The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181273 Ver 1_BugHeadwaters_100084_MY3_2023_20240201 MONITORING YEAR 3 ANNUAL REPORT Final January 2024 BUG HEADWATERS MITIGATION SITE Wilkes County, NC Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101 DMS Project No. 100084 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‐December 2023 PREPARED FOR: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609 January 29, 2024 Matthew Reid Project Manager NCDENR‐DMS Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778‐8211 (828)231‐7912 Subject: Draft MY3 Report Review Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site, Wilkes County Yadkin River Basin: 03040101 DMS Project ID No. 100084 DEQ Contract #7617 Dear Mr. Reid: We have reviewed the comments on the Monitoring Year 5 Report for the above referenced project dated January 22, 2024 and have revised the report based on these comments. The revised documents are submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your convenience, the comments are reprinted with our response in italics. 1. No conservation easement encroachments were identified in the MY3 report. Please verify that the easement boundary has been walked, marking and signage is up to spec, fencing is intact, and no encroachments have been identified. Response: The easement boundary has been walked. Signage and fencing is up to spec with no easement encroachments. 2. DMS would like to conduct a boundary inspection in 2024. DMS will coordinate with WEI for site access. Response: Noted. 3. WEI has been proactive with site issues. Thank you for providing detailed updates and including discussions of completed and proposed activities. Please provide a detailed update in MY4 and include pictures of repair areas. A detailed update would be appreciated at the 2024 IRT Credit Release Meeting. Response: Wildlands will provide a detailed update in MY4 report and at the 2024 IRT Credit Release Meeting. 4. Additional areas have been identified for the upcoming repair. Please discuss with IRT to ensure regulatory compliance prior to implementation. Response: Wildlands will contact the IRT once additional areas for upcoming repairs have been fully identified. 5. A small supplemental planting is planned for 2024, but it does not appear to be a part of the upcoming repair. Recommend including the supplemental planting with the repair and include Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609 in any IRT repair updates/discussions since the March 15 planting window for 2024 is quickly approaching. Response: Wildlands hopes to include the supplemental planting with the upcoming repair if timing works out. 6. If the 2024 supplemental replant areas are known at this time, please include on the CCPV. Response: The 0.26 acre Low Stem Density polygon on Figure 1b will be supplementally planted in 2024. 7. Cross‐Section Plots: Recommend turning off markers for previous monitoring years for easier viewing. Response: Due to the limited user functionality Wildlands has with Shiny Apps, Wildlands does not have a way to turn off the markers. 8. At the 2023 IRT Credit Release Meeting, the IRT requested a site visit following repairs and supplemental planting. DMS will propose a site visit at the 2024 Credit Release Meeting. Response: Noted. Electronic Deliverables 9. No comments for draft deliverables. Please update final deliverables based on comments. Response: The MY3 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 (919) 851‐9986, or by email (jlorch@wildlandseng.com). Sincerely, Jason Lorch, Monitoring Coordinator PREPARED BY: 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Jason Lorch jlorch@wildlandseng.com Phone: 919.851.9986 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final i BUG HEADWATERS MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Project Quantities and Credits ................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Project Attributes ....................................................................................................................... 1‐3 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 3 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 3 Summary ...................................................................................................... 2‐3 Section 3: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 3‐1 TABLES Table 1: Project Quantities and Credits ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements ...................................................... 1‐2 Table 3: Project Attributes ......................................................................................................................... 1‐4 FIGURES Figure 1a‐c Current Condition Plan View APPENDICES Appendix A Visual Assessment Data Table 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Culvert Crossing Photographs Vegetation Plot Photographs Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data Table 6 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data Cross‐Section Plots Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 9 Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Appendix D Hydrology Data Table 10 Bankfull Events Table 11 Rainfall Summary Recorded Bankfull Event Plots Table 12 Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Summary Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plots Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final ii Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info Table 13 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 14 Project Contact Table Appendix F Additional Documentation Supplemental Planting IRT Correspondence Figure 1 Supplemental Planting Table 1 Supplemental Planting Table Project Repair Plan – Supporting Documentation – Memorandum Approved Nationwide Permit 27 Approval of Individual 401 Water Quality Certification Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Repairs – Tricolored Bat Consultation Request Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 1‐1 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 QUANTITIES Project Segment Mitigation Plan Footage As‐Built Footage Mitigation Category Restoration Level Mitigation Ratio (X:1) Credits Comments Stream Big Bugaboo Creek R1 868 869 Cool R 1.0 868.