to put random plots in areas where existing wetlands were, and in the planted area where the
dams were removed. Ideally, I'd like plots 5 and 15 to be permanent and have at least two additional
random plots. I'm OK with what you proposed, but we may request additional random plots in future
monitoring years if we feel we're not getting an overall picture of veg success.
Here's a section from our draft guidance that may help you determine where to place plots, and what
we're looking for:
Vegetation monitoring plots should be located across the site to provide a random sampling of all the
vegetation community types reestablished on the site. For projects that include both streams and
wetland, the plots should be located to cover both the stream buffers and wetlands. If ponds have been
removed as part of the work, the area of the former pond beds must contain monitoring plots. The
monitoring plots must make up a minimum of 2% of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of 4
plots. Regardless of the percentage of the site sampled, vegetation plots must cover all soil types,
vegetation communities, different hydrology regimes, and mitigation approaches on the site, as well as
any other areas of concern (e.g., near the easement boundary where encroachments are more likely,
areas where soils have been disturbed or compacted, dam removal, etc.).
Feel free to give me a call if you need to discuss.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From: Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Jeff
Keaton <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Bug Headwaters Veg Plots
Good Afternoon Kim,
My name is Carolyn Lanza, the lead scientist working on Bug Headwaters.Jeff asked me to communicate
directly with you to discuss the random veg plots. Wildlands will plan to make Veg Plot 5 and 15 random
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20211206021.09 1/3

1/4/22,9:46 AM Mail-Carolyn Lanza-Outlook
but keep them in the general areas of both ponds throughout the monitoring lifecycle. We will also
convert Veg Plot 3 to random and can move it around different wetland areas throughout the site.
However, the wetland along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 was predominantly forested and was left
undisturbed. There was only a small section that was planted. Putting a random veg plot in that area
every year would not leave us much room to move it around. We can move Veg Plot 3 to the planted
areas along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 once or twice throughout the monitoring lifecycle, if requested
by the IRT. Attached is the planting plan for Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 along with the CCPV.
Thank you,
Carolyn Lanza I Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Original Message
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 3:14 PM
To: Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bug Headwaters Veg Plots
Hey Jeff
The District Guidance states that a combination of permanent and fixed plots and random plots should
be used to demonstrate vegetation coverage, so it's assumed when we review the draft mitigation plans
that random plots are included. As long as the plots make up the minimum 2% of the planted portion of
the site, I'm fine with switching 3 of them to random. I'm definitely going to want to see veg data where
the pond was dewatered, so it might be good to plan for plot 5 to be permanent, or have a random plot
in that general area each year. I can't tell if plot 15 is an area where a pond was removed, but if so, I'll
want to see veg data here annually as well. I also noted a lot of existing wetlands on the site that aren't
captured with plot data, so putting a random plot on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4, near station 141+00,
will likely be a request in future monitoring years. So, I'm ok with making those three plots random, but
I'd like to capture data in the general areas where the ponds were removed annually.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From:Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Bug Headwaters Veg Plots
Hi Kim,
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20211206021.09 2/3

1/4/22,9:46 AM Mail-Carolyn Lanza-Outlook
The Bug Headwaters Mit Plan was approved without any indication of using random veg plots. Our
scientists installed 15 fixed veg plots for MY0 without including any random veg plots. Based on DMS
comments, Wildlands is requesting converting veg plots 3, 5, and 15 to random veg plots for future
monitoring reports. Please let me know if this is OK and if you need any more information to support
this change. CCPV maps for MY0 attached. Thanks.
Jeff Keaton, PE I Senior Water Resources Engineer
0: 919.851.9986 x103 M: 919.302.6919
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://Blockedwww.wildlandseng.com/>
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20211206021.09 3/3

