20181273 Ver 1_BugHeadwaters_100084_MY2_2022_20230214

ID#* 20181273 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 03/24/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/14/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Matthew Reid [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20181273 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Bug Headwaters Mitigation site
County: Wilkes
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: BugHeadwaters_100084_MY2_2022.pdf 26.51 MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:

�A
V
MONITORING YEAR 2 3UG HEADWATERS MITIGATION SITE
Wilkes County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT Yadkin River Basin
Final HUC 03040101
DMS Project No. 100084
February 2023 DMS RFP No. 16-007406 / Date of Issue: December 17,
2017
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
USACE Action ID No. 2018-01788
DWR Project No. 2018-1273
Data Collection Dates: January -November 2022
PREPARED FOR:
1�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

W
WILDLANDS
ENGiNEE RINO
February 8, 2023
Matthew Reid
Project Manager NCDENR-DMS
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
[phone]
Subject: Draft MY2 Report Review
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site, Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin: 03040101
DMS Project ID No. 100084
DEQ Contract #7617
Dear Mr. Reid:
On February 6, 2023, Wildlands Engineering received comments from the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) regarding the Draft MY2 Report dated January 17, 2023. The following letter
documents DMS feedback and Wildlands' corresponding responses and revisions to the MY2 Report.
In an effort to identify and resolve property issues early during the monitoring period, please verify
that the conservation easement boundary has been walked, marking and signage is up to spec,
fencing is intact, and no encroachments have been identified.
Response: Throughout the year several portions of the site boundary were visually inspected and during
MY3 a full boundary inspection will be completed.
Title Page: Please include "Date of Issue: December 17, 2017" following the RFP number.
Response: The date of issue has been included.
Thank you for providing the supplemental planting table summarizing the March 2022 replant effort
in the appendix. Please do the same thing for the supplemental planting planned for winter 2023.
Response: The supplemental planting planed for winter 2023 is included in Appendix F under the IRT
Correspondence — Bug Headwaters Planting. Wildlands included page breaks in Appendix F to clarify the
different supplemental plantings.
Remedial actions are planned for several stream problem areas noted in section 2.3 and 2.4. Please
provide an update in the MY3 report regarding the completed work. Additional photos would be
helpful.
Response: Wildlands will include an update and photos in the MY3 report.
Stream photo points were taken on 4/12/2022. Recommend taking photos later in the monitoring
season. Preferably after leaf off in the fall to better represent the site conditions for the current
monitoring year.
Response: Based on previous IRT comments, Wildlands attempts to take the stream photos in the spring
before vegetation covers the stream. Wildlands feels that small streams will still be covered by
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

herbaceous vegetation in the fall, even after leaf off has occurred. Wildlands walks the Site at least
quarterly and before reports are submitted to ensure any issues that arise are reported accurately.
Cross -Section Plots: Majority of cross-section plots do not start and stop on same points. The 2016 IRT
Mitigation Update specifies that cross sections be permanent. Are permanent cross sections
(concrete, rebar, etc.) installed on the site? Are cross sections manually adjusted for overlays?
Response: Permanent cross -sections are installed across the Site with concrete and rebar marking them.
However, based on previous IRT comments wanting consistent X axis across reaches, Wildlands set up
the X and Y axis at consistent intervals that zoom into the cross-section to an appropriate extent. While
trying to maintain consistent intervals, the end rebar may not be shown in the plot but is shown in the
raw data.
cross -Section Plots: Please turn off the line markers for MYO and MY1 sections.
Response: Due to the limited user functionality Wildlands has with Shiny Apps, Wildlands does not have a
way to turn off the line markers for MYO and MY1 sections.
Electronic Deliverables
No comments for draft deliverables. Please update final deliverables based on comments.
Response: The MY2 report is updated based on DMS comments.
Thank you for your review and providing comments on this submittal. If you have any further questions,
please contact me at [phone], or by email ([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
FNGIN EER I N G
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

BUG HEADWATERS MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................
1-1
1.1
Project Quantities and Credits...................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-2
1.3
Project Attributes.......................................................................................................................1-4
Section
2: Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment................................................................................
2-1
2.1
Vegetative Assessment..............................................................................................................2-1
2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management.......................................................................2-1
2.3
Stream Assessment....................................................................................................................2-2
2.4
Stream Areas of Concern and Management..............................................................................2-2
2.5
Hydrology Assessment...............................................................................................................2-3
2.6
Wetland Assessment..................................................................................................................2-3
2.7
Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................2-3
Section3:
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
3-1
TART PC
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits.....................................................................................................1-1
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements......................................................1-2
Table 3: Project Attributes.........................................................................................................................1-4
FIGURES
Figure la-c Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Stream Areas of Concern Photographs
Culvert Crossing Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6a
Vegetation Plot Data —August Data
Table 6b
Vegetation Performance Standards SummaryTable— August Data
Table 7a
Vegetation Plot Data — October Data
Table 7b
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table — October Data
Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Section Plots
Table 8
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9
Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final

Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Recorded Bankfull Event Plots
Table 12 Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Summary
Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Plots
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 14 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
Table 15 Supplemental Planting Quantities — March 2022
MY1 Credit Release Site Visit Meeting Summary
IRT Correspondence — Bug Headwaters Planting
Figure 1 Supplemental Planting
Table 1 Proposed Supplemental Planting
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Wilkes County, approximately 9.5 miles
northwest of the Town of Elkin. The Site is on two adjacent row crop and livestock farms in the foothills
of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is near the border of the piedmont and mountain physiographic region
but is technically in the piedmont. Table 3 presents information related to the project attributes.
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
The Site is located on two parcels under 2 different landowners and a conservation easement was
recorded on 22.50 acres. Mitigation work within the Site included restoration, enhancement I, and
enhancement II of perennial and intermittent stream channels. Table 1 below shows stream credits by
reach and the total amount of stream credits expected at closeout.
Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits
PROJECT
Mitigation
Mitigation
Project As -Built Mitigation Restoration
Plan
Ratio Credits Comments
Segment Footage Category Level
Footage
(X:1)
Stream
Big Bugaboo
Full Channel Restoration,
868
869
Cool
R
1.0
868.000
Creek R1
Fencing Out Livestock
Big Bugaboo
Constructed Riffles, Fencing
981
981
Cool
El
1.5
654.000
Creek R2
Out Livestock, Internal Crossing
Pond Removal, Full Channel
Big Bugaboo
1,764
1,756
Cool
R
1.0
1,764.000
Restoration, Fencing Out
Creek R3
Livestock, Internal Crossing
Big Bugaboo
Graded Bankfull Bench, Fencing
394
390
Cool
El
1.5
262.666
Creek R4
Out Livestock
Full Channel Restoration,
UT1
389
390
Cool
R
1.0
389.000
Fencing Out Livestock
Fencing Out Livestock, Minor
UT2 R1
505
505
Cool
Ell
2.5
202.000
Bank Grading
Raised Riffle Bed, Fencing Out
UT2 R2
80
78
Cool
El
1.5
53.333
Livestock, Utility Crossing
Full Channel Restoration,
UT2 R3
436
440
Cool
R
1.0
436.000
Fencing Out Livestock
Bank Grading, Fencing Out
UT2 R4
314
301
Cool
El
1.5
209.333
Livestock
Full Channel Restoration,
UT2 R5
741
729
Cool
R
1.0
741.000
Fencing Out Livestock, Internal
Crossing
Fencing Out Livestock, Utility
UT2A R1
135
134
Cool
Ell
2.5
54.000
Crossing
Full Channel Restoration,
UT2A R2
445
445
Cool
R
1.0
445.000
Fencing Out Livestock
Bank Stabilization, Fencing Out
UT213
168
167
Cool
Ell
2.5
67.200
Livestock
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-1

Pond Removal, Full Channel
UT3
1,412
1,384
Cool
R
1.0
1,412.000
Restoration, Fencing Out
Livestock
UT4
128
131
Cool
Ell
4.0
32.000
Fencing Out Livestock
Total:
7,589.533
Restoration Level
Stream
Warm
Cool
Cold
Restoration
6,055.000
Enhancement 1
1,179.333
Enhancement 11
355.200
Totals
7,589.533
Total Stream Credit
7,589.533
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Goal
Objective/
Treatment
Likely Functional Uplift
Performance
Criteria
Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Riffle material washed
out in some riffles
throughout Big
ER stays over 2.2
Bugaboo Creek Reach
Construct stream
Reduce erosion and
and BHR below
1, UT1, and UT2 Reach
Improve the
channels that will
Cross-section
sediment inputs;
1.2 with visual
2-5. Small, isolated
stability of
maintain stable
monitoring
stream
cross -sections,
maintain appropriate
assessments
and visual
areas along Big
bed forms and sediment
showing
Bugaboo Creek Reach
channels.
patterns, and
inspections.
profiles overtime.
size distribution.
progression
4 and UT2A Reach 1
towards stability.
will be repaired.
Supplemental live
stakes will be planted
where needed.
Install habitat
features such as
cover logs, log sills,
and bush toes into
Support biological
restored/enhanced
communities and
There is no
Improve
required
instream
streams. Add
processes. Provide
performance
N/A
N/A
woody materials to
aquatic habitats for
habitat.
standard for this
channel beds.
diverse populations of
Construct pools of
aquatic organisms.
metric.
varying depth.
Fence out
livestock.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-2

