20191132 Ver 1_East Buffalo MY1 Report Submission_20220215

From: Davis. Erin B
To: Baker. Caroline D
Subject: FW: [External] RE: East Buffalo MY1 Report Submission
Date: Friday, February 25, 2022 8:35:19 AM
Attachments: East Buffalo MY1 Report DRAFTreduced.odf
Laserfiche upload: Email & Attachment
DWR#: 20191132 v.1
Doc Type: Mitigation Monitoring Report
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:07 PM
To: Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>;
Hamstead, Byron A <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Davis,
Erin B <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Casey.M.Haywood @ usace.army.miI>
Subject: [External] RE: East Buffalo MY1 Report Submission
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
I reduced their file from 172 MB down to under 17MB and attached it for convenience.
Steve
From: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:34 PM
To: Andrea Leslie(Andrea.LeslieCcDncwildlife.org)<[e-mail]>;
travis.wilsonCcDncwildlife.org; Byron Hamstead ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Todd.J.Tugwelllo�usace.army.mil>; Browning,
Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.BrowningCo�usace.army.mil>; Haywood, Casey M
CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Casey.M.HaywoodCa�usace.army.mil>
Subject: FW: East Buffalo MY1 Report Submission
Good Afternoon IRT,
The MY1 Report review and credit release has been requested by Wildlands Engineering, Inc (WEI).
The package has been uploaded to RIBITS and the bank information is below. Per Section 332.8(o)(9)
of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review follows the streamlined review process, which requires an
IRT review period of 15 calendar days from this email notification. Please provide any comments by
5 PM on the 15-day comment deadline shown below. When providing comments please indicate if
your concerns are great enough that you intend to request a site visit prior to the MY1 credit

release. Comments provided after the 15-day comment deadline (shown below) may not be
considered. At the conclusion of this comment period, a copy of all comments will be provided to
WEI and the NCIRT along with District Engineer's intent to approve or disapprove this MY1 credit
release.
Site Summary
Sponsor:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
Name:
Wildlands Little Tennessee UMB - East Buffalo Mit Site
USACE ID:
SAW-2019-01296
River Basin:
Little Tennessee River Basin
HUC:
06010204
County:
Graham
CREDIT RELEASE:
10% of the total stream restoration and enhancement credits and 1% of preservation credits: 324.3
cold stream mitigation units
10% of the total wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement credits: 0.18 wetland
mitigation units
15-Day Comment Start Date: February 15, 2022
15-Day Comment Deadline: March 10, 2022*
*NOTE: Since the IRT is visiting the site on Thursday, February 24, 2022, comments are due 15 days
after the site visit is complete.
You can find the MY1 Report, Ledgers and Cover Letter combined in one document on RIBITs at the
link below. https://ribits.ops.usace.army.mil/ords/f?
p=107:278:12626358424938::: RP.278: P278 BANK I D:5162
Regards,
Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)-271-7980 Ext. 4234
(828)-933-8032 cell
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our
website at https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey1 to complete the survey
online.

From: Jessica Waller <iwallerPwildlandseng.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Steven.L.Kichefski(@usace.army.mil>
Cc: Andrea Eckardt <aeckardtCcDwildlandseng.com>; Jake McLean <imclean(@wildlandseng com>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] East Buffalo MY1 Report Submission
Good Morning Steven,
My name is Jess Waller- I am one of the new Environmental Scientists monitoring the East Buffalo
Mitigation Site on behalf of Wildlands Engineering. I have uploaded the East Buffalo MY1 monitoring
report to RIBITS for review under the MY1 folder. Please let me know if you have any questions. I
look forward to meeting you during our February site walk.
Best,
Jess Waller
Jess Waller I Environmental Scientist
0:828.774.5547 M:504-913-6238
(Pronouns: she/her)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 15, 2022
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Attention: Steve Kichefski
Subject: Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank — East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Third Credit Release (Monitoring Year 1 Completion)
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
This correspondence is in reference to the East Buffalo Mitigation Site, part of the Wildlands Little Tennessee
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The 259.84-acre site is in the Little Tennessee River Basin Hydrologic Unit 06010204
and is located at 1157 East Buffalo Road in Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina. The purpose of this
letter is to request the third release of credits (Year 1 Monitoring Complete) for this mitigation site.
Monitoring year 1 (MY1) site assessments were conducted between October 2021 and December 2021. Overall,
the project streams are in good condition and functioning as intended, with no areas of concerns. Crest gages
have been reconfigured to record water level data at a more frequent interval to better capture the brief
bankfull events characteristic of these slightly steeper streams. Vegetation assessments indicated an average
planted stem density of 304 stems per acre in fixed and mobile plots. Low stem density is likely due to the water
table rising higher than anticipated in areas adjacent to known wetlands and may require stems with more
resilient wetland indicator status. To address issues of low stem density supplemental planting is scheduled to
occur in the winter of 2022 with a revised planting list and arrangement tailored to reflect the current hydrologic
conditions. The adaptive management plan is included in Appendix F of the monitoring report. Invasive species
control will also occur in 2022 to treat new and persistent populations of Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and
Japanese honeysuckle. No easement encroachment has occurred.
Pursuant to the Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument and the site -specific East Buffalo Final Mitigation Plan,
successful completion of monitoring year 1 activities and demonstration that interim performance standards are
being met for all parcels within the bank grants ten percent (10%) of the mitigation site's total stream
restoration and enhancement credits, one percent (1%) of the site's total preservation credits, and 10% of the
site's total wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement credits be available for sale. Therefore,
we are requesting 324.30 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and .18 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) be released.
With this release 40% of the total stream restoration and enhancement credits, 40% of the total wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement credits, and 93% of the total stream preservation credits will
have been released.
Please contact us at either 704-332-7754 or 828-774-5547 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Andrea Eckardt
Bank Manager
#11AY A( 6
Jake McLean
Project Manager
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] South Mint Street Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Project Name:
Sponsor Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWQ Action ID:
Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank: East Buffalo
Mitigation Site
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC
SAW-2019-01296
2019-1132 version 1
County:
8-Digit HUC:
Year Project Instituted:
Date Prepared:
Total Potential Credits
Non -Forested
Stream Credits
Forested Wetland Credits
Wetland
Credit Classification
Credits
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan
4,432.50
1.75
Potential Credits from As -Built Survey
4,432.50
1.75
Graham County
06010204
2020
7/23/2021
Current and Future Credit Releases
Stream Credits
Forested Wetland Credits
Non -Forested Wetland
Credits
Projected
Actual Release
Credit Release Milestone
Scheduled
Releases
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Scheduled
Releases
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Scheduled
Releases
Coastal
Release Date
Date
1 (Bank/Site Establishment)''
15%
1,653.3
15%
0.26
15%
12/16/2020
12/16/2020
2 (Year O/As-Built)'
15%
509.0
15%
0.26
15%
Sep-21
10/4/2021
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)
10%
324.3
10%
0.18
10%
Feb-22
4 (Year 2 Monitoring)
10%
324.3
10%
0.18
15%
Feb-23
5 (Year 3 Monitoring)
10%
324.3
15%
0.26
20%
Feb-24
6 (Year 4 Monitoring)
5%
162.2
5%
0.09
10%
Feb-25
7 (Year 5 Monitoring)
10%
324.3
15%
0.26
15%
Feb-26
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)
5%
324.3
5%
0.09
NA
NA
Feb-27
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)
10%
162.2
10%
0.18
NA
NA
Feb-28
Stream Bankfull Standard
10%
324.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Varies'
Total Credits Release to Date
1653.3
4432.5
1.75
Contingencies (if any): None
Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release
1 - The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan.
2 -The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) Mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
3 - 89% release of total preservation credits within Site at establishment. 150 remaining credits released 30% at milestone 2, and using interm release Vs thereafter.
4 - A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Date

O
F
c
0
❑
ai
ai
w
c
a
o
J
£
m
00
£
❑A
V
ai
m
J�
E
s
v
3:0
w
ai
v
v
�
in
UU
N
a
O
}
N
N
�O
m
Q
O
O
�
O
M
�
cc
m
00
O
Q
ri
ri
3
m 'c
o v`
3
u 41
c
a
_ cr
U
u V
a D
E _
O
r+ ++
E
E
Y C w
O
O Ncn
m c N
O r
u
N
N
O ++ t0 N O
•� � L O O � N
fop
'6
'6
• , c (.0 = ea -I N
O
U
O
U
O L
OD A Q
L N
O m
N
N
OOD d
£ o a v Z a
£ 3
0
N
m
N
0 m
N N V N u 0
c m £ c a t'
"O
O
O
O
n
N
c W A c A Iy
N i O C V i
N
00
c-I
J J F
V
ri
N
£
GJ
a
o
r,
N
O
N
O
�
�
N
c-I
�
�
O
O
u
'v
>
C
O.
F
�
�

0
r
V7 (lj
�_
Y
v
N
Q1
C�
C
�
E
a,
z
V
W
N
o
{❑J
1^1
N
U
❑
N
fa
O
J
a
N
�
K
�
sJ
m
O
O
O
O
I�
a
3
o
F
3
u
C +'
O. O
E 7
_ cr
u
C
O. D 7
E _
C
Y O
E
O
Ev
'a u
a w
ro
v
in
ro
v
in
CJ N
m ~ N
(J
00 10 N O P
U
U
y
Y O O
W N 01 01
'
Cco
• O O ry 3 c0
O
a+ YL
£ a
O
O
N b�L cY0
N O
a,
0'
E O Z H
7 m ] C y
iQ
iQ
O
coa H 'a+
00
VN1 V1
rn
C W = C W i!
'O
M
G! aC G! Ln �p
C ,+Y'' = O
J m J H
a
a
Ln
•'
Y
G!
a
o
r,
N
O
N
O
�
O
C
O
'Y
u
=a
C
H
�
�

0
Ln
0,
L
0,n
E
Y
�
N
-0
v
v
y
L n
CG
-
v
,
LOU�
in
v
U
N
O
N
u
N
cr
y
a
�
O
•E
-
0
<
J
O
O
A
f V
O
U!
O
Q
C
3
o �
Y
Y
m
a r
E �
_ cr
m V
a
E _
r
o
Y M
O V
L W
m
V
C
n
C
a
E
w
fV
N
O i
m O N f0
,+�-+ 7k
O
O
C O N � N
O 41 l0 N �
E 3
Q
m
01
m in V
Gl
O
O
A. � � o
a
'O
M
J O
Q
cn
Q
cn
O
O
c0 .M Q
— f0 -p (A O
c d
N
N
i
V; Z y
v
0
0
E O
CL
0 d
i
V
A a=+
wo m y �' c K
ow Y J V
Y
r M d Q
lJJ m W y
d
Y
d d
o
a
J J F
O
cy
y
Y
fV
ON
\
N
O
,
m
\
c-I
O
�
C
O
uV_
VI
y
>
CL

MONITORING YEAR 1
MONITORING REPORT
Draft
February 2022
WILDLANDS LITTLE TENNESSEE UMBRELLA
MITIGATION BANK
EAST BUFFALO MITIGATION SITE
Graham County, NC
Little Tennessee River Basin
HUC 06010204
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
NC DWR #2019-1132 Version 1
Data Collection Period: Oct 2021— Dec 2021
Draft Submission Date: February 15, 2022
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT)
Project Manager: Mr. Steve Kichefski
US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28806-5006

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R IN G
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Kristi Suggs
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone] MO