• ,
Y 4
•- I
',I M
s♦
11
''IS� -- ' ' - F i d u r,- ' 4 -
s
'lam s''' _
nF .
a faa,A.a
1l�� 9
Mimeo
n ' -._
of _ _ � ..
,,,. - ,,,,,...
s+C \ '4 NTIlua I/
Lam' �n ° 3
UTi
4 u A O i r ya' %�' i .•
7 GAB � '
' i uset '-' ' 4 i 7 ,
(1. ' li-11-iir ,
A ,,,,,,,,„
_�S
- n
-� _
, , , .)_..,:',,
o If' v
/N
FI• :_ .= `. \v., Q,,
. . :..ilhilka. :i...11.,Ue.4-Am- 4'.'
fir
t ,
♦ 0 _ Big Bugaboo Gree
- I.
♦♦ - lid - _
I
r
� ;,Illi
t/
0 /, :://4
_., , . .,,-_,.11L ' '
��10. 1111V .- °/ r . 1 i Conservation Easement
x r \ //♦
;% Et Bugaboo
g% �`, Internal Crossing
'& 1 /R� v/ Existing Wetlands
. X \' �� , Ephemeral Step Pool BMP
•.6 11 i O•-% Pocket Wetland BMP
• t AM Vegetation Plots
" Stream Restoration
Eno Bugaboo ►Y J`+Y� _
axmr,,a'';,1 ,-• - Stream Enhancement I
•
• . 'r 11 Stream Enhancement II
• - •N
.. - No Credit
Fence
f I'' Utility Line
• r - • Cross Sections
• Reach Breaks
0 Photo Points
Barotroll
•'i+s- 3 ►! - -g Crest Gauge
,,. Flow Gauge
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key
Otli W I L D L A N D S 0 350 700 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I i I i I Yadkin Basin 03040101
N Monitoring Year 0 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

iii
. .04
o6mei
' _c_ _.
l
1 . 4 " IN I
3�+( ti
v d g r
II rI I1M
, , 1 —' III
J • t Reach9
4 >)'
li
•303 10
Y UT2A
0• Reach 9 M�
O 9 i; ~
z
Reach
-----Vc .3051% •
i /=Y' A /7 7
Lill-,..-- �s -ram= '�- --. Z"02,00
Y
•
30 00 a
o _ -
k _vim- �-�_ itS'77.---
a
, ' `- UT2A
t ^ 3o9 4-
' s`�° Reach 2
0
IgT STA 201+36: Riffle covered 4
in sediment. Will be repaired
Reach p or maintained as needed.
\,,,,, ,
�s , �/Y � �` - - ,�%mow 11" �. ' �1� "11
7 o
Z \ ' -sue- /
.4 1 x00
ok
v' �o ��
: +� ..w'.<"" --- k
e �� � . w
/ ���- �',
off' 'Y i. —7' -7-- _rim._---' .' �S'�,
oi'.' -. • �� .�: -K -•Tr•
i • Bugaboo( r •x_, i
J' % � Reach 9 t
. , iiiiiittnn ,• jr,:::;1411 *
.4%
' ,ir 7 Conservation Easement --- As-Built Bankfull
', • Internal Crossing Fence
r'7-I Existing Wetlands -- Utility Line
Ephemeral Step-Pool BMP Cross Sections
Mim Pocket Wetland BMP o Reach Breaks
•
Et Bugaboo Cjt3-' { 0 Vegetation Plots 0 Photo Points
Reach Stream Restoration 4- Barotroll
Stream Enhancement I 4- Crest Gauge
Stream Enhancement II 4- Flow Gauge
No Credit c Structures
2018 Aerial Photography __- - f,
,i
Figure la. Current Condition Plan View
040,1111, WI L D L AN D S 0 150 300 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I i I i I Yadkin Basin 03040101
N Monitoring Year 0 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