Objective/
Performance
Cumulative
Goal
Likely Functional Uplift
Measurement
Treatment
Criteria
Monitoring Results
Reduce shear stress on
channel; hydrate
Four bankfull
Bankfull events
adjacent wetland areas;
events in
recorded for Big
Reconstruct
filter pollutants out of
separate years
Crest gauges
Bugaboo Reach 3 and
Reconnect
stream channels
overbank flows; provide
within
and/or
Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5,
channels with
with appropriate
floodplains
bankfull
surface storage of water
monitoring
pressure
and UT3 in MY2. UT1,
and riparian
dimensions and
on floodplain; increase
period.
transducers
UT2 Reach 1, UT2A
wetlands.
depth relative to
groundwater recharge
30 consecutive
recording flow
Reach 2, and UT213
while reducing outflow
days of flow for
elevations.
exceeded 30 days of
existing floodplain.
of stormwater; support
intermittent
consecutive flow
water quality and habitat
channels.
during MY2.
goals.
Reduce sediment and
Stabilize stream
nutrient inputs from
banks. Plant
stream banks; reduce
There is no
riparian buffers
sediment, nutrient, and
required
Improve water
with native trees.
bacteria inputs from
performance
N/A
N/A
quality.
Construct BM Ps to
pasture runoff; keep
treat pasture
livestock out of streams,
standard for this
runoff. Fence out
further reducing
metric.
livestock.
pollutants in project
streams.
11 of the 15 VPs
surveyed in August
have a planted stem
density greater than
Survival rate of
320 planted
One hundred
320 stems per acre.
October VPs showed
Provide a canopy to
stems per acre
square meter
an increase in planted
Plant native tree
shade streams and
at MY3 260
vegetation
stem density.
Restore /
planted stems
plots (VPs) are
improve
species in riparian
reduce thermal loadings;
per acre at MY5,
p laced on2%
Supplemental planting
zones that are
stabilize stream banks
occurred in March
riparian
currently
and floodplain; support
and 210 stems
of the planted
2022. Another Winter
buffers.
insufficient.
water quality and habitat
per acre at MY7.
area of the
supplemental planting
goals.
Height
Site and
will occur along 1.55
requirement is 7
monitored
feet at MY5 and
annually.
acres due to collateral
10 feet at MY7.
damage from
Murdannia keisak
treatment or
herbaceous
competition.
Visually
No easement
Ensure that
inspect the
encroachments.
Permanently
development and
protect the
Establish
agricultural uses that
Prevent
perimeter of
Several portions of the
project Site
conservation
would damage the Site
easement
the Site to
Site boundary were
from harmful
easements on the
or reduce the benefits of
encroachment.
ensure no
visually inspected. A
uses.
Site.
the project are
easement
full boundary
encroachment
inspection will be
prevented.
is occurring.
completed in MY3.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-3

1.3 Project Attributes
The Site includes the headwaters of Big Bugaboo Creek. All project reaches and the majority of the
watershed areas are contained within two farms, the larger of which is owned by Horace Randle Wood
while the smaller is owned by Gaye Swaim. Mr. Wood has owned the property and used it exclusively to
graze cattle since 2012. His property was historically used for grazing cattle though tobacco was also
cultivated on small sections of the property. Prior to construction, the Wood property remained mostly
non -forested cattle pasture with cattle having access to all surface waters on the property other than a
pond just below the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek and UT2 and short reaches of both of these
streams just upstream of the pond. Cattle access had severely degraded a majority of the streams. The
Swaim property has been in the family for over 60 years and had primarily been used for row crop
agriculture. Prior to construction, it was used to cultivate corn and soybeans. There was an in -line pond
on the Swaim property that received heavy sediment loads whenever the fields were tilled due to the
absence of a vegetated buffer around the pond. The remaining portions of the watershed outside of the
Wood and Swaim properties are mostly cleared and used for pasture and row crops, although there is a
pocket of forested area on the southeastern side of the watershed and wooded riparian corridors are
present on the far upstream and downstream ends of the Site. Table 3 below and Table 8 in Appendix C
present additional information on pre -restoration conditions.
Table 3: Project Attributes
PROJECT OR
Project Name
Bug Headwaters
County
Wilkes County
Mitigation Site
Project Area (acres)
22.50
Project Coordinates
36.32139 N, 80.98432 W
PROJECT
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS HUC 8-digit
03040101
USGS HUC 14-digit
03040101070010
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-01
Land Use Classification
86% agriculture, 12%
forested,
2% developed
Project Drainage Area (acres) 322
Percentage of Impervious Area
2%
RESTORATION
TRIBUTARY
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Big
Parameters
Bugaboo UT1
UT2
UT2A
UT3
Creek
Pre -project length (feet)
4,007
389
2,076
580
1,412
Post -project (feet)
3,996
390
2,053
579
1,384
Valley confinement
Confined to
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Unconfined
Confined
Confined
Drainage area (acres)
322
7
65
17
96
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
DWR Water Quality Classification
C
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)
F4/B4
B4
F4b
A4
G4
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)
B4/C4
B4
C4b
B4A
C4
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable
Stage III
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-4

Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and
DWQ401 Water Quality CertificationNo. 4134.
Water of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2020)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-5

Section 2: Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY2 to assess the condition of the project. The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic
assessment are located in Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional
Improvements. Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the MYO Annual Report (Wildlands,
2021).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in August 2022. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 40 to 607 planted stems per acre. Out of the 15 vegetation plots, 11 are meeting the
interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Fixed vegetation plot 12 and random
vegetation plot 15, both located along UT3's former pond bottom, are failing to meet the interim
requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3, with only 121 and 40 planted stems per acre
surviving. Random vegetation plot 14, located along the right floodplain of Big Bugaboo Creek's former
pond bottom, has a planted stem density of 40 stems per acre. While vegetation plot 3 is currently not
meeting the interim success criteria with 283 stems per acre, it is on track to meet the final success
criteria of 210 stems per acre.
The dense herbaceous vegetation overtopped the planted trees, making random vegetation plots
considerably difficult to conduct along the right floodplain of UT3 and Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 in
August. However, after the first frost and some herbaceous vegetation went dormant, four additional
random vegetation plots were conducted in late October 2022. Vegetation plots 16 and 17 were along
UT3, while vegetation plots 18 and 19 were along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3. There was a considerable
increase in the number of trees and species found in the resampled area compared to the original
vegetation plots collected in August 2022. In October 2022, the stem density ranged from 162 to 364
planted stems per acre, while only 40 planted stems per acre were found in August 2022. It is suspected
that as the planted trees continue to grow, the herbaceous vegetation will be suppressed, making it
easier to find trees in the following years.
Herbaceous vegetation is also abundant across the Site and includes native pollinator species, indicating
a healthy riparian habitat. The riparian habitat is helping to reduce nutrient runoff from the cattle fields
outside the easement and stabilizing the stream banks. Refer to Appendix A for Vegetation Plot
Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table, and Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management
Wildlands submitted the MY1 Report describing the high densities and sitewide distribution of the non-
native invasive species, Murdannia keisak, on the Site and planned efforts to address those areas.
Murdannia keisak was documented across all stream channels and was documented within most
wetland areas, totaling 23% of the total easement area. In the summer of 2022, Wildlands contracted
invasive species treatments for the Murdannia keisak across the Site. Treatments consisted of foliar
applications using 5% aquatic glyphosate plus non-ionic surfactant. A total of three treatments were
completed, with two treatments in wetland areas and the last treatment focused only on in -stream
occurrences. These treatments were effective, especially in -stream, but resulted in an excess of
collateral damage of native species on streambanks and in some wetland areas. However, Murdannia
keisak still heavily persists in the wetlands. Currently, in -stream occurrences have dwindled to minimal
coverage, but is expected to resprout next year. After discussions with North Carolina Internal Review
Team (NCIRT) and DMS during the August 16th Site Walk, the NCIRT acknowledges that it may be
VBug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 2-1