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock Big Bugaboo Creek R2 981 981 Cool EI 1.5 654.000 Constructed Riffles, Fencing Out Livestock, Internal Crossing Big Bugaboo Creek R3 1,764 1,756 Cool R 1.0 1,764.000 Pond Removal, Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock, Internal Crossing Big Bugaboo Creek R4 394 390 Cool EI 1.5 262.666 Graded Bankfull Bench, Fencing Out Livestock UT1 389 390 Cool R 1.0 389.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock UT2 R1 505 505 Cool EII 2.5 202.000 Fencing Out Livestock, Bank Grading UT2 R2 80 78 Cool EI 1.5 53.333 Raised Riffle Bed, Fencing Out Livestock, Utility Crossing UT2 R3 436 440 Cool R 1.0 436.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock UT2 R4 314 301 Cool EI 1.5 209.333 Bank Grading, Fencing Out Livestock UT2 R5 741 729 Cool R 1.0 741.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock, Internal Crossing UT2A R1 135 134 Cool EII 2.5 54.000 Fencing Out Livestock, Utility Crossing UT2A R2 445 445 Cool R 1.0 445.000 Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock UT2B 168 167 Cool EII 2.5 67.200 Bank Stabilization, Fencing Out Livestock UT3 1,412 1,384 Cool R 1.0 1,412.000 Pond Removal, Full Channel Restoration, Fencing Out Livestock UT4 128 131 Cool EII 4.0 32.000 Fencing Out Livestock Total: 7,589.533 Blue = Restoration Yellow = Enhancement I Orange = Enhancement II Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 1‐2 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 Improve the stability of stream channels. Construct stream channels that will maintain stable cross‐sections, patterns, and profiles over time. Reduce erosion and sediment inputs; maintain appropriate bed forms and sediment size distribution. ER stays over 2.2 and BHR below 1.2 with visual assessments showing progression towards stability. Cross‐section monitoring and visual inspections. Cross‐sections show deepening pools. Repairs to failing structures along UT2, UT2A, UT3, and Big Bugaboo Creek will be made in winter 2024. Supplemental live stakes were planted sitewide. Improve in‐stream habitat. Install habitat features such as cover logs, log sills, and bush toes into restored/enhanced streams. Add woody materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth. Fence out livestock. Support biological communities and processes. Provide aquatic habitats for diverse populations of aquatic organisms. There is no required performance standard for this metric. N/A N/A Improve water quality. Stabilize stream banks. Plant riparian buffers with native trees. Construct BMPs to treat pasture runoff. Fence out livestock. Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks; reduce sediment, nutrient, and bacteria inputs from pasture runoff; keep livestock out of streams, further reducing pollutants in project streams. There is no required performance standard for this metric. N/A N/A Restoration Level Stream Warm Cool Cold Restoration 6,055.000 Enhancement I 1,179.333 Enhancement II 355.200 Totals 7,589.533 Total Stream Credit 7,589.533 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 1‐3 Goal Objective/ Treatment Likely Functional Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth relative to existing floodplain. Reduce shear stress on channel; hydrate adjacent wetland areas; filter pollutants out of overbank flows; provide surface storage of water on floodplain; increase groundwater recharge while reducing outflow of stormwater; support water quality and habitat goals. Four bankfull events in separate years within monitoring period. 30 consecutive days of flow for intermittent channels. Crest gauges and/or pressure transducers recording flow elevations. Bankfull events recorded for Big Bugaboo Reach 3 and Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5, and UT3 in MY3. UT1, UT2 Reach 1, UT2A Reach 2, and UT2B exceeded 30 days of consecutive flow during MY3. Restore / improve riparian buffers. Plant native tree species in riparian zones that are currently insufficient. Provide a canopy to shade streams and reduce thermal loadings; stabilize stream banks and floodplain; support water quality and habitat goals. Survival rate of 320 planted stems per acre at MY3, 260 planted stems per acre at MY5, and 210 stems per acre at MY7. Height requirement is 7 feet at MY5 and 10 feet at MY7. One hundred square meter vegetation plots (VPs) are placed on 2% of the planted area of the Site and monitored annually. 15 of the 19 VPs have a planted stem density greater than 320 stems per acre. Supplemental planting occurred in February 2023. Mice have been girdling trees along the Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 floodplain. Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish conservation easements on the Site. Ensure that development and agricultural uses that would damage the Site or reduce the benefits of the project are prevented. Prevent easement encroachment. Visually inspect the perimeter of the Site to ensure no easement encroachment is occurring. No easement encroachments. The entirety of the Site boundaries were visually inspected during MY3. 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 farm has been used exclusively to graze cattle since 2012. This property was historically used for grazing cattle, though tobacco was also cultivated on small sections of the property. Prior to construction, this property was 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 streams just upstream of the pond. Cattle access had severely degraded a majority of the streams. The smaller of the two properties has been in the same 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 smaller 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 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 1‐4 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 INFORMATION Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site County Wilkes County Project Area (acres) 22.50 Project Coordinates 36.32139 N, 80.98432 W PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION 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 Parameters Big Bugaboo Creek UT1 UT2 UT2A UT3 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 Unconfined Confined Moderately Confined Confined Moderately 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) Stage III REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes Yes USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 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 N/A N/A N/A Essential Fisheries Habitat N/A N/A N/A Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 2‐1 Section 2: MONITORING YEAR 3 DATA ASSESSMENT Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY3 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 MY0 Annual Report (Wildlands, 2021). 