i Conservation Easement of1*1.
/ 3
(-7 Internal Crossing 4��
ir
Existing Wetlands z7
'4' .4041-4' - 0, .
1 I Vegetation Plots �!� .z1 ,
Stream Restoration _ _�_. � .ir
UT2B114 '
Stream Enhancement I �� /; IM
/ • /
Tr
- Stream Enhancement II A � 12
1 313+00 A� Reach p
50`�+00 • O ,��
/ r
- No Credit A / :j
` . \i ��
-—- As-Built Bankfull 1L7 s I. �o
E3 Fence Reach 0 4 '�
'i 315+0
——- Utility Line , iC
Cross Sections Y ,.
_
o Reach Breaks N
O Photo Points r
/ Reach 4
4- Crest Gauge 3 oo ( XS13
• Flow Gauge I / XS14
4 /•/ r
c Structures / b
/ ,
i1,7
� 1V/
1 39+jb �- - 11 r i
"
• 'I
n
l4 -1'1't ;4/`1,) \ ',z'''fr:‘.-4/..A2'.4 .--------1:: 2-../7 z'A'
�V�
. .1--'t
•
....-41411111111111111110
f //1
44
. %- it'''. <,,,,,,,,,,,,,- . .. ;
.s = �� ,' � Bugaboo C 2113
/)'/ Reach ,g
/ i`/ -
j- #1123+00 ' //'
Oft , /7,,,,/ •ii ./ il i
•
i J/
o / 0 y / -
4 13 12.5 //�
% ,4\ •/, • 4
'�� i*'4' /lI / ;
--
• 0 (I •/.
/1�'j //
,' �f //
Ar ;e
�\ r //
12g%00 ') ,A
•
//i -Si i
4- 11
131+
//i °) i
//• 1 r _
iy � /ty CaJ Bugaboo C
'Is °° Reach B t - -..
/ 3x
1. .\ 4'$ . '...1'/01, '''.:.. )4 -. .- . .
' 018 Aerial Photogr.e- .
Figure lb. Current Condition Plan View
11/4W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I 1 I 1 I Yadkin Basin 03040101
N Monitoring Year 0 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

•,
a
•
41% .
'ur :1/7+:74:/-*/010")/1;'
-•
w 'Or :
I' ll \ I(
i i
• z' / El♦ /
�•4 ` 1 \` + 125+50
♦ 11 ;
,�N
g r
♦ c A-
♦� III 1
•` 606+00ll .`♦ u 4 2yx00/ I
%1•-<' \ 11 4 0 / b.
- ° t\ It //
' ( COO Bugaboo
'z +— ,,Illit A ‘tReach D
„ l '
: 1A tiLk°° ' J'' 'r
4P i f
-.. *` . � - Oar
4tF
6ti Xo` -.\ .
M 1 I l
iiil ..
A
Et Bugaboo C # sI 139+00 ♦: Conservation Easement
Reach 4 ► //� Internal Crossing
';I ‘ /' Existing Wetlands
Q9V \ �iill 1 Vegetation Plots
��tiko° - Stream Restoration
oil, III Stream Enhancement I
o-, • ICI Stream Enhancement II
ur
{� At 'r1_.7_� 'a7_. _ _ 1II '. No Credit
r ' '4 + . .�el -—- As-Built Bankfull
It. u,.# s 11O .4,.k. , Fence
lit
?�� 1 It ' 4.t ,` .. gt1I Cross Sections
, 0. t ;. i i, ! , .
. ri r. % r o Reach Breaks
•
r ' ` r .,,t-- '`{VP t 0 Photo Points
1'fi Os, jot tl:O. '''. '4 ^ ..
- z , Crest Gauge
k- _ c Structures
2018 Aerial Photography -- .
Figure lc. Current Condition Plan View
040,111, W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING
I i I i I Yadkin Basin 03040101
N Monitoring Year 0 -2021
Wilkes County, NC