impossible to eradicate Murdannia keisak from the Site. Due to the significant collateral damage the
chemical treatment caused to the desirable native vegetation along the streambanks and wetland areas,
the NCIRT suggested Wildlands should not treat Murdannia keisak if it is not affecting stream flow or
woody stem establishment. The NCIRT also suggested planting more live stakes and juncus plugs along
the affected stream channels in the upcoming year for bank stabilization and to provide a canopy to
shade streams and reduce thermal loadings.
In March 2022, supplemental planting occurred along 1.75 acres in the former pond bottoms along the
right floodplain of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and both floodp.lains of UT3 (Figure lb-c). Due to a
continuously inundated floodplain originating from an off -site wetland seep, only water tolerant live
stakes were planted on the right floodplain of UT3. Bare roots were planted along the right floodplain of
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and left floodplain of UT3. A table summarizing the March 2022
supplemental planting effort is located in Appendix F.
In the winter of 2023, Wildlands will supplementally plant 1.55 (Figure la-c) acres to improve stem
density in areas that were either affected by the Murdannia keisak treatment or had tree mortality due
to herbaceous vegetation competition. Refer to Appendix F for more information on the approved
supplemental planting. Four additional random vegetation plots will be implemented in the upcoming
monitoring years to assess the supplemental planting.
After further discussions with the NCIRT, Wildlands will wait for another growing season to assess
vegetation conditions on the UT3 right floodplain. After additional transects were completed in October,
the live stakes that were planted in MY1 seem to be growing better than expected. It is currently
unknown if the live stakes will continue to survive in the inundated conditions, or if an alternative
success criterion will be needed.
Additional fencing was installed outside the conservation easement along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 to
accommodate a request from the landowner.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in May 2022. Pools that had begun to fill in with
sediment from heavy rains before vegetation was established across the Site are starting to show signs
of the excess sediment flushing through the system. All streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed except a few small areas. 16 of 18 cross -sections at the Site show little to no
change in the bankfull area and width -to -depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Cross-
section 9, an Enhancement I section along Big Bugaboo Reach 4, indicates toe erosion on the right side
of the stream bank. Remedial actions are planned for this area and is further described below in Section
2.4. Cross-section 13, along UT2 Reach 5, indicates some incision starting to form due to riffle material
washing away. The bank height ratio increased from 1.00 in MY1 to 1.32 in MY2. The cross -sectional
area also increases from 1.51 in MY1 to 2.49 in MY2. Cross-section 13 will continue to be monitored but
is not an area of concern. Pebble count data is no longer required per the September 29, 2021 Technical
Work Group Meeting, and is not included in this report. The IRT reserves the right to request pebble
count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary during the monitoring period. Refer to Appendix A
for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs and Appendix C
for Stream Geomorphology Data.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management
Due to frequent high velocity flow events over the course of the year, riffle material washed out in
several riffles along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1, UT1, and UT2 Reach 2-5. The riffles are being closely
monitored and are being considered for repair.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 2-2

Out of the nearly 8,000 linear feet of stream bank along Big Bugaboo Creek, a small, isolated section of
176 linear feet is experiencing toe erosion along the Enhancement I section of Big Bugaboo Reach 4.
Cross-section 9 survey gives a snapshot of the toe erosion along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4. This is only
2.2% of the stream banks along Big Bugaboo Creek and 1.0% of stream banks across the Site. The cause
of the bank erosion is a combination of minimal vegetation due to collateral damage from the
Murdannia keisak treatment, frequent high velocity flow events over the course of the year, and one log
sill eroding around the side. Rainfall was above average for the second half of the year, which along with
a lack of vegetative stream banks after Murdannia keisak treatment, contributed to erosion. Mechanical
equipment will most likely need to be used to repair this Enhancement I section of stream during MY3.
Refer to Figure 1c and Appendix A for a photo log.
There is 28 linear feet of incision that happened over the course of the year along the Enhancement II
section of UT2A Reach 1. This is only 2% of the stream channels along UT2A and 0.3% of the stream
channels across the Site. This particular area was left untouched during construction but will most likely
be mechanically repaired while equipment is on Site. Refer to Figure 1a and Appendix A for a photo log.
Along with the supplemental planting, Wildlands will be supplementing live stakes along the
streambanks in winter 2023.
2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull events were recorded on Big Bugaboo Reach 3 and Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5, and UT3. All channels
also recorded bankfull events during MY1 and are on track to meet the final hydrologic success criteria
of four bankfull events in separate years.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on intermittent reaches (UT1, UT2 Reach 1,
UT2A Reach 2, and UT213) for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. All
intermittent reaches maintained baseflow from January 15T until the final gauge download on October
27 which is 299 consecutive days. Refer to Appendix D for hydrologic data.
2.6 Wetland Assessment
The extent of wetlands will be reverified during MY5 to document wetland acreage was not lost due to
stream restoration. No performance standard is tied to reverification.
2.7 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Out of the 15 vegetation plots surveyed in August, eleven are exceeding the MY3 interim requirement of
320 planted stems per acre. Additional random vegetation plots were surveyed in October after
herbaceous vegetation went dormant. An increase in stem density was seen across all random
vegetation plots in October compared to the plots surveyed in August. It is expected that as herbaceous
competition is shaded out, stem density will continue to increase. A supplemental planting occurred
along 1.75 acres in the former pond bottoms in March 2022. Multiple, sitewide Murdannia keisak
treatments occurred between May -August 2022. The treatment was not as effective in the wetlands as
it was in the stream channels, however collateral damage to native vegetation was high in some areas.
Wildlands will assess the Site and treat in stream vegetation if stream flow is impacted. An approved
supplemental planting is scheduled for winter 2023 to help stem density in a few of the areas that were
either affected by the Murdannia keisak treatment or had tree mortality due to herbaceous vegetation
competition. Wildlands will wait another year to make assess the vegetation success on the UT3 right
floodplain. Additional fencing was installed along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 outside of the
conservation easement per the landowners request. Out of the 18 cross -sections, 16 are within design
parameters. Cross-section 13 is currently not an area of concern but will continue to be assessed during
subsequent monitoring years. Cross-section 9 will be repaired along with 176 linear feet of toe erosion
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 2-3

along Big Bugaboo Reach 4. Since equipment will already be on Site, Wildlands will repair 28 linear feet
of incision along an Enhancement II section of UT2A Reach 1. Bankfull events were documented on all
stream reaches and greater than 30 days of consecutive flow was recorded on all intermittent reaches,
fulfilling MY2 success requirements. Overall, the Site is meeting its goals of preventing excess nutrients
and sediment from entering the Yadkin River tributaries and is on track to meet final success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available from DIMS upon request.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 2-4

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 2008. Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2020. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DIMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project Monitoring Year 0 (MYO) Annual
Report. DIMS, Raleigh, NC
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
460 Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 3-1

L'3
I � t
�s
O / Al
s
1l� l/l
i V,, s�/� I � [3��j [°3 p 0 0 0 &4A
�3
Off, _
j 1 O ,
L°3c 4 r1 O
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
�It
4 ill
ilk
-
.4
0 350 700 Feet
I i I i I
C
r Conservation Easement
I. ---
Internal Crossing
® Existing Wetlands
- Ephemeral Step -Pool BMP
+ 0/0 Pocket Wetland BM
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
Criteria Met - Fixed
- Criteria Not Met - Fixed
OCriteria Met - Random
OCriteria Not Met - Randorr
Stream Restoration
{ ' Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
No Credit
9 9 Existing Fence
x — x New Fence
Utility Line
a,
Cross -Sections
O Reach Breaks
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wilkes County, NC

UT2
Reach 2
14
UT2
Reach 3
0 01-11 Bugaboo Creek
Reach 2
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
7 ill
9�
G �\
—_
v
UT2i4
Reach 2
�o-A-
UT1
Big Bugaboo Creek
ll Reach 1
In
�I
. A«Ir • — �r Opt
r
Conservation Easement
:. Treated Murdannia keisak
Stream Area of Concern - MY2
Internal Crossing
Treated Murdannia keisak
Toe Erosion
Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Cross -Sections
— Ephemeral Step -Pool BMP
Stream Enhancement 1
C
Reach Breaks
Pocket Wetland BMP
Stream Enhancement 11
0
Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
No Credit
Barotroll
= Criteria Met- Fixed
As -Built Bankfull
Flow Gauge
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY2
Fence
o
Structures
Low Stem Density
Utility Line
0 150 300 Feet
I i I i I
Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wilkes County, NC

Conservation Easement Stream Enhancement I %'0, 4�
Internal Crossing Stream Enhancement II%
Existing
wetlands No Credit
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2 _—_ As -Built Bankfull�
Criteria Met - Fixed
Fence
Criteria Not Met- Fixed
New Fence QRM % �•
Criteria Not Met - Random
Utility Line
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY2 10
Cross -Sections
Low Stem Density
0 Reach Breaks �t
Supplemental Planting 1•
0 Photo Points RM
Treated Murdannia keisak 0 r
� Crest Gauge PIMA
Treated Murdannia keisak
� Flow Gauge z� �
Stream Restoration
Structures
4
l01
_A_
0
IIIF
RVPis- '
)ctober Data
,1 C/
r
RVP AY
19
October Data
4r
41
o
+° r
ice+
a
�s
W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet
ENGINEERING
I i I i I
41
i
Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wilkes County, NC

Conservation Easement Supplemental Planting Utility Line
Internal Crossing '• Treated Murdannia keisak Cross -Sections
Existing Wetlands Treated Murdannia keisak Stream Area of Concern - MY2
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2 Stream Restoration Toe Erosion
Criteria Met - Fixed Stream Enhancement I O Eroding Log Sill
Criteria Not Met - Fixed Stream Enhancement 11 0 Reach Breaks
O Criteria Met - Random No Credit 0 Photo Points
O Criteria Not Met - Random __ Crest Gauge
— As -Built Bankfull
Vegetation Area of Concern - MY2 9 9 Fence C Structures
Low Stem Density
x — � New Fence
r �
s
•s ` •s
RVP 16 -• • `\ /
October Data • • • • •
13
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Soo
..
5
i
11 '�l �•`� �//
Gi 4 :.:....:. .
11� r
UT4
:. ..
�1.:. .. :. :. :. :.
. A :. :. :. :.
0 150 300 Feet
I i I i I
RVP 19 -
October Data
� 4 � 1. r
A)
.i
i
i/%
:• :• �( �
MENReach�3�
Figure 1c. Current Condition Plan View
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wilkes County, NC