EAST BUFFALO MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1: PROJECT OVERVIEW..........................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Quantities and Credits......................................................................................................1
1.2
Project Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................2
1.3
Project Attributes..........................................................................................................................4
Section
2: MONITORING YEAR 1 DATA ASSESSMENT.........................................................................
7
2.1
Vegetative Assessment.................................................................................................................
7
2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern........................................................................................................7
2.3
Stream Assessment... ... ................................................................................................................ 7
2.4
Stream Areas of Concern..............................................................................................................8
2.5
Hydrology Assessment..................................................................................................................8
2.6
Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................8
2.7
Adaptive Management Plan..........................................................................................................8
2.8
Monitoring Year 1 Summary.........................................................................................................8
Section
3: REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
10
TABLES
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits........................................................................................................ 1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements.........................................................3
Table3: Project Attributes............................................................................................................................ 5
FIGURES
Figure la-d 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
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 7
CVS Permanent
Table 8a-c
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Section Plots
Table 9
Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report

Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Table 12 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Crest Gage Plots
Groundwater Gage Plots
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Groundwater Gage Soil Profile Field Data Sheets
Groundwater Gage Soil Profile Photographs
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Revised Planting Plan
Appendix G Agency Correspondence
As-Built/MYO Credit Release Letter — October 4, 2021
As-Built/MYO Credit Release — Wildlands Comment Response
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The East Buffalo Mitigation Site (Site) is located approximately 3 miles north of Robbinsville in Graham
County, NC and is a subset of the larger Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Bank
service area includes the towns of Robbinsville, Lake Santeetlah, and Fontana Dam. The Site is located
within the Western Blue Ridge terrane in the Blue Ridge physiographic province and the watershed is
dominated by agricultural and forested land (NCGS 1985).
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
The Site is located on 2 parcels under 1 landowner and a conservation easement was recorded on 259.8
acres. Stream mitigation work within the Site included restoration, enhancement I, enhancement II, and
preservation of over 14,020 linear feet of perennial and intermittent stream channels. Wetland
mitigation work included reestablishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of 1.18 acres of wetlands.
Table 1 below shows stream credits by reach and total amount of stream credits expected at closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT
MITIGATIONQUANTITIES
Mitigation
As -Built Mitigation
Restoration Mitigation
Project Segment Plan ft/ac Category
Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments
Footage
Stream
channel grading, structure
placement, bank grading, bench
EBC R1
550
550
Cold
Ell
2.5
220.000
grading, terrace grading, treat
invasive species
EBC R2
842
842
Cold
R
1.0
842.000
full channel restoration
channel grading, structure
placement, bank grading, bench
EBC R3
324
324
Cold
Ell
2.5
129.600
grading, treat invasive species,
cattle removed
UT1
396
396
Cold
Ell
4.0
99.000
remove invasive species
decommission surrounding
UT2 R1
1,797
1,797
Cold
P
7.0
256.714
I oggin roads
reconstruct stream valley,
restore upper segment, bank
UT2 R2
587
587
Cold
El
1.5
391.333
grading, structure placement,
reroute stream, cattle removed
UT3 R1
2,179
2,179
Cold
P
7
311.286
UT3 R2
976
978
Cold
R
1.0
976.000
Full channel restoration
UT3 R3
380
380
Cold
El
1.5
253.333
relocate, cattle removed
UT4a
-
744
Cold
-
-
no action
decommission surrounding
UT4b
505
505
Cold
P
7.0
72.143
logging roads
UT4b1
Cold
no action
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

Mitigation
As -Built
Mitigation
Restoration
Mitigation
Project Segment
Plan
Credits
Comments
ft/ac
Category
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Footage
Stream
decommission surrounding
UT4 R1
2,993
2,993
Cold
P
7.0
427.571
logging roads, remove crossing
dimension, pattern, and step-
UT4R2
164
166
Cold
El
1.5
109.333
pool restoration, eliminate
perched pipe, cattle removed
UT5 R1
1,343
1,343
Cold
P
7.0
191.857
step pool restoration, cattle
UT5 R2
181
181
Cold
Ell
2.5
72.400
removed, treat invasive species
UT6
-
-
Cold
-
-
no action
UT7
799
799
Cold
P
10.0
79.900
treat invasive species
Total:
4,432.471
Wetland
removal of relic agricultural
drain tiles, excavate
overburden, remove invasive
Relic Wetland K
1.06
1.06
Cold
RE
1.0
1.060
species and cattle, native
woody and herbaceous
vegetation planted
stream relocation, remove
Wetland D
invasive species and cattle,
0.66
0.66
Cold
RH
1.5
0.440
(portion)
native woody and herbaceous
vegetation planted
remove invasivespecies and
Wetland D
0.74
0.74
Cold
E
3.0
0.247
cattle, native woody
(portion), E, F, I, J
herbaceous vegetation planted
Total:
1.747
Project Credits
Stream
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold
Riparian Wetland
Non-
Riparian
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
1818.000
Re-establishment
1.060
Rehabilitation
0.440
Enhancement
0.247
Enhancement 1
754.000
Enhancement 11
521.000
Creation
Preservation
1339.471
Totals
4432.471
1.747
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits and project goals were established to
address stressors identified in the Little Tennessee River Basin Restoration Priorities RBRP (DIMS, 2018).
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
Goal
Objective/ Treatment
Likely Functional Uplift
Performance Criteria
Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Reconstruct stream
channels slated for
Bank height ratios shall
restoration with stable
not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios
dimensions and
Reduceerosion and
shall beat least 1.4 for
All streams are
Improve the
appropriate depth
sediment inputs;
Cross-section
stabilityof
relative to the existing
maintain appropriate
restored Bchannels and
monitoring and
stableand
stream channels.
floodplain. Add bank
bed forms and sediment
2.2 for restored
visual inspections.
functioningas
revetments and in -stream
size distribution.
channels with visual
designed.
assessments showing
structures to protect
progression toward
restored/enhanced
sta bi I ity.
strea ms.
Install habitatfeatures
such as constructed
Support biological
riffles, cover logs, and
communities and
Improve
brush toes on restored
processes. Provide
There is not required
per
N/A
N/A
i nstrea m ha bi ta t.
reaches. Add woody
aquatic habitats for
materials to channel
diverse populations of
hismetestandard
for this metric.
t
beds. Construct pools of
aquatic organisms.
va ryi ng depth.
Restore and enhance
Free groundwater
ri pa ri a n wetl a nds by
surfacewithin 12 inches
raisingstream beds,
Increased water storage,
oftheground surface
rel oca ti ng streams to
increased groundwater
for 26 consecutive days
ages
Groundwatergtlan
Restore wetland
natural valley low
recharge, water quality
(12%) ofthe defined
deestabl inwent,
3 of 5 groundwater
points, removing
treatment through
growingseason for
re-establishment,
gauges met criteria
andrplogy,soils,
and plant
agricultural drain tiles,
retention, and increased
Graham County (April 2
rehabilitation, and
in MY1.
communities.
removing overburden
habitatfor aquatic and
through November5)
eas
from relic hydric soils,
terrestrial species.
undertypical
monitoredannenhancement
all
monitored annually.
and planting native
precipitation
wetland species.
conditions.
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
4111111100 Monitoring Report Year 1

Goal
Objective/ Treatment
Likely Functional Uplift
Performance Criteria
Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Reduce she@rstress on
channel, hydrate
Reconstruct stream
channels with
adjacent wetland areas,
Four bankfull events
Reconnect
appropriate bankfull
filter pollutants outofmust
be documented on
overba nk fl ows, provide
Crest gages with
channels with
dimensions and depth
restoration and
No bankfull events
floodplains and
relativeto the existing
surface storage of water
enhancement I streams
transducers
were recorded in
riparian
floodplain. Realign
on floodplain, increase
in separateyears within
recordingflow
MY1.
wetlands.
histori ca I I y a I tered
groundwater recharge
the seven-year
elevations.
whilereducingoutflowof
channels to natural
monitoring period.
valley low points.
stormwater, support
water quality and habitat
goals.
Survival of at least 320
planted stems per acre
at the end of MY3 and at
least 260 stems per acre
at end of MY5. Survival
Convert grass fields and
of 210 planted stems
grazed pastureto
Provide a canopy
per acre in the planted
Vegetation plots
6 of 12 vegetation
Restore and
forested riparian buffers
shadestre andms
riparian areas atthe
measuring100
plots have
enhance native
along Sire streams.
rms
reduce ther I loading;
of MY7. No single
square meters are
planted stem
floodplain
Protect and enhance
staend
loodplze ea;suppo m banks
planted or volunteer
established on2%of
density greater
and floodplain; support
and
vegetation.
existing forested riparian
species should
the planted area and
than 320stems per
buffers. Treat invasive
water quality habitat
comprise >50% oftotal
monitored annually.
acre.
species.
goals.
stem density within any
plot at MY3, MY5 or
MY7. Planted trees must
average 6 ft in height at
end of MY5 and 8 ft at
MY7.
Extend conservation
easements to the top of
Preserve and
the ridge on manyofthe
Protect and enhance
Visually inspect the
perimeter of the Site
enhancesite
tributaries. Reduce
aquatic habitat; reduce
No easement
streams,
s edi ment i mpa cts from
sediment inputs; protect
Prevent easement
to ensure no
encroachments
wetlands, and
old logging roads and
any rare natural
encroachment.
easement
observed in MY1.
encroachment is
watershed.
remove culverts. Exclude
communities.
livestock from Site
occurring.
strea ms.
1.3 Project Attributes
The Site was historically used for agricultural production and logging. Since 1963, the landowner rotated
cattle pasture and row crops in the East Buffalo Creek valley bottom and lower valley side slopes. Prior
to construction, streams and wetlands in this area were in various stages of impairment related to
hydrologic modification, current and historical agricultural practices, and a lack of well -established
riparian buffers. Ditching and belowground field tiles drained wetlands and reduced natural sheet flow
across the site. Long-term cattle access and insufficient vegetative buffers severely degraded water
quality and bank stability of valley bottom channels. Areas surrounding the headwaters of UT2-UT7 have
predominantly remained forested with occasional logging activity. Table 3 below and Table 8 in
Appendix C present additional information on pre -restoration conditions.
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
4111111100 Monitoring Report Year 1

Table 3: Project Attributes
PROJECT
Project Name
INFORMATION
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
County
Graham County
Project Area (acres)
259.8
Project Coordinates
35°21-56"N,83°48-16"W
••
Physiographic Province
•• MLA 1we
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Little Tennessee River
USGS HUC 8-digit
06010204
DWR Sub -basin
04-04-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
East Buffalo Creek: 600, UT3: 156, UT6:21, UT7: 23
Percentage of Impervious Area
1.5%
Land Use Classification
97%forested, 2%cultivated crops and hay, 1%developed land
Parameters
East Buffalo Creek UT1 UT2
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2
Pre -project length (feet)
574
817
325
396
1,797
596
Post- ro'ect feet
550
842
324
396
1,797
587
Va I ley confinement'
MC
C
MC
Drainage area acres
490 596 600 52
48
1 51
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
DWR Water Quality Classification
C
Dominant Stream Classification(existing)
133a
A3/133a
63/E3b
64a
---
E4b
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
---
133a
---
---
---
64a
Dominant Evolutionary class Simon ifapplicable
VI
II
VI
VI
1
II
Parameters
UT3
UT4
R1
R2
R3
R1
R2
Pre- roiectIen h feet
2,179
976
380
2,993
164
Post- ro'ect feet
2,179
978
380
2,993
166
Va I ley confinement
C
CtoMC
MC
C
MC
Drainage area (acres)
45
64
156
77
78
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
DWR Water Quality Classification
C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)
---
Ma
B4
---
A4/64
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
---
64a
B4
---
64a
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) ifapplicable
1
11
V
I
IV
Parameters
UT4b
UT'
UT7
R1
R2
Pre -project length (feet)
505
1 1,343
1 799
Post -project (feet)
505
1,343
181
799
Va I ley confinement
C
Draina earea acres
17 47
23
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
I/P
DWR Water Quality Classification
C
Dominant Stream Classification(existing)
---
---
A4/64a
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
---
---
B42
Dominant Evolutionary class Simon ifa licable
I
I
I
I
I
MC= moderately confined, C=confined
OEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