As-Built IRT Comments

‘1111Z
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 1, 2021
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Kim Browning
Subject: Monitoring Year 0 Report
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project, Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01788/DWR No. 2018-1273
Dear Kim:
We have reviewed the IRT's comments on the Monitoring Year 0 Report for the Bug Headwaters
Mitigation Site that you sent via email on November 23, 2021. Below are responses to each of the IRT's
comments in your email. Your original comments are provided followed by our responses in bold italics.
This letter will also be included with the MY1 Report.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Ground instability in both pond bottoms will likely be something to watch during monitoring
with regard to vegetation establishment. Was the sediment from the pond removed, and were
soil amendments added prior to plating?
For both ponds, sediment was removed from the stream corridor and replaced with stable fill
material for channel construction.Additional sediment was removed from the pond bottom
along Big Bugaboo Reach 3 to reach bankfull and floodplain elevations. Soil amendments
were added during temporary and permanent seeding activities. Herbaceous vegetation has
been established including a variety of pollinator species. The pond bottom along the right
side of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and both sides of UT3 will receive supplemental plantings
this winter. This will be addressed in the MY1 report.
2. What is the source of sediment covering the riffle at STA 201+36?
Bank settling was an issue in this area due to the surrounding saturated soil in wetlands.
Vegetation has been established and the sediment is expected to clear as the channel and
floodplain continue to stabilize.
3. If the existing wetlands were planted, please capture some of those areas with random veg plots
in future monitoring years.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

The My1 assessment has captured some existing wetlands with the random vegetation plots
as well as with fixed plots 1, 3, and 4. Wildlands will continue to rotate the random plots
around throughout the monitoring period to capture other existing wetlands.
4. Were planting substitutions made? It's difficult to tell the percent of each species planted from
Table 6.
Tag alder(Alnus serrulata) was not available for the wetland planting zone. This species was
not replaced due to very limited nursery stock availability of appropriate species, but species
percentage was adjusted accordingly in the As-Built Record Drawings Sheet 3.00 Planting
Table.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Overall, DWR was pleased with the level of detail included in the MY0 Report. We also
appreciated DMS' comments. And thank you for providing the drone video, it was very helpful
for this review.
Noted, thank you.
2. UT3 & UT6— It could simply be a terminology thing, but "stone bank fortification" raises a yellow
flag about riprapping a section of stream. Please provide a brief description of what was done as
part of the stone bank fortification, as well as a brief justification of need.
Similar to much of the site, quarry stone was used at the UT3/UT6 confluence because no
native stone was available. UT6 is not generating any credit. The pre-construction alignment
of UT6 was not altered but required 3'+of fill to match the proposed UT3 grade. Larger stone
was added to the riffle matrix and extended partially up the banks to deter settling and ensure
stability of the confluence.
3. Looking at the redline drawing set restoration reaches profiles, many of the as-built pools are
shallower than the design.Are these features expected to deepen over time?Will changes be
captured by the project cross-sections?
Several heavy rain events occurred during construction before vegetation was established
contributing to sediment in the pools. Bank and floodplain vegetation has now been
established and the sediment is expected to flush through the system over time. Cross-sections
will be surveyed during monitoring years 1, 2, 3,5, and 7, and data will be included in the
annual monitoring reports showing any changes captured in the cross-sections.
4. Based on observations from the video, if channel maintenance is being considered to manage
any vegetation growing within stream channels it should be proposed within the next two years.
In general, DWR does not support channel maintenance beyond MY3 in order to evaluate the
trajectory of a credit feature's functions (stream vs. wetland).
An aggressive in-stream vegetation treatment will occur in 2022 to manage the vegetation
growing within the stream channels and floodplain wetlands. Once the live stakes become
established and an effective treatment has occurred, it is expected that no channel
maintenance will be needed.
EPA Comments, Todd Bowers:
I have performed a cursory review of the Bug Headwaters mitigation site As-Built and MY0 Reports
dated October 2021. At this time I do not have any specific comments or concerns with the site as
2

presented by Wildlands Engineering.The major deviations such as rock sill replacement with log sills, the
realignment of UT 3, brush toe and riffle enhancements, fence realignments, BMP enhancements, and
the replacement of tag alder with other species in the planting plan were all noted and acceptable.
Noted.
Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x103 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager
3