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Big Bugaboo Reach 1 - 4
Number Total Amount of
Metric stable, Number in Unstable
Performing As -Built Footage
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
3,996
Assessed Bank Length
7,992
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
176
98%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
176
98%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
24
25
96%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
58
58
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.
UT1
Nu_mTbFerT Total Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric stable, Numbe juablef
as Inten e il
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
erforming as
390
Assessed Bank Length
780
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
15
15
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
4
4
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
UT2 Reach 1 - 5
Number Tota I Amount of
rajor.Chalnnel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable
Performing As -Built Footage
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
I
2,053
Assessed Bank Length
4,106
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
22
22
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
30
30
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.
UT2A Reach 1 - 2
Number
ajor Channel Category Metric Performing Numberl nstable
Lra i o. as Intended As-Bi "
Assessed Stream Length
erforming as
P. Intended
579
Assessed Bank Length
1,160
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
28
98%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
28
98%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
14
14
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
7
7
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
UT2B
Number Total Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Performing Number in Unstable
as Intended As -Built Footage
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
167
Assessed Bank Length
336
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
4
4
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
0
0
N/A
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.
UT3
Number Total Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable
Performing As-Bui It
41 as Intended ;Offim"i
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1,384
Assessed Bank Length
2,768
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
0
0
N/A
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
23
23
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.

Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
UT4
Number Total Number Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, in Unstable
Performing as
% Stable,
Performing as
As-B
Intended UAL==Ah
Assessed Stream Length
Intended
131
Assessed Bank Length
262
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
Bank
Toe Erosion
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving,
Bank Failure
0
100%
or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
0
0
N/A
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection
0
0
N/A
does not exceed 15%.
Visual assessment was completed November 17, 2022.

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Planted Acreage 19.00
MFW
Mapping
Definitions
M (ac)
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10
0
0%
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
0.10
1.55*
8%
Areas
criteria.
Total
1.55
8%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
0.10
0
0%
Rates
Standard.
Cumulative Total
1.55
8%
Visual assement was completed November 17, 2022.
*An approved supplemental planting is scheduled for winter 2023.
Easement Acreage
22.50
..
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
5.30*EF
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the
Invasive Areas of
potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term or
0.10
Concern
community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
9,188 If* 100%
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
Easement
of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common
0 Encroachments Noted
Encroachment Areas
encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no
none
/Oac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.
*Murdannia keisak was treated in most wetlands and stream channels across the Site from May -August 2022

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 Big Bugaboo R1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 1 Big Bugaboo R1 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 2 Big Bugaboo R1— upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 2 Big Bugaboo R1— downstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 3 Big Bugaboo R1— upstream (0411212022) PHOTO POINT 3 Big Bugaboo R1— downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 Big Bugaboo R1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 Big Bugaboo R1 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 5 Big Bugaboo R2 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 Big Bugaboo R2 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 6 Big Bugaboo R2 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 6 Big Bugaboo R2 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 Big Bugaboo R2 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 Big Bugaboo R2 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 8 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 8 Big Bugaboo R3 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 9 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 9 Big Bugaboo R3 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 Big Bugaboo R3 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 11 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 11 Big Bugaboo R3 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 12 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 12 Big Bugaboo R3 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 Big Bugaboo R3 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 14 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 15 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 14 Big Bugaboo R3 — downstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 15 Big Bugaboo R3 — downstream (0411212022)
OBug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

_ r+
PHOTO POINT 16 Big Bugaboo R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 16 Big Bugaboo R3 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 17 Big Bugaboo R4 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 17 Big Bugaboo R4 —downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 18 Big Bugaboo R4—upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 18 Big Bugaboo R4 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 UT1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 19 UT1— downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 20 UT1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 UT1— downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1— upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 21 UT1— downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 22 UT1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 22 UT1— downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 R1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 R1— downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 R1— upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 R1— downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 25 UT2 R2 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 25 UT2 R2 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 26 UT2 R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 UT2 R3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 27 UT2 R3 — upstream (0411212022) PHOTO POINT 27 UT2 R3 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 28 UT2 R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 28 UT2 R3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 29 UT2 R3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 29 UT2 R3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 30 UT2 R4 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 30 UT2 R4 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 31 UT2 IRS — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 31 UT2 IRS — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 32 UT2 IRS — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 IRS — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 32 UT2 IRS — downstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 IRS — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 R5 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 R5 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 R5 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 R5 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 R5 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 R5 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 37 UT2A R1— upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 37 UT2A R1— downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 38 UT2A R2 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 38 UT2A R2 — downstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 39 UT2A R2 — upstream (0411212022) I PHOTO POINT 39 UT2A R2 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

.� L31f y _l
Ail
a y
� 1- 1. � .%it fir' • s. � / �.xS'�,x Jfj - �.. ., � e, . _ - .. .. z .. �, ..

PHOTO POINT 43 UT3 —upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 43 UT3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 44 UT3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 44 UT3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 45 UT3 —upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 45 UT3 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 46 UT3 — upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 46 UT3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 47 UT3 —upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 48 UT3 — upstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 47 UT3 — downstream (0411212022)
PHOTO POINT 48 UT3 — downstream (0411212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 49 UT3 —upstream (0411212022) 1 PHOTO POINT 49 UT3 — downstream (0411212022) 1
PHOTO POINT 50 UT4 — upstream (0411212022) I PHOTO POINT 50 UT4 — downstream (0411212022) I
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

Stream Area of Concern Photographs
UT2A Reach 1
Station 400+91- 401+419

Before — Localized Incision (11/17/2022)
Before — Localized Incision (11/17/2022)
Before — Localized Incision (11/17/2022) 1 Before — Localized Incision (11/17/2022) 1
R Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Area of Concern Photographs

Stream Area of Concern Photographs
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4
Station 138+52—140+28

Before — Localized Toe Erosion (11/17/2022) 1 Before — Localized Toe Erosion (11/17/2022) 1
Before — Localized Toe Erosion (11/17/2022)
Before — Localized Toe Erosion (11/17/2022)
Before — Eroded Log Sill at STA 139+59 (11/17/2022) 1 Before — Eroded Log Sill at STA 139+59 (11/17/2022) 1
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Stream Area of Concern Photographs

CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS

Big Bugaboo Creek R2 - Looking Upstream (1111712022) 1 Big Bugaboo Creek R2 - Looking Downstream (1111712022) 1
Big Bugaboo Creek R3 - Looking Upstream (1111712022)
Big Bugaboo Creek R3 - Looking Downstream (1111712022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data - Culvert Crossing Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

N qW
FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (812212022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (812212022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (812212022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (812212022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (812212022)
FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (812212022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs

—,
WA' —NO

RANDOM VEG PLOT 13 (812212022) 1 RANDOM VEG PLOT 14 (812212022) 1
RANDOM VEG PLOT 15 (812212022) I RANDOM VEG PLOT 16 (1012712022)
RANDOM VEG PLOT 17 (1012712022)
RANDOM VEG PLOT 18 (10/27/2022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs

Ift Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data — Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6a. Vegetation Plot Data - August Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Planted Acreage
19.00
Date of Initial Plant
2021-04-29
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
2022-03-25
Date of Current Survey
2022-08-22
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Tree
OBL
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
3
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
1
1
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
Species
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
FACU
1
1
Included in
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Approved
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
Mitigation Plan
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
FACU
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FAC
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
OBL
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
1
1
5
5
2
2
1
1
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
FAC
Sum
Performance Standard
12
12
15
15
7
7
9
9
11
11
Post Mitigation
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
FAC
Plan Species
Rhus copallinum
winged sumac
Tree
FACU
Sum
Proposed Standard
12
12
15
15
7
7
9
9
11
11
Current Year Stem Count
12
15
7
9
11
Stems/Acre
486
607
283
364
445
Mitigation Plan
Species Count
5
9
5
4
7
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
33
33
29
33
18
Average Plot Height (ft.)
3
2
3
3
2
Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
12
15
7
9
11
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
486
607
283
364
445
Plan
Species Count
5
9
5
4
7
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
33
33
29
33
18
Standard
Average Plot Height (ft.)
3
2
3
3
2
Invasive-
0
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species
that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular
font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation
plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 6a. Vegetation Plot Data - August Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Planted Acreage
19.00
Date of Initial Plant
2021-04-29
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
2022-03-25
Date of Current Survey
2022-08-22
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 9 F
Veg Plot 10 F
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Tree
OBL
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
1
1
Species
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
Included in
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Approved
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
Mitigation Plan
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FAC
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
OBL
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
2
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
FAC
Sum
Performance Standard
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
14
14
Post Mitigation
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
FAC
Plan Species
Rhus copallinum
winged sumac
Tree
FACU
Sum
Proposed Standard
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
14
14
Current Year Stem Count
11
11
11
13
14
Stems/Acre
445
445
445
526
567
Mitigation Plan
Species Count
6
7
6
8
9
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
27
27
27
23
14
Average Plot Height (ft.)
3
3
2
4
4
Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
11
11
11
13
14
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
445
445
445
526
567
Plan
Species Count
6
7
6
8
9
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
27
27
27
23
14
Standard
Average Plot Height (ft.)
3
3
2
4
4
Invasive-
0
0
1
10
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species
that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular
font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation
plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 6a. Vegetation Plot Data - August Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Planted Acreage
19.00
Date of Initial Plant
2021-04-29
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
2022-03-25
Date of Current Survey
2022-08-22
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/S
hrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 11 F
Veg Plot 12 F
Veg Plot
13 R
Veg Plot
14 R
Veg Plot
15 R
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Total
Total
Total
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Tree
OBL
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
3
3
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
Species
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
FACU
1
1
Included in
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
3
3
1
Approved
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
2
2
2
Mitigation Plan
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
FACU
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FAC
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
FACU
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
OBL
10
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
3
3
1
1
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
FAC
1
1
Sum
Performance Standard
15
15
3
3
13
1
1
Post Mitigation
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
FAC
1
Plan Species
Rhus copallinum
winged sumac
Tree
FACU
3
Sum
Proposed Standard
15
15
3
3
16
1
1
Current Year Stem Count
15
3
13
1
1
Stems/Acre
607
121
526
40
40
Mitigation Plan
Species Count
8
3
3
1
1
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
20
33
71
100
100
Average Plot Height (ft.)
3
4
19
4
7
Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
15
3
16
1
1
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
607
121
647
40
40
Plan
Species Count
8
3
4
1
1
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
20
33
71
100
100
Standard
Average Plot Height (ft.)
3
4
16
4
7
Invasives
0
0
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan
Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in prior
monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance
Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 6b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table - August Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
#Species % Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year
486
3
0
607
2
0
283
3
Monitoring Year
567
2
0
607
2
0
486
2
Monitoring Year
607
2
0
648
2
9
0
607
2
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species % Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species % Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year2
364
3
445
2
0
44
3
Monitoring Year1
445
2
OIL
486
2
8
0
445
2Monitoring
Year0
607
2
526
1 2
8
0
607
2
9
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 9 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year
445
3
7
0
445
2
6
0
526
4
8
0
Monitoring Year
445
2
8
0
486
2
6
0
526
3
8
0
Monitoring Year
607
2
8
0
607
2
6
0
607
2
8
0
Veg Plot 30 F
Veg Plot 11 F
Veg Plot 12 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Year
MonitorintStems/Ac.
567
4
9
0
607
3
8
0
121
4
3
0
MonitorinYear
607
2
9
0
567
2
7
0
40
2
1
0
MonitorinYear
607
2
9
0
607
2
8
0
607
2
8
0
Veg Plot Group 13 R
Veg Plot Group 14 R
Veg Plot Group 15 R
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
MonitorinMonitorinMonitorinMonitorin2
526
19
3
0
40
4
1
0
40
7
1
0
Monitorin1
405
2
6
0
243
3
4
0
40
3
1
0
Monitorin
526
2
7
0
607
2
5
0
567
2
7
0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.

Table 7a. Vegetation Plot Data - October Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Planted Acreage
19.00
Date of Initial Plant
2021-04-29
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
2022-03-25
Date of Current Survey
2022-10-27
Plot size (ACRES)
0.0247
Common Name
Tree/
Shrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 16 R
Veg Plot 17 R
Veg Plot 18 R
Veg Plot 19 R
Total
Total
Total
Total
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Tree
OBL
1
2
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
1
3
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
5
SpeciesT
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
1
Included in
Approved
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
1
2
Mitigation Plan
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FAC
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
OBL
2
3
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
OBL
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
1
Sum
Performance Standard
9
6
4
7
Current Year Stem Count
9
6
4
7
Stems/Acre
364
243
162
283
Mitigation Plan
Species Count
3
4
3
4
Performance
Standard
Dominant Species Composition (%)
56
50
50
43
Average Plot Height (ft.)
4
5
4
3
% Invasives
0
0
0
0
Current Year Stem Count
9
6
4
7
Post Mitigation
Stems/Acre
364
243
162
283
Plan
Species Count
3
4
3
4
Performance
Dominant Species Composition (%)
56
50
50
43
Standard
Average Plot Height (ft.)
4
5
4
3
Invasives
0
0
1 M
1 0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved, and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan" section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan
Species" section includes species that are being proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , species that have been approved in
prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance
Standard" includes data from mitigation plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 7b. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table - October Data
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Veg Plot Group 16 R
Veg Plot Group 17 R
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Year 7
g Year 5
g Year 3
5,,
g Year 2
364
4
3
0
243
5
4
0
Veg Plot Group 18 R
Veg Plot Group 19 R
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species % Invasives
g Year 7
g Year 5
g Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
0
4
0
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

CROSS-SECTION PLOTS

1433
MON
0 1431
i�
7
G]
LU
1430
1429
Cross -Section 1 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 1
20 30
Distance (ft.)
r- n-r: MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,431.28
1,431.36
1,431.39
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.96
0.92
Thalweg Elevation
1,430.16
1,430.27
1,430.27
LTOB Elevation
1,431.28
1,431.31
1,431.30
LTOB Max Depth
1.13
1.04
1.03
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
4.03
3.71
3.40
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

1432
1430
7
W
1428
Cross -Section 2 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 1
20 30
Distance (ft.)
N4Y 0 -- MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,428.97
1,428.97
1,428.76
LTOB Elevation
1,430.55
1,430.63
1,430.60
LTOB Max Depth
1.58
1.66
1.84
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
5.61
5.85
6.27
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

Cross -Section 3 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 2
1414
14t2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W
141U
1408
10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
MY 0 — MY 1 MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,410.57
1,410.55
1,410.51
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.04
1.08
Thalweg Elevation
1,409.27
1,409.27
1,409.03
LTOB Elevation
1,410.57
1,410.60
1,410.63
LTOB Max Depth
1.30
1.33
1.60
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
7.26
7.75
8.42
k
t x
r yy i `ti v k
N. 641
i D y
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

1410
w
1.108
Cross -Section 4 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - r- i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
MY 0 -- MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,408.32
1,408.33
1,407.41
LTOB Elevation
1,409.53
1,409.66
1,409.67
LTOB Max Depth
1.21
1.33
2.26
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
3.20
3.72
7.01
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

(Cross -Section 5 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 3
13881
1387
a 1386
ro
m
w
1385
1384
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft.)
my() -- My i My - - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,386.16
1,386.25
1,386.27
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.84
0.84
Thalweg Elevation
1,385.21
1,385.29
1,385.27
LTOB Elevation
1,386.16
1,386.09
1,386.11
LTOB Max Depth
0.95
0.80
0.84
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
5.66
3.88
4.06
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

- MY p -- MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,383.73
1,384.05
1,383.88
LTOB Elevation
1,385.13
1,385.30
1,385.37
LTOB Max Depth
1.40
1.25
1.49
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
4.66
4.28
4.89
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

1376
1375
C
1374
7
W
W
1372
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,374.22
1,374.30
1,374.32
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.99
0.98
Thalweg Elevation
1,373.09
1,373.00
1,372.99
LTOB Elevation
1,374.22
1,374.28
1,374.29
LTOB Max Depth
1.13
1.28
1.30
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
5.64
5.50
5.46
. n
,I
it �� f SY S✓ 1 ��kv k � �S» _
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

1375
1374
1372
1371
Cross -Section 8 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 3
10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
MY 0 -- MY i - MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,371.33
1,371.75
1,371.68
LTOB Elevation
1,373.57
1,373.65
1,373.66
LTOB Max Depth
2.25
1.90
1.98
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
9.80
9.14
9.38
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

Cross -Section 9 (Riffle) Big Bugaboo Reach 4
1H,
0136^---------------------------- - ----- - -------------------
7
N
W
13C1
1360
0 10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
I N4Y 0 -- MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,362.95
1,362.93
1,362.02
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.01
1.92
Thalweg Elevation
1,362.22
1,361.85
1,361.02
LTOB Elevation
1,362.95
1,362.94
1,362.94
LTOB Max Depth
0.73
1.09
1.92
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
3.58
3.66
9.66
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,427.68
1,427.86
1,427.82
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.00
1.13
Thalweg Elevation
1,427.22
1,427.30
1,427.39
LTOB Elevation
1,427.68
1,427.86
1,427.87
LTOB Max Depth
0.46
0.56
0.48
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
1.05
1.06
1.30
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

- My 0 -- My i My - - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,427.77
1,427.82
1,427.82
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.05
1.03
Thalweg Elevation
1,426.85
1,426.82
1,426.77
LTOB Elevation
1,427.77
1,427.87
1,427.85
LTOB Max Depth
0.92
1.05
1.08
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
2.50
2.75
2.66
P
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

1415
1414
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,414.97
1,415.02
1,415.03
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.95
0.91
Thalweg Elevation
1,414.43
1,414.47
1,414.46
LTOB Elevation
1,414.97
1,414.99
1,414.98
LTOB Max Depth
0.54
0.52
0.52
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
1.82
1.62
1.47
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