WETLAND SUMMARY
Relic Wetland K
• •
Wetland D Wetland E
Size of Wetland (acres)
1.06
1.28
0.23
Wetland Type
---
Headwater Forest
Headwater Forest
Mapped Soil Series
---
Thurmont-Dillard/ Dillard
Dillard
Drainage Class
---
WD/MWD
MWD
Soil Hydric Status
---
No
No
Source of Hydrology
---
Groundwater Discharge
Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method
Re -Establishment
Enhancement (0.41 acres)
Rehabilitation (0.66 acres)
Enhancement
Wetland F
Wetland I
Wetland J
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.04
0.02
0.05
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Headwater Forest
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
Mapped Soil Series
Dillard
Spivey-Whiteoak
Spivey-Whiteoak
Drainage Class
MWD
WD
WD
Soil Hydric Status
No
No
No
Source of Hydrology
Overland Flow
Groundwater Discharge
Overland Flow
Restoration or enhancement method
Enhancement
Enhancement
Enhancement
Parameters
REGULATORY•.
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2019-01296
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR# 19-1132
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
NPDES Construction Stormwater General
Permit NCG010000
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
I Appendix 5 in Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5 in Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Ma nagement Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMAFloodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Graham County Floodplain Development
Permit#202010
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

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
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update (IRT 2016). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic assessment
are in Section 1.2 (Table 2). Methodology for annual monitoring is presented the MYO Annual report
(Wildlands 2021).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in October 2021 resulting in a planted stem density range of
202 — 445 stems per acre and an overall site annual mean of 304 stems per acre for combined
permanent and mobile vegetation plots. Of the 12 permanent and mobile vegetation plots, 6 are
meeting the interim criteria of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Herbaceous vegetation is thriving
across most of the site with only small pockets of sparse areas present. Refer to Appendix A and B,
respectively, for vegetation plot photographs and detailed vegetation plot data.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
At an overall average of 304 stems per acre, woody vegetation in planted areas on the Site is not on
track to meet MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. Low stem density was observed on
approximately 68% of the planted area and is likely due to the water table rising higher than anticipated
in areas adjacent to known wetlands and may require stems with a more resilient wetland indicator
status. Additionally, inadequate planting of bare roots and live stakes in the challenging rocky terrain
may have contributed to overall poor survival as exposed roots were observed in many stems
throughout the Site. Permanent vegetation plot 8 showed minimal species diversity with northern red
oak (Quercus rubra) comprising >50% of species in the plot. To address issues of low stem density and
low diversity, supplemental planting is scheduled to occur in the winter of 2022 with a revised planting
list and arrangement tailored to reflect the current hydrologic conditions. Refer to Section 2.7 detailing
the adaptive management plan found in Appendix F.
The MY1 visual assessment revealed that 99% of the conservation easement is absent of invasive
species. Areas of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) originally identified pre -restoration along UT1, UT2,
UTS, and UT7 were significantly reduced during construction using mechanical treatment. A contractor
treated any remaining Chinese privet in June and September 2021 using cut -stem and hack and squirt
control methods (Table 13). Minor pockets of resprouts were observed in MY1 and will receive a follow
up chemical treatment in MY2. Small, scattered clusters of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were
observed near Wetland D and a minor area of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japaconia) was noted in
the western section of the easement immediately north of East Buffalo Road. All invasive areas are
below the mapping threshold (0.1 acres), but all will be chemically treated in spring/summer 2022
(Figures la-c).
Approximately 98% of the planted area was covered in abundant herbaceous vegetation with only
minor patches of sparsely vegetated areas observed (Figures la-c). Soil samples were collected in these
locations to identify possible deficiencies and action will be taken in MY2 if necessary.
VEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in December 2021. All streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. All 8 cross -sections on the Site show bank height ratios remain less than 1.2
and little change was shown in the bankfull area. Pebble count data is no longer required per the
September 29, 2021, Technical Work Group Meeting and is not included in this report. Refer to
Appendix A and Appendix C, respectively, for stream photographs and morphology data.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Currently, there are no stream areas of concern in MY1.
2.5 Hydrology Assessment
There were no bankfull events recorded for any restoration or enhancement I streams despite above
average rainfall experienced at the Site in MY1 (USGS Geological Survey 2016, USDA 2021). Crest gauges
were initially set to record every 3 hours which may be too large of an interval to capture brief bankfull
events characteristic of these slightly steeper streams. Crest gages were reconfigured in January 2022 to
record water level data every 30 minutes. Refer to Appendix D for bankfull, rainfall, and crest gage data.
2.6 Wetland Assessment
Three of five GWGs (GWG 1, 4, and 5) met the criteria for MY1 and two (GWG 2 and 3) failed to meet.
The area near GWG 2 did not meet criteria likely due to numerous preferred surface water flow paths,
formed during construction, which quickly drain the surrounding land. GWG 3 may represent more
marginal wetland areas in Wetland D and will be closely monitored for wetland hydrology in MY2.
2.7 Adaptive Management Plan
Supplemental planting of 2,686 stems will occur in the winter of 2022 on 68% (14.11 acres) of the
planted area at 100-300 stems per acre. This action will address low woody stem vigor and density in
areas that did not meet criteria, represented by permanent vegetation plots 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 and mobile
plot 1. Additionally, it will create more appropriate species diversity in remaining sections of the site
which met density standards, represented by permanent vegetation plots 4-8 and mobile vegetation
plot 2. Refer to Appendix F for approved amended planting list and adaptive management plan
submitted to the IRT on February 3, 2022.
The lower portion of the reestablishment area (Wetland K), represented by GWG 2, did not meet the
hydrologic success criteria and exhibited flashy hydrologic responses to rainfall events. Multiple
preferred surface water flow paths, formed during construction and persisting in the lower portion of
the wetland, are likely responsible for the rapid drainage. Wildlands plans to perform vegetative and
minor rill plugging in this area to decrease the influence of preferred flow paths and increase residence
time over the surface of the wetland. If proposed adaptive management activities do not improve
hydrology in the lower portion of reestablishment wetland, Wildlands will evaluate next steps to isolate
non -performing areas.
Invasive species control will occur in MY2 to treat new and persistent populations of Chinese privet,
multiflora rose, and Japanese honeysuckle. Chemical ring sprays will be the main treatment method.
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

2.8 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Six of twelve vegetation plots met or exceeded the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per
acre and 6 failed to meet criteria. To address this issue, 2,686 stems will be planted on 14.11 acres at
100-300 stems per acre in winter 2022 according to a revised planting plan. Observed pockets of
invasive species across the site will be chemically treated in MY2 to further reduce new and persistent
populations. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed though there were no
recorded bankfull events for any stream reaches in MY1. Crest gauges were adjusted to record every 30
minutes to capture brief bankfull events on these flashier streams. Three of five GWGs met criteria for
wetland hydrology. The lower portion of the reestablishment area represented by GWG 2, will receive
minor plugging and vegetation work to increase surface water penetration and will be closely monitored
in MY2. Overall, the site is preventing excess nutrients and sediment from entering the Little Tennessee
basin and with the implementation of an adaptive management plan will be 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.
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1

Section 3: REFERENCES
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), 2018. Little Tennessee River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Survey,
General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc4
NC Interagency Review Team (IRT), October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCS), 2021.
WETS Station Tapoco, NC, 1971-2000.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2016, National Water Information System data available on the World Wide Web
(USGS Water Data for the Nation), accessed February 2, 2022, at URL
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/uv?site_no=0351706800.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc., 2021. East Buffalo Baseline Monitoring Report. Asheville, NC
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Monitoring Report Year 1 10

Figures

Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View Key
WILD LANDS 0 200 400 Feet East Buffalo Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I i I I Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Graham County, NC

Conservation Easement
-'- Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation -
Existing Wetlands - _
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
-� Stream Enhancement II
a Stream Preservation -
x.
' Not For Credit Stream
Non -Project Streams
— Existing Powerline Easement
Relocated Powerline Easement _
Cross -Sections
QQ Reach Breaks
' {} Photo Point
Barotroll
Crest Gage .-f.•
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY1
Criteria Not Met (Permanent)
0 Criteria Met (Permanent)
Criteria Not Met (Mobile)
Q Criteria Met (Mobile)
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY1 _
® Poor herbaceous cover r•
Supplemental Planting - February 2022
Buffer Planting
Wetland Planting
ROW Planting r
Wetland Adaptive Management
Groundwater Gage - MY1
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Metr,,. ,
rAr
hoy^ 4 J4
r �
W
S�
GPiO'
i f 6 r .• a, 'q, l f
L•3�1f3 z: � r��d �..
O
ITA
stn . -.. ��. Q
WYLDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure la. Current Condition Plan View Map
0 50 100 Feet East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Graham County, NC

U��
1 \ I y
i
-
11
I
I r \
r 1
-77
GO
� +• � 8 is' 2 W � \ \
\Q.�
\ 1
\o
r 1 ,
1
I I 1 1
I Q I i I
• 1 1 1 0
1 1 ,
I I \ I I
LLL����II Zr' E3 1 i
EE \
-L Q
-
_ �
A � /
CIO (�
N ^ Z
N H
`S W
� W
m E
o_ E E '.°-. °�' E 5 c '6 E a. 0 8 F Ql1 w
a
a � v` ffi
2: z
`m ._ E
u 3 3 3 w In in N in z z w It ¢ u a m u '� u` u` 0u` R° d m 3 3 u` 6 _- -
r

N
N
� N
a
o S c 2 E
czl z
� - a
n c v e
v
E E E E
H a m a- a`0i m e�0i v c N o °a
4 �.
in in in ,n z z w r[ f¢ u` a m u` ;? u` u` u u` W a mm 3 et 3 c u` u`
Ki �ON04 ®I¢
Iv

Z
z�
w
I �Z
45
QZ
w
3
t�

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
EBC R2
Number Stable, Total Number Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Performing as in Unstable
Intended As -built Footage
Assessed Stream Lengthl
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
842
Assessed Bank Length
1,684
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or surface
0
100%
scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank
Bank
Toe Erosion
failure appears likely. Does NOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational,
slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
21
21
100%
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures
Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
10
10
100%
15%.
UT2 R2
Number Stable, Total Number Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Performing as in Unstable
Intended As -built Footage
Assessed Stream Lengthl
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
587
Assessed Bank Length
1,174
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or surface
0
100%
Bare Bank
scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank
failure appears likely. Does NOT include
Bank
Toe Erosion
0
100%
undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational,
Bank Failure
0
100%
slumping, calving, or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
1
Grade control structures exhibiting
Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures
Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
0
0
N/A
15%.
'Cascading riffle -pool sequences evaluated as one grade control under the structures category

Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
UT3 R2
Major Channel Category Metric Performing as in Unstable
FootageNumber Stable, Total Number Amount of
Intended As -built
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
978
Assessed Bank Length
1,956
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or surface
0
100%
scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank
Bank
Toe Erosion
failure appears likely. Does NOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational,
slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
17
17
100%
Structure
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
9
9
100%
UT3 R3
Major Channel Category Metric Performing as in Unstable
FootageNumber Stable, Total Number Amount of
Intended As -built
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
380
Assessed Bank Length
760
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or surface
0
100%
scour.
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank
Bank
Toe Erosion
failure appears likely. Does NOT include
undercuts that are modest, appear
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational,
slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
Structure
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
East Buffalo Mittigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
Planted Acreaee 20.60
Vegetation Category
DefinitionsMapping
Combined
% of Planted
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.10
0.36
2%
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
0.10
14.11
68%
Areas
criteria.
Total
14.47
70%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
0.10
0
0%
Rates
Standard.
Cumulative Total
14.47
70%