IRT Correspondence:
Adaptive Management Activities

Carolyn Lanza
From: Carolyn Lanza
Sent: Friday,January 21, 2022 12:41 PM
To: Carolyn Lanza
Subject: Bug Headwaters
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,January 21, 2022 11:36 AM
To:Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew<[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; 'Wilson,Travis W. ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bug Headwaters
Good morning Jason,
Thanks for the feedback. We don't have any further questions.We're fine with your approach to replant the pond beds
as long as additional veg transects are added to monitor success.
Have a good weekend,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From:Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,January 21, 2022 7:29 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew<[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; 'Wilson,Travis W. ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Bug Headwaters
Kim,we share your concern over the murdannia this early in the project, however, we are prepared to deal with it. We
have people who are experienced in treating it and will be working on controlling it at the site. The areas of murdannia
will be carefully treated to reduce non-target damage as much as possible. We will work to establish temporary seed
after the last treatment of the season in August, and once the murdannia is effectively under control, a native seed mix
will be seeded in the treated areas. We will re-evaluate and replant woody species as necessary.
As stated in the mitigation plan, the pond sediments were removed along the stream corridor through each pond and
replaced with fill material from the removed dams. The new stream channels were constructed through the fill material.
Beyond the stream corridor, the pond bed sediments were not removed. The old pond bed along Big Bugaboo Creek
does not have cracking, but portions of the old pond bed along UT3 do. We have seen this on other successful projects
such as Bethel Branch and Catfish Pond. Once the old pond beds dry out during MY1, vegetation seems to grow well.
There is no plan to remove the old pond sediment since we feel that these areas have drained enough for vegetation to
adequately grow.
I.

Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns before we move forward with these actions. Thanks!
Jason Lorch, GISP I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Original Message
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday,January 13, 2022 4:15 PM
To:Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew<[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>;
[e-mail]; 'Wilson,Travis W. ([e-mail])' <[e-mail]>;
Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];Tugwell,
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Bug Headwaters
Hi Jason,
Erin,Travis, Andrea, Casey and I discussed this and since this is only the first year for this project,the IRT is OK with the
proposed treatment of the murdannia. If this was later in monitoring, we'd likely require an adaptive management plan.
It is concerning that it is already covering a large portion of the site. From my understanding, glyphosate is somewhat
effective; however, it will likely eliminate the herbaceous layer as well. We anticipate that several years of treatment will
be required until the present seed source has germinated and been treated. Once the murdannia has been eliminated
from the site, we will require a native herbaceous seed mix to be planted. Hopefully you will be able to treat it in the
wetland areas that are adjacent to the conservation easement as well.
Regarding the pond beds, was the site constructed during a wet time of year that prevented you from removing the
sediment from the pond bottom prior to planting? Is the sediment dried and cracking? Does the replanting include
removing the old sediment and applying soil amendments, or do you feel that the areas have drained enough that a
second planting would be successful? We've observed many restoration projects through old pond beds where the
sediment was not removed and it results in a fractured surface with a herbaceous layer and very limited stem survival.
We would suggest that you look at the wetland indicator status for the proposed species and only plant those that are
FACW and OBL; for example, Northern Red Oak is FACU. Lastly, we'll require additional veg transects in the replanted
areas to monitor success.
Please follow up with more details for the pond bed replanting. Reach out with any questions.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From:Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday,January 07, 2022 2:40 PM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Reid, Matthew<[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Bug Headwaters
2

Kim and Erin, I wanted to give you a quick update on Bug Headwaters and make sure you are fine with our proposed
management of the project this year. The first issue is that murdannia is growing in the wetlands and streams
throughout the project. Attached are the CCPV Maps showing the locations of the murdannia and the Vegetation
Condition Assessment Table from the MY1 Monitoring Report. The plan is to spray the murdannia site-wide in May and
assess the site a month later to determine what further actions will be necessary. A follow up treatment will most likely
be necessary, but until we see how the murdannia responds to the original treatment,we won't know what our plan of
action will be.
The second issue is that portions of the old pond beds are very saturated and a majority of the planted trees have not
survived. This encompasses an area of 1.75 acres, approximately 9%of the planted area of the site. Attached is a
proposed planting list with the species, type of plant, quantities, and a note to which plants were in the approved
Mitigation Plan. The plan is to plant these areas in late February 2022.
If you could review the attached information and let us know if you have any concerns with our management plan
moving forward, it would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Thanks!
Jason Lorch, GISP I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://Blockedwww.wildlandseng.com/>
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
3