Cross -Section 13 (Riffle) UT2 Reach 5
1411
1410
c
1409
7
N
W
1408
-------------------------------- --- ---------------------
1407
0 10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
MY 0 MY i - MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,408.33
1,408.33
1,408.10
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.00
1.32
Thalweg Elevation
1,407.66
1,407.63
1,407.29
LTOB Elevation
1,408.33
1,408.33
1,408.35
LTOB Max Depth
0.67
0.70
1.06
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
1.50
1.51
2.49
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

1410
1.109
1406
1405
Cross -Section 14 (Pool) UT2 Reach 5
10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,405.79
1,406.04
1,405.68
LTOB Elevation
1,408.04
1,407.99
1,408.04
LTOB Max Depth
2.25
1.95
2.36
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
1 10.58
10.16
12.81
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,448.11
1,448.14
1,448.19
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
1.00
1.08
Thalweg Elevation
1,447.42
1,447.50
1,447.52
LTOB Elevation
1,448.11
1,448.14
1,448.24
LTOB Max Depth
0.69
0.64
0.72
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
1.68
1.70
1.96
Downstream (1012712021)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

Cross -Section 16 (Riffle) UT3
1383
1382
C
•� 1381
------------------- ----
1379
10 20 30
Distance (ft.)
N4Y 0 -- MY i MY 2 - - Bankfull Elevation - Based on As -Built Bankfull Area
— Current Low Top of Bank
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,380.54
1,380.54
1,380.59
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.87
0.83
Thalweg Elevation
1,379.64
1,379.51
1,379.61
LTOB Elevation
1,380.54
1,380.40
1,380.42
LTOB Max Depth
0.90
0.89
0.81
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
3.31
2.49
2.32
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,367.93
1,367.90
1,367.80
LTOB Elevation
1,369.27
1,369.29
1,369.30
LTOB Max Depth
1.33
1.39
1.50
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
6.00
5.57
6.26
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1,369.11
1,369.17
1,369.16
Bank Height Ratio - Based
on AB-Bankfull Area
1.00
0.97
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
1,367.87
1,367.89
1,367.74
LTOB Elevation
1,369.11
1,369.12
1,369.15
LTOB Max Depth
1.24
1.23
1.41
LTOB Cross -Sectional Area
5.85
5.46
5.79
Downstream (513112022)
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data —Cross-Section Plots

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Parameter
Big Bugaboo Reach 1
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.3
1
6.5
6.7
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
14
1
8 1 14
80
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
1
0.5
0.6
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.6
1
0.8
1.1
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.5
1
3.3
4.0
1
Width/Depth Ratio
36.3
1
13.0
11.0
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1
>1.4
12.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
3.3
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
31
80
61
Rosgen Classification
F4b
B4
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
10.9 1
12.4
19.3
Sinuosity
1.04
1.02
1.02
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0330 1
0.0315 1 0.0346
0.0350
Other
---
--
Parameter
Big Bugaboo Reach 2
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
1
9.0
9.3
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
16
1
11 20
19
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1
0.7
0.8
1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1
1.0
1.3
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.4
1
6.0
7.3
1
Width/Depth Ratio
5.3
1
13.5
11.9
1
Entrenchment Ratio
3.9
1
>1.4
2.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
50
66
49
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14.1 1
20.4
32.7
Sinuosity
1.07
1.02
1.02
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0228 1
0.0196 1 0.0216
0.0217
Other
---
--
Parameter
Big Bugaboo Reach 3
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.0
1
10.4
8.3
12.5
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
9
1
23 52
48
80
2
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
1
0.8
0.5
0.7
2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4
1
1.2
0.9
1.1
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
6.6
1
8.2
5.6
5.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.4
1
13.0
12.2
27.4
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1
>2.2
3.8
9.6
2
Bank Height Ratio
2.6
1
1.0
1.0
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
65
66
23 34
2
Rosgen Classification
B4
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
34.9 1
34.0
16.2 20.5 2
Sinuosity
1.01
1.16
1.16
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0230 1
0.0173 1 0.0189
0.0171
Other
---
--

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Parameter
Big Bugaboo Reach 4
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
1
11.8
8.7
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
23
1
26 1 59
20
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1
0.1
0.4
1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1
1.3
0.7
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.1
1
10.3
3.5
1
Width/Depth Ratio
24.6
1
14.0
21.2
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1
>2.2
2.3
1
Bank Height Ratio
2.7
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
37
84
20
Rosgen Classification
F4
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
54.5
1
48.3
9.2
Sinuosity
1.03
1
1.02
1.02
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0160
1
0.0127 0.0138
0.0166
Other
---
--
Parameter
UT1
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.6
1
4.2
3.7
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
20
1
5 9
19
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.2
1
0.3
0.3
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.4
1
0.5
0.5
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
1
1.4
1.0
1
Width/Depth Ratio
50.7
1
13.0
13.3
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
1
>1.4
5.1
1
Bank Height Ratio
5.0
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
24
53
32
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6.9
1
3.9
3.2
Sinuosity
1.01
1
1.00
1.00
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0350
1
0.0329 0.0362
0.0387
Other
---
--
Parameter
UT2 Reach 3
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
1
7.1
4.7
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
1
16 36
19
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
1
0.5
0.5
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1
0.8
0.9
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
1
3.8
2.5
1
Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
1
13.0
9.0
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1
67.0
4.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
34
>1.4
45
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13.8 1
14.6
10.0
Sinuosity
1.10
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0520 1
0.0244 1 0.0266
0.0301
Other
---
--

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Parameter
UT2 Reach 4
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
1
7.1
6.9
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
1
16 1 36
13
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
1
0.5
0.3
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1
0.8
0.5
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
1
3.8
1.8
1
Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
1
13.0
26.5
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1
>1.4
1.9
1
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
34
---
26
Rosgen Classification
B4
B4
B4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13.8 1
14.6
5.0
Sinuosity
1.07
1.07
1.07
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0369 1
0.0282 1 0.0307
0.0334
Other
---
--
Parameter
UT2 Reach 5
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
1
8.4
4.2
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
1
19 24
25
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
1
0.6
0.4
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1
1.5
0.7
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
1
5.4
1.5
1
Width/Depth Ratio
23.0
1
13.0
11.6
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1
>2.2
6.0
1
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
34
48
18
Rosgen Classification
F4b
C4b
C4b
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13.8 1
18.8
3.6
Sinuosity
1.01
1.06
1.06
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0200 1
0.0183 1 0.0200
0.0175
Other
---
--
Parameter
UT2A Reach 2
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.0
1
5.1
4.8
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
1
6 11
14
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
1
0.4
0.4
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.6
1
0.6
0.7
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.0
1
2.0
1.7
1
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
1
13.0
13.5
1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.4
1
>1.4
2.9
1
Bank Height Ratio
4.8
1
1.0
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
58
84
40
Rosgen Classification
A4
B4a
B4a
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8.3 1
7.3
5.9
Sinuosity
1.04
1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0490 1
0.0454 1 0.0514
0.0398
Other
---
--

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
�Ok
Parameter
UT3
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7
1
9.5
6.6
9.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
9
1
21 1 48
90
2
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1
0.7
0.5
0.6
2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1
1.1
0.9
1.2
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5
1
6.8
3.3
5.8
2
Width/Depth Ratio
8
1
13.0
13.1
14.6
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1
>2.2
9.8
1 13.7
2
Bank Height Ratio
2.1
1
1.0
1.0
2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
43
54
24 30
2
Rosgen Classification
G4
C4b
C4b
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
21.7 1
24.6
9.7 19.8 2.0
Sinuosity
1.04
1.21
1.21
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0199
1
0.0142
1 0.0154
0.0164
Other
---
I ---

Table 9. Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Cross -Section 1(Riffle) Cross -Section 2 (Pool)
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Ban kfu l l Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfu l l'Area
1,431.28
1,431.36
1,431.39
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,410.57
1,410.55
1,410.51
Bank Height Ratio -Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
0.96
0.92
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
1.04
1.08
Thalweg Elevation
1,430.16
1,430.27
1,430.27
1,428.97
1,428.97
1,428.76
1,409.27
1,409.27
1,409.03
LTO B' Elevation
1,431.28
1,431.31
1,431.30
1,430.55
1,430.63
1,430.60
1,410.57
1,410.60
1,410.63
LTOB' Max Depth (ft)
1.13
1.04
1.03
1.58
1.66
1.84
1.30
1.33
1.60
LTO B' Cross Sectional Area ffe)l
4.03
1 3.71
1 3.40
1
1
1
1 5.61
1 5.85
1 6.27
1
7.26
1 7.75
1 8.42
Big Bugaboo Reach 2
Cross -Section 4 (Pool)
Big Bugaboo
Cross -Section 5 (Riffle)
Reach 3
Cross -Section 6 (Pool)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)- Based on AB-Bankfull" Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,386.16
1,386.25
1,386.27
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Area
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
0.84
0.84
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg Elevation
1,408.32
1,408.33
1,407.41
1,385.21
1,385.29
1,385.27
1,383.73
1,384.05
1,383.88
LTO B' Elevation
1,409.53
1,409.66
1,409.67
1,386.16
1,386.09
1386.11
1,385.13
1,385.30
1,385.37
LTOB' Max Depth (ft)
1.21
1.33
2.26
0.95
0.80
0.84
1.40
1.25
1.49
LTO B' Cross Sectional Area (fe)
3.20
1 3.72
1 7.01
1
1
1
1 5.66
1 3.88
1 4.06
1
1
14.66
1 4.28
1 4.89
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 8 (Pool)
Cross -Section 9 (Riffle)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)- Based on AB-Bankfull'Area
1,374.22
1,374.30
1,374.32
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,362.95
1,362.93
1,362.02
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
0.99
0.98
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
1.01
1.92
Thalweg Elevation
1,373.09
1,373.00
1,372.99
1,371.33
1,371.75
1,371.68
1,362.22
1,361.85
1,361.02
LTO B' Elevation
1,374.22
1,374.28
1,374.29
1,373.57
1,373.65
1,373.66
1,362.95
1,362.94
1,362.94
LTOB' Max Depth (ft)
1.13
1.28
1.30
2.25
1.90
1.98
0.73
1.09
1.92
LTO B' Cross Sectional Area ffe)l
5.64
1 5.50
1 5.46
1
1
1
1 9.80
1 9.14
1 9.38
1
1
1
1 3.58
1 3.66
1 9.66
'Bank Height Ratio (BH R) takes the As built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years Bankfull elevation.
2LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the JOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the JOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the JOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year w above. The difference between the JOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BIT R calculation) will be recroded and tracked
above w JOB max depth.