Stream Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

Photo Point 1- UT1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 1- UT1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 2 - E. Buffalo Creek R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 2 - E. Buffalo Creek R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 3 - E. Buffalo Creek R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 3 - E. Buffalo Creek R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 4 - Wetland Re-establishment, view North (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 4 - Wetland Re-establishment, view East (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 4 - Wetland Re-establishment, view South (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 4 - Wetland Re-establishment, view West (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 5 - UT2 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 5 - UT2 R2, view downstream 12/13/2021)

Photo Point 6 - UT2 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 6 - UT2 R2, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 7 - E. Buffalo Creek R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 7 - E. Buffalo Creek R2, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 7 - UT2 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 8 - E. Buffalo Creek R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 8 - E. Buffalo Creek R2, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 9 - UT5 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 9 - UT5 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 10 - UT5 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 10 - UT5 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

I {
x
i
E e
1 '
I
79
Y
s 9
�i

Photo Point 14 - UT3 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 14 - UT3 R2, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 15 - UT3 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 15 - UT3 R2, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 16 - UT3 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 16 - UT3 R2, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 17 - UT4 R2, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 17 - UT4 R2, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 18 - UT3 R3, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 18 - UT3 R3, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 19 - UT2 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 19 - UT2 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 20 - UT2 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 20 - UT2 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 21- UT2 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 21- UT2 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 22 - UT2 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 22 - UT2 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 23 - UT3 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 23 - UT3 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 24 - UT3 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 24 - UT3 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 25 - UT3 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 25 - UT3 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 26 - UT3 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 26 - UT3 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 27 - UT4b, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 27 - UT4b, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 28 - UT4 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 28 - UT4 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Photo Point 29 - UT4 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 29 - UT4 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 30 - UT4 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 30 - UT4 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 31- UT4 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 31- UT4 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

/ 1
q
1, 1 AiAtii,

Photo Point 35 - UT3 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) 1 Photo Point 35 - UT3 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021) 1
Photo Point 36 - UT2 R1, view upstream (12/13/2021) I Photo Point 36 - UT2 R1, view downstream (12/13/2021)

Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Year 1

Permanent Vegetation Plot 1 (1011412021) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 (1011412021) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 3 (1011412021) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 4 (1011412021) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 (1011412021) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 6 (1011412021) 1

Permanent Vegetation Plot 7 (1011412021) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 8 (1011412021) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 9 (1011412021) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 10 (1011412021) 1
Mobile Vegetation Plot 1(1011412021) 1 Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 (1011412021) 1

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
Permanent Vegetation Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean (MY1-
2021)
1
N
50%
50%
2
N
3
N
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
N
10
N
Mobile Vegetation Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
1
N
50%
2
1Y

LL �
c N
0
m
01 �
tw
O O
> v ry
Y_
C N N
Q
c O N
m
E z
N c }
> O O W
c
P w a0+
CO
N N o
m m L
Cu
S
V
Cu
v
N
�
�
N
E
N
v
N
v
bo
7
N
O
f0
U
c
7
m
m
c
m
N
m
,
CuO
N
c
m
s
N
-o
CL
N
v
V
m
7
L
v0
E
N
X
m
N
Q
Y
?
N
N
0
N
-o
-o
`
m
0
Y
V
V
N
-o
mc
E
v
N
m
m
Q
N
c
b
Q
E
N
_o
W
-oj
N
N
m
N
E
c
•N
O
V
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
V
Y
N
N
N
}
>
N
C
_N
m
-o
Y
to
N
m
N
j
h
YO
_7
0
V
v
-oN
O
a
m
O
>
c
O
u
v
V
'p
7
N
N
c
'O
m
j
O
V
Y
Y
O
Y
won
n
N
s
a
n
n
c
°~
v
0
o
m
U
c
m
m
N
m
c
m
w
V
N
V
`�
N
U
Z
c°
C
E
L
V
N
>`
Y
`
N
C
m
�•
O
7
N
m
N
L
N
N
Y
N
'
V
N
>
7
-o
`�
N
—
vi
V
O
u
U
m
C
m
v
w
�.''
_°�
m
N
w
V
V
N
N
N
u
`
'O
O
N
O
m
cu
0-
�°
O
v
m
N
Q
C
w0
m
m
U
N
N
L
Y
Q
N
N
m
E
E
E
Y
-O
E
7
N
E
}
C
O
Q
N
N
w
O
,�
Y
N
7
ay.+
L
cL
_O
Q
a0+
N
N
cm
IaN+
N
N
-o
b
m
O
m
Q
N
c
u
u
N
N
N
N
v
OA
°
Y
J
N
Z
Q
Q
°
V
V
W
m
N
Y
O
�..�
V
w
2
z
m
rv0
a
Y
N
i+
O
o°n
o°n
to
Q
>.
Q
>.
Q
m
O
W
I
v
L
L
Y
w
w
E>>
a
0
w
m
O
Ln
v
Y
Y
3
O
O
m
-o
L
L
w
O
w
O
`
Lq
O
N
m
3
3
c
c
Y
Y
m
N
r
4
m
U
N
U
N
N
>?
•�
7
•�
7
N=
N
N
c
7
c
7
N
E
W
D
N
E
0
~
t,
'O
.N
.N
7
_N
_N
O
N
N
t
t
cu
N
N
O
i--I
rv0
Y
N
d
—O
Z
c
V
N
V
N
N
U
U
Y
7
7
,�
00
w
N
N
c
ry
Q
O
N
N
O
O
.Q
D
O
O
Q
V
c
V
c
O
E
>
N
>
N
c
v
c
v
-o
N
m
O
ry
p
Q
Q
w
N
N
,�
to
to
.X
Y
.x
Y
H
H
c
ooO\
N
L
Z
V
R
u
L
L
O
O"
O"
O
m
m
m
m
l0
N
N
`°
o>
m
H
v
m
m
^
N
m
m
E
E
rv==
o
m
ci
U
X
m
r,
Z
W
W
J
Lt
LL
J
Q
Q
cH
J
J
cl
0
W
W
Q-
N
Y
m
O
�+
OCa
�
c
T
C
3
a
m
�
6
y
N
LL
O
N
E
a
+'
O
_
a
an
d
E
V
m
Z
v
v
a
w
a
N
E>
y
v
Q
m
m
Z
J
Z
O
41
N
a
CL
T
T
N
�O
E
c
o
i
Q
0
y
N
F
am-+
c
m
Vf
.0
N
Vf
0
m
a+
'6
0
a
C.
v
+o'
m
m
m
W
d
d
.N
0.
0'
°•'
:°
:°
E
v
m
v
'o
'o
N
E
E
E
O
'g
'g
E
G
G
G
G
0
00
00
G
G
G
Q
a
G
cc
v°
ii
a
a
a>>
a
a
a
vmi

Table 8a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Current
Permanent Vegetation
Plot D.2021)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Permanent Plot 1
Permanent Plot 2
Permanent Plot 3
Permanent Plot 4
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
Corylus americans
American Hazelnut, American Filbert
Shrub
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry-bush,Heart's-a-bustin'-(with-love)
Shrub
1
1
1
Homamelisvirginiana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Itea virginica
Virginia -willow, Sweetspire, Tassel -white
Shrub
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Molusangustifolia
Wild Crabapple
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
1
1
Oxydendrumarboreum
Sourwood,Sorrel-tree
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Physocarpus opulifolius'
Ninebark
Shrub
2
2
2
Platanus occidentr is'
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
jBlack Locust
Tree
3
Solix nigra
IBlack Willow
Tree
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
Sambucuscanadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
2
1 2
1 2
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery Elm, Red Elm
ITree
I
I
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
6
6
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
11
11
11
1
1
1
1
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
5
5
6
5
5
5
3
3
3
11
1 11
11
243
1 05
243
243
243
243
243
445
1 445
445
'Planted stem in permanent vegetation plot 3 misidentified as Platonus occidentalis during as -built monitoring and corrected to Physocarpus opulifolius In Mon poring Year 1.
Current
Scientific Name Common Name
Permanent Vegetation
Species Type
Plot Data (MY1 20
Permanent Plot 5
Permanent Plot 6 Permanent Plot 7 Permanent Plot S
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
2
2
2
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Corylus americans
American Hazelnut, American Filbert
Shrub
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana'
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry -bush, Heart's-a-bustin'-(with-love)
Shrub
1
1
1
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Itea virginica
Virginia -willow, Sweetspire, Tassel -white
Shrub
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Malus angustifolia
Wild Crabapple
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sourwood, Sorrel -tree
Shrub Tree
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
Shrub
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
2
2
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
Quercus rubra'
Northern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black Locust
Tree
Salix nigra
IBlack Willow
Tree
Salix sericea
jSilkyWilIlow
Shrub Tree
1
2
2
2
Sambucuscanadensis
lCommon Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
9
9
12
S
S
S
10
10
10
11
11
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
size (AC -ES)I
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
S
S
8
6
6
6
9
1 9
1 9
4
4
4
Stems per ACREI
364
1 364
1 486
324
1 324
405
1 405
1 405
445
445
445
'Planted stem in permanent vegetation plot 5 misidentified as Quercus rubra during as -built monitoring and corrected to Diospyros virginiana in Monitoring Year 1.
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Failsto meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 8b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Current Permanent Vegetation Plot Data (MY1 2021)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Permanent Plot 9
Permanent Plot 10
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
Asimino trilobo
Common Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
Cephalanthusoccidentalis
Button bush
Shrub Tree
Corylus americans
American Hazelnut, American Filbert
Shrub
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Euonymusamericanus
Strawberry-bush,Heart's-a-bustin'-(with-love)
Shrub
Homamelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
Iteo virginica
Virginia -willow, Sweetspire, Tassel -white
Shrub
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Molusangustifolia
Wild Crabapple
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sourwood, Sorrel -tree
Shrub Tree
Physocarpusopulifolius
Ninebark
Shrub
Plotanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black Locust
Tree
Salixnigra
Black Willow
Tree
Solix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
Stem count
5
5
10
6
6
6
size (ares)
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
4
4
5
6 6
6
Stems per ACRE
202
202
405
243
243
Permanent Vegetation Plot Annual Mear��
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY1 (2021) MYO (2021)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
2
2
2
10
10
10
Asimina trilobo
Common Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cephalanthusoccidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Corylus americans
American Hazelnut, American Filbert
Shrub
2
2
2
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
8
8
8
11
11
11
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry -bush, Heart's-a-bustin'-(with-love)
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
Homamelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
Iteo virginica
Virginia -willow, Sweetspire, Tassel -white
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
5
5
6
10
10
10
Molus angustifolia
Wild Crabapple
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
3
3
3
8
8
8
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sourwood, Sorrel -tree
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Plotanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
5
5
5
12
12
12
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
13
13
16
14
14
14
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
11
11
11
26
26
26
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black Locust
Tree
3
Solix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
1
1
Solix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
8
8
8
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
4
4
4
8
8
8
Stem count
78
78
90
142
142
142
size (ares)
10
10
size (ACRES)
0.2471
0.2471
Species count
21
21
23
1 22
1 22
22
Stems per ACREI
316
1 316
1 364
1
5
575
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by lessthan 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by lessthan 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 8c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
EL IML Current Mobile Vegetation Plot (MP) D.
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Type MP1 MP2
a
MYl (2021)
MYO (2021)
Pnol-S
PnoLS
Pnol-S
PnoLS
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
1
1
2
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
1
Corpinus caroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
1
Corylus americana
American Hazelnut, American Filbert
Shrub
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
1
Hamomelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
Malusangustifolia
Wild Crabapple
Tree
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
1
2
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sourwood, Sorrel -tree
Shrub Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
1
1
2
3
Prunusserotino
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
4
4
6
Robinia pseudoacocia
Black Locust
Tree
Solix nigro
jBlackWillow
jTree
1
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery Elm, Red Elm
ITree
1
4
Stem count
4
8
12
32
size (ares)
1
1
2
2
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0494
0.0494
Species count
3
5
7
17
Stems per ACRE
162
324
243
7
Overall Site Annual Mean J6
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY1 MYO
(2021) (2021)
Pnol-S
Pnol-S
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
3
12
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
1
6
Corpinus caroliniona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
Shrub Tree
1
2
Corylus americana
American Hazelnut, American Filbert
Shrub
2
5
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
9
12
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry -bush, Heart's-a-bustin'-(with-love)
Shrub
2
2
Hamomelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
3
7
Itea virginica
Virginia -willow, Sweetspire, Tassel -white
Shrub
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
6
11
Malusangustifolia
Wild Crabapple
Tree
2
3
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
4
10
Oxydendrum arboreum
Sourwood, Sorrel -tree
Shrub Tree
1
3
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
Shrub
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
7
14
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
Tree
15
17
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
5
7
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
15
32
Robinia pseudoacocia
Black Locust
Tree
Solix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
2
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
jShrub Tree
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
IShrub Tree
2
8
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
ITree
4
12
Stem count
90
174
size (ares)
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.2965
0.2965
Species count
21
22
Stems per ACREI
304
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

Cross -Section Plots

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 1-UT2 Reach 2
3005+50 Riffle
2071
2070
0
0
v 2069
--——————--——————————————
— — — — — ——
--- — — — — -- --————
—————
———————————
2068
10 20
30 40
50
Width (ft)
- MYO (05/2021) MY1 (12/2021)
Bankfull — — — Bankfull (Based on MYO Area)
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.0 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
8.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
_
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.7 width -depth ratio
21.9 W flood prone area (ft)
2.7 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
r,
�
J
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 2-UT2 Reach 2
3005+71 Pool
2069
—
/
I
2068
0 2067
v
w
2066
—
2065
10 20
30
40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021)
MY1 (12/2021)
—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
:.+�"'
_•w`;
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.8 width -depth ratio
+ `?'
r•
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands EngineeringY'="•`
T+
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 3-East Buffalo Creek Reach 2
1010+45 Pool
2047
2046
2045
or
0
2044
v
w
2043
2042
0 10 20
30 40
50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021)
MY1 (12/2021)
—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
23.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
17.0 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
17.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6 width -depth ratio
R
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 4-East Buffalo Creek Reach 2
1010+56 Riffle
2047
2046
2045
_
2044
v 2043
w
2042
2041
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021) MY1 (12/2021)
Bankfull — — — Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
F .
15.0 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
�.
15.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
r
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
;.
14.6 width -depth ratio"
Ta
73.0 W flood prone area (ft)
K. 4
4.9 entrenchment ratio
'
1.0 low bank height ratio
�.X
Survey Date: 12/2021�
'
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 5-UT3 Reach 2
4004+28 Pool
2063
2062
2061
2060
0
°—w 2059
2058
2057
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021) MY1 (12/2021) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
9.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 6-UT3 Reach 2
4004+35 Riffle
2062
2061
/
2060
0
2059
'
aj
w
2058
— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
— —
- - - - - - - - - - -
— —
— - - -
- - - - - - - - -
2057
10 20
30 40
50
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021) MY1 (12/2021)
Bankfull — — — Bankfull (Based on MYO Area)
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.3 width (ft)
-
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
9.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
. 1
13.5 width -depth ratio
s i
M
29.3 W flood prone area (ft)
I.+
3.2 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 7-UT4 Reach 2
5001+48 Riffle
2032
2031
0 2030
v
w
2029
2028
10 20
30
40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021) MY1 (12/2021)
Bankfull — — — Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
r
7.7 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
l
0.8 max depth (ft)
�'
7.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3 width -depth ratio
18.4 W flood prone area (ft)
'
2.4 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
t u
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Cross -Section 8-UT3 Reach 3
4011+70 Riffle
2024
2023-
�__
2022
0
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — —
— — —
— — — — —
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — —
v
�
2021
-
2020
0 10 20
30
40
50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (05/2021) MY1 (12/2021)
Bankfull — — — Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.3 x section area (ft.sq.)
13.2 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)-
1.2 max depth (ft)
+
_
14.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
-1.
21.1 width -depth ratio
69.0 W flood prone area (ft)
5.2 entrenchment ratio
I
1.0 low bank height ratio
g
t.r�^
V
Survey Date: 12/2021
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
y•`-; : s'`=
a;.
View Downstream

§
(
\�
\�
�§
�(
2;
\2\\;]
}
�\�\\I
�§
11
(N11111
\/
\\
\�
\�
\(§2§§!,
§
(§!NNI
§
(
}�
\�
2§
;(
\�
\�
°§)S\)2)
(�((S;
§)}))2;
§)2))2Q
§
(
\/
\\
\�
\�
\}/
oo
)/,m
\}\«\\m,
�)�))��
5m}/)
5m}/)
I
§\
{o
§\
{\
{o

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Table 10. Bankfull Events
East Buffalo Creek Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
Reach
MY1 (2021)
MY2 (2022)
MY3 (2023)
MY4 (2024)
MY5 (2025)
MY6 (2026)
MY7 (2027)
East Buffalo Creek R2
none
UT2 R2
none
UT3 R2
none
UT4 R2
I none
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
East Buffalo Creek Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
MY1 (2021)
MY2 (2022)
MY3 (2023)
MY4 (2024)
MY5 (2025)
MY6 (2026)
MY7 (2027)
Annual Precei itation Total'
70.48
WETS 30th Percentile
55.13
WETS 70th Percentile
64.62
Normal3
Above Average
1USGS Gage 0351706800
2WETS Station: Tapoco, NC, 1971-2000
3Type of year referes to amount of rainfall in the current year compared to the average percentiles i.e. Below Average, Average, Above Average

Table 12. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
East Bufaflo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria' Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Yes/42 days
1
(19.3%)
No/1 day
2
(0.5%)
No/8 days
3
(3.7%)
Yes/52 days
4
(23.9%)
Yes/34 days
5
(15.6%)
2The success criteria is 27 consecutive days, (12%) of the growing season (April 2 to November 5).

v
(u!) Ilewea
o Ln O un o un O Lq O
7 M M
I
I
I
I
�aa
I
I
I
I
noN
I
I
I
uo
N
I
I
H
I
das
7
I
'~
I
t
�
��
w
c
(J
m
v
I
2ny
W.
�n O
� N
�
w `m
Inr 3
cu
o>
m C
mO
a) +
o
I
—
c
N
Y
I
unr z
a°1
I
I
0
I
A
3
I
m
Aew
m
W
I
I
I
'dd
aew
qaj
uer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N c-1 o ti N fY1 V
(11) lanai ja;em

v
(u!) Ilewea
o Ln O un o un O Lq O
7 M M
3a0
AON
PO
N
OC
G1
N
V
O
das
m
w
N
c
m
aa)
SnV
t
I
C7
.. N
N
N
IA
O
L
U N
�
w
m
I n
3
+�. v
c }
v �
> c
C
W
O c
ro
= O
c
£
unr
z
5
I
Y
fC
U1
a
p
I
AELA
15
m
W
Jdy
jev\
qaj
uer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O ti N M V
(41) lanai ja;em

v
(u!) Ilewea
o Ln O un o un O Lq O
7 M M
3a0
AON
PO
N
F-
das
7
M
UJ
tw m
c
Q
m
SnV
u
I
`o
� N
'
v
>
W
Inr
3
3 v
O }
LL �
C
E O
m
a
i C
O
VI
Y
unr
-
z
m
d
a
I
0
m
3
m
AeLn
m
W
Jdy
Jev\
qaj
uer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O ti N M V
(41) lanai Ja;eM

v
(u!) Ilewea
o Ln O un o un O Lq O
7 M M
I
I
I
I
�aO
I
I
I
I
nON
I
I
I
PO
N
I
I
F-
I
das
7
I
c
I
tw v
m
��
w
c
(J
m
v
I
SnV
N
>
�n O
I
� N
>
I
�
v
W `m
Inr
3
3 cu
o>
LL �
C
mO
a) Y
O
m
VI
Y
I
unr
z
a°1
I
I
0
I
m
I
3
m
AeLn
m
W
Jdy
Jev\
qaj
uer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O ti N M V
(41) IanaI Ja;eM

rn
N
c-I
O
Ol
O
Vf N N
0
N N
y O Ln N
tW a+ Z O LAf6 to
0_ m
ai
3 o O ao Tu
z m v m
In N o cu
(5 w Z5 2 3:
(ul) uo13e31dl:)8ad
t0 V N O
a -I c-I c-I a -I 00 l0 V N O
uosea!
uoseas
I
I
I
I
I
I
ZOZ/S/TT
BUIMOJg
}o pu3
(
>
3
U
N
c
O
U
X
(ID
C
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CZOZ/Z/b
8uinmoJg
}o liels
N
:)aa
nON
p0
m
0
a
�u
N
a`
daS
0
T
f0
O
Sny
Inf
v
i
J
f0
U
unf
I
AeW
N
to
m
O
V
Jew
qaj
Uef
O O O O O M O O
(ul) lanai aa;eM

N
c-I
O
Ol
O
Vf N N
o
0. � N �
y O ,, N
CO Y n
f6 to ZO -4 .
ai
3 o O w Tu
o W ra
6
0 — U N o CU
U' w ' 2 3:
(ul) uo13e31dl:)8ad
t0 V N O
a -I c-I c-I a -I 00 l0 V N O
uosea!
uoseas
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ZOZ/S/TT
SuimoJg
}o pu3
T
N
Y
3
U
N
C
0
U
E
c-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CZOZ/Z/b
8uinmojg
}o liels
N
nON
Po
daS
Ony
Inf
v
J
f0
V
unf I
I
Aev�
N
to
f0
V
aeW
qaj
uef
O O O O O M O O
(ul) lanai aa;eM

N
c-I
O
Ol
O
Vf N N
o
a Q c
tw 'Y p
m �° Z a-4
M
3 O O to v
C7 LU 6
z m v m
In N o cu
U' w Z
(ul) uo13e31dl:)8ad
t0 V N O
a -I c-I c-I a -I 00 l0 V N O
uosea!
uoseas
I
I �
dC
ZOZ/S/TT
SUIMoJg
}o pu3
�
N
U
N
O
X
E
IT
IY
I
I
I
I
I
I
CZOZ/Z/b
BuIMojg
}o liels
N
nON
Po
daS
Ony
Inf
v
i
J
f0
U
unf I
I
Aev�
m
x
w
to
m
AV
L,A
qaj
Uef
O O O O O M O O
(ul) lanai aa;eM

N
c-I
O
Ol
O
Vf N N
o
a Q c
tw 'a+ 6
m Z a -I
M
m
;,w. t
3 o O ao v
`Q 6
0 m U m0 N o CU
U' w ' 2 3:
(ul) uo13el!dl:)8ad
t0 V N O
a —I c-I c-I a —I 00 l0 V N O
uosea!
uoseas
I
I
I
I
ZOZ/S/TT
8uimoJg }o pu3
IT
N
7
I
N
C
O
U
m
E
IC
I
I
I
I
I
CZOZ/Z/b
8uinmojg
}o liels
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
nON
Po
daS
Ony
Inf
v
i
J
f0
U
unf I
I
Aev�
v
x
to
AV
aeW
qaj
Uef
O O O O O M O O
(ul) lanai aa;eM

N
c-I
O
Ol
O
Vf N N
o
a
y O N v
co to E
Z IS
ra
3 o ao c
76 U c W
co 7 W ra
6
0 — U N o CU
U' w ' 2 3:
(ul) uo13e31dl:)8ad
t0 V N O
a -I c-I c-I a -I 00 l0 V N O
uose
uoseas
I
I
I
I
TZOZ/S/TT
is 8uim0J9 }O pu3
T
N
I
7
N
C
O
U
(6
E
V
M
cZOZ/Z/b
8uI/"Ojg
}O liels
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
nON
Po
daS
Ony
Inf
v
i
J
f0
V
unf I
I
Aev�
x
v
to
AV
L,A
qaj
uef
O O O O O M O O k9
(ul) lanai aa;eM