Table 9. Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Cross -Section 10 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 11(Riffle)
Cross -Section 12 (Riffle)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)- Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
1,427.68
1,427.86
1,427.82
1,427.77
1,427.82
1,427.82
1,414.97
1,415.02
1,415.03
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.13
1.00
1.05
1.03
1.00
0.95
0.91
Thalweg Elevation
1,427.22
1,427.30
1,427.39
1,426.85
1,426.82
1,426.77
1,414.43
1,414.47
1,414.46
LTOB' Elevation
1,427.68
1,427.86
1,427.87
1,427.77
1,427.87
1,427.85
1,414.97
1,414.99
1,414.98
LTOB' Max Depth (ft)
0.46
0.56
0.48
0.92
1.05
1.08
0.54
0.52
0.52
LTO B' Cross Sectional Area (fe)
1.05
1 1.06
1.30
1
1
2.50
1 2.75
1 2.66
1
1
1
1.82
1 1.62
1.47
Cross -Section 13 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 14 (Pool)
Cross -Section 15 (Riffle)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)- Based on AB-Bankfull" Area
1,408.33
1,408.33
1,408.10
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,448.11
1,448.14
1,448.19
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
1.00
1.32
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
1.00
1.08
Thalweg Elevation
1,407.66
1,407.63
1,407.29
1,405.79
1,406.04
1,405.68
1,447.42
1,447.50
1,447.52
LTOB' Elevation
1,408.33
1,408.33
1,408.35
1,408.04
1,407.99
1,408.04
1,448.11
1,448.14
1,448.24
LTOB' Max Depth (ft)
0.67
0.70
1.06
2.25
1.95
2.36
0.69
0.64
0.72
LTOB' Cross Sectional Area (fe)
1.50
1 1.51
1 2.49
1
1
1
1 10.58
1 10.16
1 12.81
1
1
1
1 1.68
1 1.70
1 1.96
Cross -Section 16 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 17 (Pool)
Cross -Section 18 (Riffle)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
1,380.54
1,380.54
1,380.59
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,369.11
1,369.17
1,369.16
Bank Height Ratio -Based on AB Bankfull' Area
1.00
0.87
0.83
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
0.97
1.00
Thalweg Elevation
1,379.64
1,379.51
1,379.61
1,367.93
1,367.90
1,367.80
1,367.87
1,367.89
1,367.74
LTOB' Elevation
1,380.54
1,380.40
1,380.42
1,369.27
1,369.29
1,369.30
1,369.11
1,369.12
1,369.15
LTOB' Max Depth (ft)
0.90
0.89
0.81
1.33
1.39
1.50
1.24
1.23
1.41
LTO B' Cross Sectional Area (fe)l
3.31
1 2.49
1 2.32
1
1
1
1 6.00
1 5.57
1 6.26
1
1
1
1 5.85
1 5.46
1 5.79
'Bank Height Ratio (BH R) takes the As built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years Bankfull elevation.
2LTOB Area and Max depth - These are based on the JOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the JOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the JOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year w above. The difference between the JOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BH R calculation) will be recroded and tracked
above w JOB max depth.

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

Table 10. Bankfull Events
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Reach
MY1 (2021)
MY2 (2022)
MY3 (2023)
MY4 (2024)
MY5 (2025)
MY6 (2026)
MY7 (2027)
8/15/2021
3/23/2022
Big Bugaboo
8/18/2021
5/26/2022
Creek Reach 3
10/6/2021
8/15/2022
Big Bugaboo
8/17/2021
8/15/2022
Creek Reach 4
2/4/2022
3/31/2021
2/26/2022
UT2
6/12/2021
3/23/2022
Reach 5
7/2/2021
5/26/2022
8/15/2022
8/18/2021
9/1/2021
5/26/2022
UT3
9/18/2021
8/15/2022
10/6/2021
Table 11. Rainfall Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
MY1 (2021)
MY2 (2022)
MY3 (2023)
MY4 (2024)
MY5 (2025)
MY6 (2026)
MY7 (2027)
Annual Precip
41.71
48.23
Tota I
WETS 30th
43.05
42.70
Percentile
WETS 70th
53.13
52.76
Percentile
Normal
L
*Annual precipitation total was collected up until 11/1/2022. Data will be updated in MY3.

Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1.0
x
d
0.0
d
Bug Headwaters: Big Bugaboo Creek R3
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Daily Precipitation — Water Level — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
11.0
9.0
7.0
c
0
5.0 m
'a
CL
3.0
1.0
-1.0

Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1.0
x
d
0.0
d
-1.0
Bug Headwaters: Big Bugaboo Creek R4
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Daily Precipitation — Water Level — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
11.0
9.0
7.0
c
c
0
5.0 m
'a
a`
3.0
1.0
-1.0

Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1.0
x
d
0.0
d
-1.0
Bug Headwaters: UT2 R5
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Daily Precipitation — Water Level — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
11.0
9.0
7.0
c
c
0
5.0 m
'a
a`
3.0
1.0
-1.0

Recorded Bankfull Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1.0
x
d
0.0
d
-1.0
Bug Headwaters: UT3
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Daily Precipitation — Water Level — • • Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile
11.0
9.0
7.0
c
c
0
5.0 m
'a
a`
3.0
1.0
-1.0

Table 12. Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Summary
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Max Consecutive Days/ Total Days Meeting
Success Criteria*
Reach
MY1 (2021)
MY2 (2022)**
MY3 (2023)
MY4 (2024)
MY5 (2025)
MY6 (2026)
MY7 (2027)
276 Days/
299 Days/
UT1
276 Days
299 Days
276 Days/
300 Days/
UT2 Reach 1
276 Days
300 Days
276 Days/
300 Days/
UT2A Reach 2
276 Days
300 Days
255 Days/
299 Days/
UT2 B
255 Days
299 Days
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
**Last gauge download was 10/27/2022. Data will be updated in MY3.

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
x
0 0
a
W
1432.5
1431.5
Jan
Bug Headwaters: UT1
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg — • •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th& 70th Percentile
10
9
8
7
6
0
5 m
'a
4 2
o.
3
2
1
0

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1459.0
1458.0
Bug Headwaters: UT2 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
300 days of consecutive stream flow
I
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg . •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th& 70th Percentile
10
9
8
7
6
0
5 m
'a
4
3 a
2
1
0

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Bug Headwaters: UT2A Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1449.0 10
9
300 days of consecutive stream flow
8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
— . — . — . — . —
— . — . — — . — . — . — . — .
7
I
�
I I
6
c
�
o
I I
0
5
W
II
.L
4 a
1
1448.0
11
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Daily Precipitation —Water Level — — Thalweg . •Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th& 70th Perce nti le

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Plot
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Bug Headwaters: UT2B
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
1419.0 10
9
8
299 days of consecutive stream flow
7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . — . — . — . — . — .
— . . —
6 c
o
�
0
5 'q
a
u
4
a
J P7w
3
2
As — — —
1
1418.0
116
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
IIIIIIIIl Daily Precipitation — Water Level — — Thalweg . .Bankfull 30-Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
or Deliverable
El
Project Instituted
Data Collection Complete
NA
Task Completion or
DeliverableActivity
Submission
June 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved
September 2020
September 2020
Construction (Grading) Completed
NA
April 2021
Planting Completed
NA
April 2021
As -Built Survey Completed
May 2021
May 2021
Baseline Monitoring Document
(Year 0)
Stream Survey
April 2021
October 2021
Vegetation Survey
April 2021
Year 1 Monitoring
Murdannia Treatment
July 2021
December 2021
Stream Survey
October 2021
Vegetation Survey
October 2021
Year 2 Monitoring
Supplemental Planting
March 2022
December 2022
Stream Survey
May 2022
Vegetation Survey
August & October 2022
Murdannia Treatment
May - August 2022
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December _---
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
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso Millns, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Wildlands Construction
Construction Contractor
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring, POC
919.851.9986

APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation

Supplemental Planting Quantities — March 2022

Table 15. Supplemental Planting Quantities — March 2022
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Lip MI, .- no
0
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Bare root
100
9%
Betula nigra
River Birch
Bare root
75
7%
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Bare root
100
9%
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm
Bare root
60
6%
Salix nigra
Black willow
Live stake
100
9%
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Live stake
140
13%
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Button Bush
Live stake
140
13%
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Live stake
140
13%
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Bare root
110
10%
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
Bare root
110
10%
Total
1,075
100%

MY1 Credit Release Site Visit Meeting Summary

k &V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING: MY1 Credit Release Site Visit
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin 03040101; Wilkes County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100084
NCDMS RFP No. 16-007406
USACE ID: SAW-2018-01788
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
DATE: On -site Meeting: Tuesday, August 16, 2022
Meeting Summary Distributed: Wednesday, August 24, 2022
Attendees
Kim Browning, USACE
Erin Davis, NC Division of Water Resources
Melonie Allen, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Matthew Reid, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Paul Wiesner, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Carolyn Lanza, Wildlands Engineering
Emily Israel, Wildlands Engineering
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands Engineering
Meeting Notes
• Murdannia Treatment Areas
o Since Murdannia is hard to eradicate, several chemical treatments were applied throughout the
spring and summer along the stream and wetland areas.
o Wildlands brought the IRT and DMS to see several different Murdannia treatment areas. Many
desirable wetland species were being established, however, there was significant collateral
damage due to chemical treatments.
o After discussions with the IRT and DMS, the IRT acknowledges that Murdannia may be
impossible to eradicate from the Site. The IRT suggested that Wildlands should not treat
Murdannia if it's not affecting stream flow or woody stem establishment due to the significant
collateral damage the chemical treatment was causing to stream banks and desirable wetland
vegetation.
• Site Wide
o Due to treatment of Murdannia across the Site, there was little stream bank vegetation causing
minor bank erosion. Wildlands will plant more live stakes and juncus plugs along the stream
channels in the upcoming year for bank stabilization and shading to protect the streams for cool
stream credits.
o The IRT requested for Wildlands to retake clear pictures of the stream if our Photo Points and
Cross -Section Photos were overrun with Murdannia. The Photo Points and Cross -Sections
Photos were taken before the Murdannia emerged, with the stream bank and stream flow being
visible. Wildlands will not retake any photos.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site

o Wildlands will remove sediment and coir fabric buildup that was seen on a pool in Big Bugaboo
R3.
o Overall, the IRT was happy with in -stream structures throughout the Site.
• Big Bugaboo Pond Bottom
o The Big Bugaboo Reach 3 pond bottom was dry and a variety of herbaceous species thriving with
minimal Murdannia. The replanted area along the pond bottom appeared to be successful and
trees are becoming established.
• UT3 — Pond Bottom
o Wildlands will look into different wetland reference communities to see which target
community is best to use and establish an alternate success criterion for vegetation on the right
side of the pond bottom along UT3.
o An AMP will be issued documenting the requested change of target community, replanting of
the UT3 pond, and any additional replanting in the wetland areas and stream banks where
Murdannia treatment cause collateral damage to woody stem establishment.
• Credit Release
o Kim stated that she did not see any reason MY1 credit release would be held up and there
would be a full release since the project is early in monitoring and an AMP for IRT concerns is
forthcoming.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site

Proposed Supplemental Planting — Winter 2023

Carolyn Lanza
From: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 1:57 PM
To: Jeff Keaton
Cc: [e-mail]; Wiesner, Paul; Carolyn Lanza; Emily Israel
Subject: RE: Bug Headwaters Follow Up
Thanks Jeff. I'll pass this along to the IRT for their records. Please make sure you put some random veg plots or transects
in the re -planting areas along Big Bugaboo, UT2 and UT3.
Have a good weekend,
Kim
Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 919.946.5107
-----Original Message -----
From: Jeff Keaton <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>;
Emily Israel <[e-mail]>
Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Bug Headwaters Follow Up
Kim - This is a follow up to our November 4th call. Wildlands is proposing to do a supplemental planting at Bug
Headwaters to help stem density in a few areas that were either affected by the Murdannia treatment or had tree
mortality due to herbaceous vegetation competition. We are purposing to plant 1.55 acres (8% of original planting)
along Big Bugaboo Creek, UT2, and UT3. This falls under the 20% threshold, so no adaptive management plan should be
needed. Attached is a figure and three different planting zones based on the conditions of the Site. The Murdannia
treated areas are labeled as Zone 1. Trees being planted are bare roots and catered towards a wetland community type.
The area along UT1 (Zone 2) is being outcompeted by pasture grasses and is high on the floodplain. Ring sprays will
occur in MY3. Zone 3, old pond bottom along Big Bugaboo Creek, has dense rice cutgrass overtopping the planted trees.
Due limited sourcing availability, Wildlands proposes to do a combination of whips and bare roots to help reduce
herbaceous competition. There are no new species proposed beyond what was in the mit plan planting list. Planting
will occur this winter, most likely in January.
Along with the supplemental planting, Wildlands will be supplementing the live stakes along the streambanks.
Wildlands will be holding off for another growing season to make a final decision on the vegetation conditions of the
UT3 right floodplain (we have discussed this with Kim and she agrees). After additional transects were completed in
October, the live stakes that were planted in MY1 seem to be growing better than expected. It is currently unknown if
the live stakes will continue to survive in the inundate conditions or if an alternative success criterion will be needed.

Let me know if you have questions or comments.
Jeff Keaton, PE I Senior Water Resources Engineer
0:919.851.9986 x103 M:919.302.6919
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/>
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

R r Conservation Easement ® Zone 2 - Bare Roots Upland Stream Enhancement II
Internal Crossing Zone 3 - Bare Roots & Whips No Credit
Existing Wetlands Stream Restoration Existing Fence
Proposed Floodplain Replant - Stream Enhancement I -- Utility Line
Zone 1- Bare Roots Wetlands
i
7 ►W
110 , �
'`'`cUII -
N 1
UTNZ� N
/y
V al
(14
�L3G�
III � .o °s �� �� � o � . - • ,t r
�..4 .j -1 i�.► /�
Sid � IC ����� � Ln�JIYN CS r�l�i,1441� � , ;� ���•N �'y�'n� �����.
� `� ��• ��1' // fir,_ 1, .;��.. '�� ��•r.•i�;`t•vi�•
•��• y. ti � r i' M
4/rt�,�
, O 4' \
jvj
.4OW
1 ..-�-sue- �1F Mrs �' . ♦ .. 11
Vt
44,
fir" • • � . . M
2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 1. Supplemental Planting
i_Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
W ENGINEERING K
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wilkes County, NC

Table 1. Proposed Supplemental Planting
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wetland Planting - Zone 1(1.02 Acres)
Bare Roots
Species
Common Name
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Number of
Stems
t of
Stems
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACW
45
15%
Betula nigra
River Birch
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACW
45
15%
Acer negundo
Boxelder
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FAC
45
15%
Alnus serrulato
Tag Alder*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
OBL
30
10%
Swida amomum
Silky Dogwood*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
FACW
30
10%
Salixsericea
Silky Willow*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
OBL
30
10%
Salix nigra
Black Willow
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
OBL
45
15%
Sambucus conadensis
Elderberry*
0.5" -1.5" cal.
Shrub
FAC
30
10%
Total:
300
100%
*Not included in height criteria.
Upland Planting - Zone 2 (0.16 Acre)
Bare Roots
Species
Common Name
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Number of
Stems
% of
Stems
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACW
6
10%
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACU
8
15%
Betula nigra
River Birch
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACW
8
15%
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACU
6
10%
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FAC
6
10%
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACU
6
10%
Diospyros virginiona
Common Persimmon
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FAC
6
10%
Acernegundo
Boxelder
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FAC
6
10%
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACU
6
10%
Total:
58
100%

Table 1. Proposed Supplemental Planting
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2022
Wetland Planting - Zone 3 (0.36 Acre)
Bare Roots and Whips
Species
Common Name
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Type
Number
of Stems
% of Stems
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACW
Bare Root
17
15%
Betula nigra
River Birch
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FACW
Bare Root
17
15%
Acer negundo
Boxelder
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
FAC
Bare Root
15
13%
Alnus serrulato
Tag Alder*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
OBL
Bare Root
13
12%
Swida amomum
Silky Dogwood*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
FAC
Bare Root
6
5%
Swida amomum
Silky Dogwood*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
FAC
Whip
6
5%
Salixsericea
Silky Willow*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
FAC
Bare Root
6
5%
Salixsericea
Silky Willow*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Subcanopy
FAC
Whip
6
5%
Salix nigra
Black Willow
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
OBL
Bare Root
8
7%
Salix nigra
Black Willow
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Canopy
OBL
Whip
9
8%
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry*
0.5" - 1.5" cal.
Shrub
OBL
Bare Root
6
5%
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry*
0.5" -1.5" cal.
Shrub
OBL
Whip
6
5%
Total:
115
100%
*Not included in height criteria.