Groundwater Gage Soil Profile Data Sheets
March 2021

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Project Name:
Protect Location:
Purpose of Gauge: Water Table Monitoring
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number:
d
Total Well Casing Length (A):
L4ti
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B)
)
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
2" PVC Well Screen
Type of Measurement:
Pressure, Temperature, &
Type of Logger:
In -Situ Level Troll IN
Notes:
A-C,
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Protect Name:
Project Location:
Purpose of Gauge:
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number:
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
Type of Measurement:
Type of Logger:
Notes:
".
Water Table Monitoring
100
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
3.1 k'.,,i" 34r0".k
Notes

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Project Name:
Project Location:
Purpose of Gauae•
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number.
Total Well Casing Length (A)•
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B)•
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
Type of Measurement:
Type of Loaner:
Notes:_ pp
0.
Water Table Monitoring
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
Gv�3

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET y
Project Name: East J3.ffa t a
Project Location:
Purpose of Gauge: Water Table Monitoring
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
f w
Serial Number:
Total Well Casing Length (A): l
.
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B)•
Distance From Eye Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
2" 1
Type of Measurement:
Pressure,
Type of Logger:
In-S
Notes:
-t'ree uake.v @ fi. Scr.e.en cu5i, .. �.G
_5
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
('uu1d not gv jecfcr ; �� rock reiw-Ju

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
r
PmLecs Name
Project Location r k Y, fiT
Purpose of Gauge: Water Table Monitorin
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number-
Total Well Casing Length lA1c
Well Casing Helght Above Ground [B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material•
Type of Measurement
Doe of Logger:
_,milli I
} `t a C Vq_ �o
h• Dlrr rn en e ,
Pressure, Tempefature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Soil profile Llescription at Location of Well:
n—fh P.— 1;n 1 � 'r"l— D-A— r S I Te...fe ird Al..ir.n
-
f O Y R '1l s
7, 5 Y 9 Y j6
s+I+ lop+^
aK d •srd �: nos 'ne+r5 + nrG I,n n
I. 2 - 1 K
14 o I
5 YR 4 6 3�!
:I{ IO0.�n
vy.d•1rol rk.x�s r.e.cs
k-`7 - x.g
2,e •{ - 311
o YR ti lb r
toaM

Groundwater Gage Soil Profile Photographs
Monitoring Year 0

GWG 1 Soil Profile - (0312021) 1 GWG 2 Soil Profile - (0312021) 1
GWG 3 Soil Profile - (0312021) 1 GWG 4 Soil Profile - (0312021) 1
GWG 5 Soil Profile - (0312021) 1

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Information

Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
or Deliverable
Project Instituted
Data Collection Complete
N/A
Task Completion or
DeliverableActivity
Submission
N/A
Mitigation Plan Approved
October 2020
October 2020
Construction (Grading) Completed
April 2021
April 2021
Planting Completed
April 2021
April 2021
As -Built Survey Completed
May 2021
May 2021
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
May 2021
July 2021
Vegetation Survey
April 2021
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
December 2021
February 2022
Vegetation Survey
October 2021
Invasive Control
June & September 2021
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey
2023
Year 4 Monitoring
December 2024
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2025
December 2025
Vegetation Survey
2025
Year 6 Monitoring
December 2026
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2027
December 2027
Vegetation Survey
2027
Table 14. Project Contact Table
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1- 2021
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
167-B Haywood Rd.
Jake McLean, PE
Asheville, NC 28806
828.545.3865
Baker Grading and Landscaping Inc
Construction Contractor
1000 Bat Cave Road
Old Fort, NC 28762
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754 x110

APPENDIX F. Adaptive Management Plan

Adaptive Management Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Introduction
Wildlands Engineering is planning to complete additional planting at the East Buffalo Mitigation
Site (Site) to improve compositional and structural diversity within the establishing plant community.
Vegetation monitoring in monitoring year 1 revealed that two (one permanent (VP9) and one mobile
plot (MP1)) out of the twelve vegetation plots did not meet the final success criteria of 210 stems per
acre. Additionally, four vegetation plots did not meet the interim density requirement of 320 stems per
acre. Members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT) also requested that eastern cottonwood (Populus
deltoides) be thinned from the site over the monitoring period. The additional planting Wildlands will
complete this season will make up for the observed mortality in monitoring year one and the
cottonwood individuals that will be removed. Tables 6 and 8, attached below, show the results of the
MY1 vegetation plot monitoring.
Supplemental Plantin
The high mortality likely stems in part from wetter than expected conditions on many parts of
the buffer planting area. The as -built planting lists included some species, such as sourwood
(Oxydendron arboreum) and white oak (Quercus alba) that are more suited for drier conditions. The new
species lists have been adjusted for the more mesic conditions and the wetland planting areas have
been slightly expanded to account for the site conditions. The utility ROW planting zone will also be
supplementally planted due to field observations of mortality. No vegetation plots occur in the utility
ROW planting zone. It appears that the conditions in this zone were not wet enough for the two OBL
species, tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), that comprise 15% and
14% respectively of the originally planted stems. The revised utility ROW planting list will be better
suited for the growing conditions in this zone. Planting will occur before March 15, 2022.
While Wildlands expects the adjustments in the planting lists and zones to correct the high
mortality, soil samples have also been collected. Wildlands will use the results of these soil tests to
direct efforts for soil amendments across the site if needed. Examples of potential soil amendments
include biochar, humates, slow -release low dose fertilizer (approx. 2-4-3), and mycorrhizal inoculant.
Any soil amendment additions will work to improve soil properties beyond just increasing
macronutrients. Expected improvements would be increased soil organic matter, nutrient availability,
microbial activity, and moisture holding capacity.
Tables 1a, 1b, and 1c show the proposed planting lists. Table 2 shows the proposed total
planting quantities and acreages. Tables 3-5 list the planting rates from the As -Built Report for the
buffer, wetland, and utility ROW planting zones respectively. Figure 1 is a map illustrating the planting
zones and densities. The planting densities and adjusted planting zones were based on observations by
multiple site walks by Wildlands staff and the MY1 vegetation plot data.

Figure 1
a�
Z
E N
Q_
U
UCJ N
E Q�
W m c
N > ?-
u O r`v
'B c
, N c
m
LU a-
Z:on
z -4
m
ID
LL
0
0
LD
0
0
N
LO
N
CD
`VV) V
zLL
w
w
�Z
�o
Qz
LL
I�

Tables 1a. 1b and 1c
Table 1a
Buffer
Species
Common Name
Stratum
Rate
Number
of Stems
Wetland
Indicator
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore*
Canopy
8%
161
FACW
Prunus serotina
black cherry*
Canopy
10%
201
FACU
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon*
Canopy
12%
241
FAC
Betula lento
sweet birch*
Canopy
10%
201
FACU
Liriodendron tulipifera
tulip tree*
Canopy
10%
201
FACU
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye*
Canopy
10%
201
FACU
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Subcanopy
8%
161
FACW
Ulmus rubra
red mulberry
Canopy
5%
100
FAC
Physocarpus opulifolius
ninebark
Shrub
5%
100
FACW
Lindera benzoin
spicebush*
Shrub
5%
100
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
witch hazel*
Subcanopy
5%
100
FACU
Euonymus americanus
strawberry bush*
Shrub
5%
100
FAC
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood*
Subcanopy
7%
141
FAC
100
Total Stems: 2008
Total Acres: 9.84
Table 1b
Wetland
Species
Common Name
Stratum
Rate
Number
of Stems
Wetland
Indicator
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
Canopy
7%
35
FACW
Acer negundo
boxelder
Canopy
7%
35
FAC
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
Shrub
4%
21
FAC
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Subcanopy
4%
1 21
FAC
Salix nigra
black willow
Canopy
13%
63
OBL
Euonymus americanus
strawberry bush
Shrub
4%
21
FAC
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Subcanopy
11%
53
FACW
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
Subcanopy
9%
42
FACW
Salixsericea
silky willow
Subcanopy
13%
63
OBL
Physocarpus opulifolius
ninebark
Shrub
4%
21
FACW
Viburnum nudum
possumnhaw viburnum
Shrub
4%
21
OBL
Alnus serrulata
tag alder
Subcanopy
15%
71
OBL
100
Total Stems: 467
Total Acres: 3.21

Table 1c
Utility ROW
Species
Common Name
Stratum
Rate
Number
of Stems
Wetland
Indicator
Euonymus omericonus
strawberry bush
Shrub
15%
32
FAC
Corpus omomum
silky dogwood
Subcanopy
15%
32
FACW
Colyconthus floridus
sweetshrub
Shrub
15%
32
FACU
Physocorpus opulifolius
ninebark
Shrub
15%
32
FACW
Corpinus coroliniono
ironwood
Subcanopy
10%
21
FAC
Lindero benzoin
spicebush
Shrub
15%
32
FAC
Homomelis virginiono
witch hazel
Subcanopy
15%
32
FACU
100
Total Stems: 211
Total Acres: 1.06
Table 2
Planting
Zone
Acreage
Total
Stems
Buffer
9.84
2,008
Wetland
3.21
467
ROW
1.06
211
Total
14.11
2,686

Table 3
Riparian Planting Zone
Species*•'
Common Name
Max Spacing
Spa
Min. Caliper Size
Stratum
PercentDf
St ems
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
12
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
550
Prunus serotina -u
Black Cherry
12
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
Papulus deftaides -u
Eastern Cottonwood
12
6-12'
025"
Canopy
Ulm Americano-u
American Linden
12
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
Aiospyros virginiana
Persimmon
12
6-12'
025"
Canopy
Quercusrubm
Northern Red Oak
12
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
10%
Acernegundo-u
Boxelder
12
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
10%
tiimusrubm-r
SlipperyElm
12
6-12'
025"
Canopy
10%
Nyssasyfvufica -u
Black Gum
12
6-12'
025"
Canopy
Asiminatrrfoba
Paw Paw
12
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
Corylusamencona"-u
AmericanHazelnut
12
6-12'
025"
Subcanopy
briodendrontulipifero -u
Tulip Poplar
12
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
5%
' Preferred substitutes: B. al leghaniensis or Magnolia fraseri, acuminata or fraserr or other substitutes if not available
100%
"Preferred substitutes: Lindera benxain, Halesia caroliniana, or other substitutes d not available
As -built
Percent
6%
7%
11%
zl%
7%
R i paria n Planti ng 2on e - As -built (% to r Substitutes)
Species
Common Name
As -built
Percent
Lfnderubenzoin
Spicebush
2%
Fagus grondifolia
American beech
cl%
Quercus falcato
Southern red oak
tl%
Oxydendrum arborEum
Sourwood
4%
Hamameks virginiana
Witchhazel
2%
4uercusalba
White Oak
1%
Corpinus coralinrono
American hornbeam
3%
Aescufusjlova
Buckeye
1%
Alnusserrulato
Tagalder
2%
Mafusangustf,olia
Southern crabapple
1%
Salix nigm
Black willow
tl%
uonymousamericanu
StrawberryBush
tl%
Corm tomentoso
Mockemuthickory
tl%
4uercus muehlenbergir
Chinquapin oak
cl%
itea virginfca
Virginia sweets pire
cl%

Table 4
Species I Common Name
Wetland P'lantingione
Max Spac i ng
Bare Root or Tubing*
Indiv' Min, Caliper Size Stratum Percent
Spacing Of Stems
As -built
Percent
Frantanus occidert&fs
Sycamore
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Canopy
10%
Lrriodendwn tulip+fern
Tulip Poplar
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Canopy
5%
Alnusserruloto
Tag Alder
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
119'0
Pvpuius deltaides
Eastern Cottawood
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Canopy
1R%
Molus ongustifolia
SouthKn Crabapple
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
10%
Tfro =Lman o
White Basswood
12 ft
6-12'
0 25"
Canopy
f19'o
Acermgunda
Boxelder
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
89'.
Vl rnus rubra
Slippery Elm
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
8%
DxydendFum orborea m.
Sourwood
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Canopy
3%
Earanvmus gmmcanus
Strawberry Bush
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Shrub
3Y
296
Quercus rubra
Northem Red Oak
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Canopy
596
0%
Carpinuscareflniana
American Hornbeam
12 ft
fr12'
025"
Canopy
3%
Hamomehs virginiano
Witch Hazel
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
3%
Nyssa syl-tics
Black Gum
12 ft
&12'
0.25"
Shrub
6Y.
6%
Clethra aeumingta
sweet-pepperbush
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Shrub
fl%
0%
Bare Root, Live Stake OF Tubling*
Sglixnigra
Black Willow
12 ft
&-12'
0.25"
Canopy
391.
SaUx serlcea
Silky Willow
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
396
Cepholonthus oecidentalis
Buttoribush
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
6%
1 100%

Table 5
Utility Right -of Way Planting Zone -Shrub and Low Growing Species
Species
Common Name
Max Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Cali per Size
Stratum
Percent Of
Stems
dlnus serrulata
Tag Alder
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Subcanopy
15%
ltev vrrgrnica
Virginia Sweetspire
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Shrub
NexvertXWUtrr
Winterberry
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
physacarpus spur obus-u
Ninebark
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Shrub
Samhucusconadensis
Elderberry
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
Cepholanthusaccidentalis
Buttonbush
12 ft
6-12'
0.25"
Subcanopy
Euonymusamericanus
Strawberry Bush
12 ft
6-12'
0.25'
Shrub
left
tinderabenzorn
Spicebush
12 ft
6-12'
025"
Subcanopy
'No planting within access ways (15-20' corridor used for vehicular maintenance access)
100%
"Substitutes include Ca lycanthus floridus, Clethra acuminata, Viburnum acerfalium, and Leucothoefotanesiana
**=rMinimum of five species shall be planted in utility ROW, R OW sped es may be I ivesta ked or instal led as tubling where applicable.
As -built
Percent
149'o-
149�

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
East Buffalo Mitigation SIte
UACE Action ID No..SA1-2019-01296
Monitoring Year 1 - 2021
Permanent Vegetation Plot
MYi Success Criteria Met (Yf N)
T r a =t PAean PAY1 - 2021)
1
N
v °'a
2
N
3
N
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
&
Y
9
N
10
N
Mobile Vegetation Plat
MY1 SLIc{ess Criteria Met (Yf N)
1
N
v °'a
2
Y

Table 8a, Planted and Total Stern Counts
East Bufhalo M ti6at on ate
USACE Action 10 No. SAW-2019-01296
Monitoring Yeer i-2021
Scientific He me C=rrnon`Jame
Species Type
Permanent Plot Per anent Plot2 }errrsnent PloH }ern"snent Plot4
PnoLS
P-ell
-
Pnol-S
}-ell
-
PnoV
}-ell
-
}noU
}-ell
Acafnagwndo
Box Elde-
Tree
As inm trihoha
tarn mor PaY D;A Indlar,0. nana
5h•-= -ee
CaTbus mrujmana
AmerimnHorra im
ShrL3T•ee
CuphafmnthusocckkrAa1.;s
Buttonhush
ShrabIre e
{ as mnaaricana
Amerion Haxelnut�American filbert
Shmb
bras ro bimna
Amerion Pemim murk. Paasu mwuod
Tree
"
Fuan mmaricanus
Strawbe bushk Heart'r -Bustin' with -love
Shrub
1
i
NomamrJis inraram
Witchhhad
Shrub Tree
1
1
Jtaa Vifzjrfiicff
Virginia -willow, Sweet5pire, Tassel -white
Shrub
"
Lh,'odGAdwv tu'qrftwer
Tulip Pppl ar
Tree
1
1
MairlsMMdjGkff
Wild Craba le
Tree
1
1
Nyssasv�vatrrn
SourGum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
1
Oxy6nndrum anNwv n
Sau rwood.. Stir ktree
Shrub Tree
1
Phl;a rpws opufrfoLusr
Ninehark
Shrub
-
-
-
R'atanus oe.dantajTs r
amom, Plane tree
Tree
1
pa w" daftoida.s
Eas-em Cottonwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
prunws Sa tnm
Black€hr
Sh•Lo T•ee
2
2
2
&mrcars fwUos
Willow Oak
Tree
Quarurs rubaa
Northern Pad Oak
Tree
1
Rabinim psaudaaa
Bladk locust
Tree
Smlirnrym
Bladk Wbw
Tree
suixs cw
Silky Wiikaw
Shrub Tnse
5vA%W rs cmnmdaaxis
Cammon Elderberry
Shrub Trre
"
Uhmws mb M
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
1
1
Stemcaunt
Sim jmesj
site (ACRES11
5pecies counti
Stems per AME111111111111111111111
6
6
5
6
_1
_1
_1
1
1
1
0.02
0.0'
0.02
0.02
5 5
6
5
i
3
3
11
11
1 11
243
1 405
1
1
2-3
219
249
445
a45
I U5
`One plantcdstem was mislabeled as Plot wsxddarna&s in the w-built monitoring and was identified as Physnveyws mpuhfmUws i- Lei- 1
Scientific He me
Ca mon Neme
Species Type
t.
Permanent Plot 5 }er rare -t P of E• 7ermenmt Plat 7
Permanent Plot 6
PnoLS
P-ell
-
Pr oLS
}-al
T
PmoLS
P-aa
T
PnoLS
P-uM
T
--cgwrrdo
Bo• Elder
Tree
"
As.•r-ca taDl:c,
:=TT.on Pawpaw, Indian -banana
ShmbTree
1
CarpimusawW-n;ona
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
Caphaknnthus Oprrtalis
Buttonbush
ShmbTnse
1
1
1
C asamaricana
Amerion HaxelnutrAmerican filbert
Shrub
1
Diospgros wrgiWmna z
Amerion Pemimmurk. Paasumwmd
Tree
1
1
1
Fumnyr mmaricanus
Strawberry-bushk. Heart'r Bustin jwit64 e]
Shrub
1
1
JiomamrJis VkgiArarra
Witch Haael
5h•L3 T•ee
1
1
Jta wrginicm
Virriniaixilla ,` etspire,Tassel-white
Sh•L=
briodwidrom tulgf weer
Tulip Popl ar
Tree
1
1
1
Mak1 amw5djoke
Wild Crabapple:
Tree
1
1
Nyssms}nl+ 6-
SaurGum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arbwewna
Sau rwood.. Stir ktree
Shrub Tree
PhysoaorpwsopulrfWx
Ninehark
Shrub
JNatar u mzrdo-ntah's
Sycamore, Plane tree
Tree
1
i
1
Po vlas dbftoidb.r
Eastem r' ttanwmW
Tree
2
2
5
"
Jafaaw5larotlnm
Bladl Che
-= T•ee
1
1
1
Quarws naffs
Walewr Oak
T*ee
Quarnrsrubaar
Northern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
Rabinim psaudaacmoa
Bladk locust
Tree
Smlirnrym
Black YYbw
Tree
Smlixsr cam
SilkyWilkn
Sh-ublme
2
2
2
Smmbuas mnadanxis
CorrwrronElderberry
Shrub Tree
Uhmws mbsm
15lippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
1
i
1
1
1
i
Stem caunt
9
9
12
a
8
M
1A
10
11
11
11
sim jeresj
1
i
1
1
site{ACRESj
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
8
8
8
6
6
6
9
9
9
f
4
4
Stems per AME
-1fi4
164
486
324
124
124
V5
405
405
445
445
445
`One plantedstem was mislabeled as Quar nrbrm in the w-buit monitoring and was identified 2YDiosppra wrginrama in Year 1.

Table Sb. Planted and Total Stem Counts
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
USACCE ACtionld N43-SLAW-2019-M295
M&nit-Drip w Year 1 - 2421
Scientific Warne C4.anmpon Marne es
Permanent R of 9 PEmtiaiegt P of 10
PrroLS
P-all
T
PrroiS
P-all
T
nao
Box Elder
Tree
rnr umfoba
comrnon Pawpaw, Indian -banana
Shrub Tree
Carg,' us raro&aiaw
Amerimn Hnnrbearn
Shrub Tree
Cepf7£7i3Y ums=?dentaNs
eutronbutih
Shrub Tree
Cor}riusarnmcfna
AmericanHaaelnrrt,AnxwkmnFilbert
shrub
1
pfmpyros 4rgfr3fana
American Persimmon Possumwood
Tree
-
-
-
-
1
-
Euvny"aysarrrericaraus
Straw berrp-bush, Heart's-a4xu in'-[Kitfwluve)
Shrub
ffQnMvWfa 7>rana
Witch Hazel
Shrub Tree
nea uirgfnka
Yirgirria-willow, Sweet ire, Tassel -white
Shrub
LrnOdL-fld,o"v,qPftrQ
Ttdip Poplar
Tree
ft+rarus arr4UAYQfFa
wild{:rabapple
Tree
ssa m
5our Gunrtr Black Gun Pepperikke
Tree
cwydendarfn arboreum
sourwood, Sorrel -tree
shrub Tree
Ph socarpus opufifioffes
Ninebark
shrub
Pfawnus ocridentur¢
Sycamore, WanL-tmm
Tree
-
-
-
-
1
.
-
Popufus dery ufi
Eastem Cottorwm-Dd
Tree
1
PrunrasseruGna
EMack Cherry
shrbTree
-
-
-
1
-
Q4mrcuspheAos
Willow Oak
Tree
amrcrrs nrbra
Northern Red-Dak
Tree
Robin r?pseudovc4er4
Black Loc=
Tree
IkOix niMu
Black willow
Tree
SEdCEa
5ilkF IMIlow
Shrub Tree
1
sambuivs
cxxFmrw3n Elderberry
shrub Tree
Uknus rL6ra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
Stern taint
=
5
10
6
a
size dares)
i
i
size IAC#tES)
0.42
4.02
Species rourrtl
4
1 .1
1 5
6
6
SUNns ACRE
202
1 4[u
3_3
ZL3
Scientific r4arra Corr rr-Gi Warne ies ryaa
MY1 (2=1)
NPfO '24=_;
PAL.
P-all
T
RioLS
P-al
T
noo
Bore Elder
Tree
_c
1.:
14
ASMrWta trifoba
Ooaurnon Pawpaw, Indian -banana
shr b Tree
-
5
S
Car us caro,'k aw
Amerr
imn HombearhrrbTree
S
2
Z
Cep.Sarr?17tf2vs4x�t ks
euttoirdmuh
ShrrbTree
1
i
Co fus arnenuma
American Hazelnut,American Filbert
shrub
1
4
4
DIft pP rM Wfrgfnfana
Arerican Persimmon, Mmimwood
Tree
1.1
11
11
arrredcarwa
straw bush Heart's-a-hnatirr' Wdii-Irn
shrub
1
-
-
-
2
2
Z
ffarrmwwRs vrxginfuna
witch Hazel
shri : T•ae
S
5
-
rDea uirgmKa
Virginia -willow, SweEupire, Tassel -white
shrj,
2
LrnoGd-ndron&Xpffiera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
=
-
14
-
lC
R&rkrs angUA DAa
Wild Crabapple
Tree
2
ssas m
Sour Gum BlaekGtirn, PqMplerkfte
Tree
-
6
-
cwydendrurnarb,areurn
snurwa}i<Sorrel-tree
shrj'T-=2
2
Ph us qiwJYbffus
Ninebark
shrjo
1
1
Pfawrrrrsacrfdentaris
sprcarnore, Warne -tree
Tree
=
-
=
1=
PO ufus &gnafdes
Eastern Cattornrr..ad
Tree
1'
-6
-1
1-
PrunrasemUna
Black Cherry
shrub Tree
4uercm BeAos
willow oak
Tree
-
cwgmrcusruba
Northern Red Oak
Tree
1-
=
26
Rabn•rfa pSEL00000r 4
Blade Lnarat
Tree
nigfe
Blade willow
Tree
i
1
i
sericea
Silkfv.'illow
shrrbTree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sam bucuscazPu enss
Ccrmron Elderberry
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
a
8
a
uknus rL&ra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
4
a
4
g
a
a
Stem CKN"
76
78
90
142
142
142-
sia tares)
10
30
3me (A RES)
0.25
Q25
SP20eS court
21
21
23
2i
22
Stennis per ACRE
316
316
364
575
.575
5-_

APPENDIX G. Agency Correspondence

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
October 4, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
Re: As-Built/MYO Credit Release associated with the Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella
Mitigation Bank -- East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Shawn Wilkerson
swilkersonnwildlandseng com
Dear Mr. Wilkerson:
This correspondence is in response to your July 26, 2021 request for the As-Built/MY0
credit release for the East Buffalo Mitigation Site, part of the Wildlands Little Tennessee
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The 259.84-acre site is located within the Little Tennessee River
Basin Hydrologic Unit 06010204, at 1157 East Buffalo Road in Robbinsville, Graham. County,
North Carolina. The project was approved to generate 4,432 cold stream mitigation units
(SMU's) through the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 13,662 linear feet of stream
on East Buffalo Creek and ten unnamed tributaries to East Buffalo Creek. It was also approved
to generate 1.75 wetland mitigation units (WMU's) through the re-establishment, rehabilitation
and enhancement of 2.46 acres of wetland. The purpose of this letter is to confirm the As-
Built/MY0 release of credits for this mitigation site.
Pursuant to the Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) entitled, Agreement to Establish
the Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank, signed November 4, 2020, the site-
specifrc East Buffalo Final Mitigation Plan dated October 5, 2020 and the December 16, 2020
email with approved plan revisions, fifteen percent (15%) of the sites total restoration and
enhancement credits shall be available for sale immediately upon completion of the required
tasks pursuant to the Mitigation Plan.
By copy of this correspondence, we confirm that you have satisfied the above requirements for
initial release for all parcels within the bank; and 509 SMU's and 0.26 WMU's constituting 15
percent of the mitigation site's total stream restoration and enhancement credits, 3 percent of the
mitigation site's total preservation credits, and 15 percent of mitigation sites total wetland re-

establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement credits. With this release, 30 percent of the total
stream restoration and enhancement credits (928 SMUs), 30 percent of the total wetland re-
establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement credits (0.52 WMUs), and 92 percent (1,234.3
SMUs) of the total stream preservation credits will have been released.
During the NCIRT review, comments were made by agency representatives regarding concerns
noted with the As-Built/MY0 conditions. These comments are noted below. Please provide a
response and track in future monitoring reports including any actions taken to address them.
Todd Bowers USEPA
1. Section 1.3 contains much information on the stream
restoration/enhancement/pieservation approaches but seems to be missing the
restoration/enhancement/preservation approach for the wetlands. Recommend adding
some more information on the restoration type and approach used for wetlands.
Enhancement and restoration are mentioned without any further details.
2. As far as monitoring reports are concerned, I recommend submitting monitoring reports
well before April 1, even as early as late December. This will allow the IRT the
opportunity to review and provide feedback before any corrective action that may need
to take place can be recommended. Understandably, Wildlands can take certain
corrective actions without IRT approval per the adaptive management plan, however, if
the site needs to undergo substantial replanting, IRT concurrence and/or
recommendations can be obtained well before the end of the dormant season for
planting.
3. Adaptive Management Plan: Recommend conduction supplemental planting no later
than April 1 in any given year as the typical growing season for Graham County starts
around April 2.
4. Vegetation Planting Plan: Excellent information concerning species substitutions,
adjustments, diversity and the percentages for each species. My only recommendation is
to refer to Sheet 2.0 Planting Plan to avoid any confusion with missing percentages. For
example, I added up the live stake percentages in the streambank planting zone and
wondered where/what species the missing 10% was. Sheet 2.0 provided the answer as it
was Elderberry.
Erin Davis, NCDWR
5. Page 13, Section 5.1.2 — What does modified mean? Please explain why and how these
approved design structures were modified.
6. Was soil boring data collected near the installed wetland gauges (as 2016 IRT
Guidance)? Please include this information in the MY1 report.
7. I appreciate the level of detail provided in the redline drawings. Of the species
substitutions requested, DWR only questions the crab apple based on IRT discussions of
other sites in the region. DWR supports the plant list modification as long as WRC
concurs.
Andrea Leslie/Travis Wilson NCWRC

8. Pleased with many of the substitutions including many additions to diversify the planting
list. Concerned about Eastern Cottonwood which is generally not found in the mountains
of NC (is found in a few places in the French Broad River floodplain).
Steve Kichefski, USACE
9. Do not include Eastern Cottonwood in any future supplemental plantings for this site and
although not required, I recommend removing them as found during project activities
throughout monitoring.
10. Did not see a revised linear footage total for the As -Built compared to the mitigation
plan. Were they different and is Wildlands seeking a different credit amount for the
bank?
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact
Steve Kichefski at [phone] extension 4234.
Sincerely,
for Digitally signed by Steve
Steve Kichefski I<I Date: to:chef2ki
2021.10.04 17:00:48
-04'00'
Scott Jones, Chief
Asheville and Charlotte Regulatory Field Offices
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Erin Davis (NCDWR)
Andrea Leslie (NCWRC)
Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
Byron Hamstead (USFWS)
Todd Bowers (USEPA)
Renee Gledhill -Earley (NCSHPO)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
Kim Browning (USACE)
Casey Haywood (USACE)
Scott Jones (USACE)

W 1LDLANDS
February 14, 2022
ATTN:
Mr. Steve Kichefski
US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
RE: East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, NC
Response to NCIRT Comments
USACE Action ID No: SAW-2019-01296
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the comments of USEPA, NCDWR, NCWRC, and
USACE regarding the East Buffalo Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Report. The following Wildlands
responses to the comments of USEPA, NCDWR, NCWRC, and USACE are noted below.
Todd Bowers, USEPA
1. Section 1.3 contains much information on the stream restoration/enhancement/preservation
approaches but seems to be missing the restoration/enhancement/preservation approach for the
wetlands. Recommend adding some more information on the restoration type and approach used for
wetlands. Enhancement and restoration are mentioned without any further details.
Wildlands Response:
The reestablishment area was lacking a sufficient inundation period required for wetland
processes as it was historically drained and filled. The lack of hydrology within the re-
establishment area is a direct result of the existing drain tile installed at the toe of slope. The
caught crucial hillside slope hydrology and routed it directly into drainage features which
prevented natural hydrologic processes. The combination of removing the field drain and
reconnecting the hillslope hydrology along with removing previously placed overburden, will
increase hydrology adequately to support wetlands processes. In addition, woody and
herbaceous wetland species were planted during MYO to reintroduce wetland vegetation to the
area.
Wetland rehabilitation occurred within a portion of Wetland D which is jurisdictional but was
hydrologically altered in the past via the relocation of UT3 closer to East Buffalo Road. Moving
UT3 back to the original location in the center of the valley is anticipated to improve wetland
hydrology in this area. Native woody and herbaceous wetland vegetation was planted during
MYO.
Wetland enhancement occurred within Wetland E, J, and a portion of Wetland D. Cattle were
removed, and woody and herbaceous native wetland vegetation was planted in MYO. This
information has been summarized in the comments column of Table 1 in the MY1 report.
2. As for as monitoring reports are concerned,/ recommend submitting monitoring reports well before
April 1, even as early as late December. This will allow the IRT the opportunity to review and provide
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. [phone] • 167-B Haywood Road • Asheville, NC 28806

feedback before any corrective action that may need to take place can be recommended.
Understandably, Wildlands can take certain corrective actions without IRT approval per the adaptive
management plan, however, if the site needs to undergo substantial replanting, IRT concurrence
and/or recommendations can be obtained well before the end of the dormant season for planting.
Wildlands Response:
Wildlands will seek to submit future monitoring reports well before the required submission
deadline, particularly if large-scale adaptive management activities are necessary and in need of
approval from the IRT.
3. Adaptive Management Plan: Recommend conduction supplemental planting no later than April 1 in
any given year as the typical growing season for Graham County starts around April 2.
Wildlands Response:
Wildlands anticipates all MY1 supplemental planting will be completed before March 15, 2022,
as stated in the MY1 East Buffalo Mitigation Site Adaptive Management Plan submitted to the
IRT on February 3, 2022. Any future supplemental planting will occur before the recommended
April 1 deadline.
4. Vegetation Planting Plan: Excellent information concerning species substitutions, adjustments,
diversity and the percentages for each species. My only recommendation is to refer to Sheet 2.0
Planting Plan to avoid any confusion with missing percentages. For example, 1 added up the live
stake percentages in the streambank planting zone and wondered where/what species the missing
10% was. Sheet 2.0 provided the answer as it was Elderberry.
Wildlands Response:
Please refer to Sheet 2.0 in the Planting Plan for information on live stake percentages in
streambank planting zones. This reference will be updated in future monitoring reports as
necessary.
Erin Davis, NCDWR
5. Page 13, Section 5.1.2 — What does modified mean? Please explain why and how these approve
design structures were modified.
Wildlands Response:
Please see Appendix 4, Sheet 1.1.2 for detailed information on Station 1005+60 — 1005+94
changes. The term "modified" refers to field -adjusted step -pool sequence using existing
material and configuration.
6. Was soil boring data collected near the installed wetland gauges (as 20161RT guidance)? Please
include this information in the MY1 Report.
Wildlands Response:
Soil boring data was collected in March 2021 during GWG installation. Please refer to Appendix
D in MY1 report for photographs and soil profile data sheets.
7. 1 appreciate the level of detail provided in the redline drawings. Of the species substitutions
requested, DWR only questions the crab apple based on IRT discussions of other sites in the region.
DWR supports the plant list modifications as long as WRC concurs.
Wildlands Response:
Wild crab apple (Malus angustifolia) remained on the planting list and was installed across the
site in MYO. This species is not included in the MY1 supplemental planting list (See Appendix F
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
NCIRT Comment Response Page 2 of 3

for detailed Adaptive Management Plan) and will not be included in any future supplemental
planting lists in accordance with this recommendation.
Andrea Leslie/Travis Wilson, NCWRC
8. Pleased with many of the substitutions including many additions to diversify the planting list.
Concerned about Eastern Cottonwood which is generally not found in the mountains of NC (is found
in a few places in the French Broad River floodplain).
Wildlands Response:
Eastern cottonwood will not be used in any future supplemental planting on the Site and
existing stems will be removed, to the best of the ability of Wildlands, as identified throughout
the remaining monitoring period.
Steve Kichefski, USACE
9. Do not include Eastern Cottonwood in any future supplemental plantings for this sire and although
not required, I recommend removing them as found during project activities throughout monitoring.
Wildlands Response:
See Comment 8 response.
10. Did not see a revised linear footage total for the As -Built compared to the mitigation plan. Were
they different and is Wildlands seeking a different credit amount for the bank?
Wildlands Response:
The linear footage increased by 2 LF along both UT3 Reach 2 (mitigation plan footage= 976, as -
built footage= 978) and UT4 Reach 2 (mitigation plan= 164, as -built footage= 166). No additional
credit is being sought and the credit amounts reflect the totals from the approved mitigation
plan.
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
NCIRT Comment Response
Page 3 of 3