2.1 Vegetative Assessment The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in August and December 2023. Out of the 19 vegetation plots collected, 15 were required per the original Mitigation Plan and 4 are additional vegetation plots collected to appropriately assess areas of concern and the success of supplemental plantings. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem density range of 162 to 607 planted stems per acre. Out of the 19 vegetation plots, 13 are meeting the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Fixed vegetation plot (FVP) 3, at the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek and UT2, is failing to meet the interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre required at MY3, with only 162 planted stems per acre surviving. RVP 14, located along the right floodplain of UT3’s former pond bottom and also in inundated conditions, has a planted stem density of 162 stems per acre. RVP 18 and RVP 19, located along the left floodplain of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 and Reach 2, respectively, have a planted stem density of 283 stems per acre. RVP 18 and RVP 19 are failing to meet the interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre required at MY3 but are on track to meet the MY5 interim requirement of 260 planted stems per acre and are not an area of concern at this time. 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. 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 From May through August 2022 during MY2, a chemical treatment of Murdannia keisak caused significant collateral damage to the desirable native vegetation along the streambanks and wetland areas. Subsequently, the NCIRT suggested Wildlands should not treat Murdannia keisak if it is not affecting stream flow or woody stem establishment. Due to concerns that Murdannia keisak would become well established again and start to affect stream flow, Wildlands completed a follow up treatment in July and August 2023 in the headwater tributaries. The treatment was confined to the water’s edge and no collateral damage to woody stems was identified. A small (0.01 acres), but dense, patch of cattails (Typha latifolia) was treated in July 2023 along UT2A Reach 2 (Figure 1a). This area will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary. Several kudzu (Pueraria montana) runners were observed in the upper reach of UT2 Reach 1 (Figure 1a). These were chemically treated in July 2023. To prevent kudzu establishment, frequent site walks have continually been conducted during MY3 to identify and treat kudzu within the upper portion of UT2 Reach 1. The area will continue to be monitored and for kudzu in MY4. As seen through visual observation, mice have been girdling trees throughout the left floodplain along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 within the former pond bottom, contributing to significant tree mortality. Approximately 0.56 acres (Figure 1b) have been affected by mice girdling the trees. The surviving trees were given localized soil amendments and tree tubes to protect the base of the trees in May 2023. As a Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 2‐2 deterrent, capsaicin tablets were applied around the base of each tree. Furthermore, in an attempt to reduce the mice population, Wildlands installed several snake shelters just outside the easement. The combination of treatments has appeared to reduce the girdling and promote tree growth. Wildlands will continue to monitor this area and adapt as needed. Wildlands supplementally planted 1.55 (Figure 1a‐c) acres and installed live stakes sitewide in February 2023 to improve stem density in areas that were either affected by the MY2 Murdannia keisak treatment or had tree mortality due to herbaceous vegetation competition. The supplemental planting was a success in all areas except Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and UT3 right floodplain due to constantly inundated conditions. Based on visual observations, the newly planted live stakes are growing along the streambanks. Refer to Appendix F for more information on the approved supplemental planting. Ring sprays were conducted along 0.16 acres after supplemental planting along UT2 Reach 1 (Figure 1a). This was completed to help reduce fescue competition. Based on FVP 3 and visual observations outside the veg plot, a low stem density area of approximately 0.26 acres has been observed due to dense herbaceous vegetation competition. A small supplemental planting will be proposed for 2024. After waiting for another growing season and assessing vegetation conditions on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and UT3 right floodplain, Wildlands is going to propose an alternative success criterion. The trees that were supplementally planted in MY1 and MY2 are not surviving in the inundated conditions due to offsite seeps entering into the easement. Wildlands will submit an Adaptive Management Plan to the IRT during MY4 proposing an alternative success criterion. 2.3 Stream Assessment Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in May 2023. Pools that had begun to fill in with sediment from heavy rains before vegetation was established across the Site are showing signs of flushing the excess sediment through the system. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed except for a few small areas that have been approved for repairs. Fourteen 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 Creek Reach 4, and cross‐section 18, along UT3, indicate toe erosion on the right side of the stream banks. The riffle along cross‐section 5, on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 washed out during high velocity storm events. Remedial actions have been approved by the IRT to repair the areas around cross‐section 5, 9, and 18. Further information about the repairs can be found in Appendix F. 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 1.32 in MY2 to 2.01 in MY3. The cross‐sectional area also increased from 2.49 in MY2 to 3.97 in MY3. Cross‐section 13 is an area of concern and will be proposed for repairs. 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 Several eroding banks, washed out riffles, and piping structures were observed along UT2 Reach 3, UT2A Reach 1, Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and 4, and UT3. Mechanical repairs of these structures have been approved by the IRT and will be completed in MY4. The locations of all stream repair areas are shown on Figures 1a‐c. Details of the failed structures, repair plan, and associated permits are included in Appendix F. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 2‐3 Since the approval of the repairs, new stream areas of concern have developed. These additional areas are going to be proposed to the IRT for repair. 2.5 Hydrology Assessment Bankfull events were recorded on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5, and UT3. All channels also recorded bankfull events during MY1 and MY2 and are on track to meet the final hydrologic success criteria of four bankfull events in separate years. The UT2 Reach 5 crest gauge was knocked over and lost during high velocity storm events sometime in the spring of 2023 and replaced on June 27, 2023. Crest gauges along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and 4 were removed August 17, 2023 due to anticipation of upcoming stream repairs. Crest gauges were replaced with trail cameras on December 19, 2023. In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on intermittent reaches (UT1, UT2 Reach 1, UT2A Reach 2, and UT2B) for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. All intermittent reaches exceeded 30 consecutive days of baseflow. Baseflow ranged from 228 days to 333 days. The UT2A Reach 2 gauge malfunctioned August 17, 2023 and was replaced on December 19, 2023. 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 3 Summary Out of the 19 vegetation plots, 15 exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Out of the four vegetation plots failing to meet the MY3 interim requirement, two are on track to meet the MY5 interim requirement of 260 planted stems per acre. A supplemental planting and live stakes were installed in February 2023. Soil amendments, capsaicin tablets and tree tubes were installed along the left floodplain of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 due to mice girdling the base of trees. A small, 0.26‐ acre, area will be supplementally planted due to tree mortality from dense herbaceous competition. An Adaptive Management Plan will be submitted to the IRT to propose a new vegetative success criterion for portions of the former pond bottoms along Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and UT3. A follow up Murdannia keisak treatment occurred in July and August 2023 in the headwater streams, staying within the water’s edge. A 0.01 acre ‐ dense patch of cattails were also treated. Several kudzu runners were identified and treated immediately, before kudzu establishment took place. Frequent site visits are being conducted in that area to prevent kudzu establishment. Ring sprays were completed along 0.16 acres in July 2023. Mechanical repairs along UT2, UT2A, UT3, and Big Bugaboo have been approved by the IRT and will be completed in MY4. Bankfull events were documented on all stream reaches and greater than 30 days of consecutive flow was recorded on all intermittent reaches, fulfilling MY3 success requirements. Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and 4 crest gauges were replaced with trail cameras to document bankfull events. Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report ‐ Final 3‐1 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. DMS, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project Monitoring Year 0 (MY0) Annual Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[[ [ [[[[[ [[[ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [[ [ [ [[ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ !P !P !P !P !P !P!P !P GF GF GFGF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 UT3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 UT2A Reach 1 UT2 Reach 1 UT4 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 UT2 Reach 3 UT1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2B UT2A Reach 2 UT2 Reach 5 UT2 Reach 4 @A @A Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View Key Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 350 700 Feet Wilkes County, NC ¹ 2021 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Ephemeral Step-Pool BMP Pocket Wetland BMP Vegetation Plot Condition - MY3 Criteria Met - Fixed Criteria Not Met - Fixed Criteria Met - Random Criteria Not Met - Random Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit [[Existing Fence [[New Fence Utility Line Cross-Sections !P Reach Breaks GF Photo Points !A Barotroll !A Crest Gauge !A Flow Gauge @A Trail Camera Figure 1a. Figure 1b. Figure 1c. [[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [[[[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !P !P !P !P !P !A !A!A !A UT2A Reach 1 UT2 Reach 1 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 UT2 Reach 3 UT1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2A Reach 2 UT2 Reach 4 X S 2 X S 1 0 X S 1 X S 4 X S 1 5 X S 3 X S 1 1 PP7 PP6 PP5 PP4 PP3 PP2 PP24 PP38 PP28 PP23 PP26 PP19 PP20 PP37 PP39 PP25 PP22 PP21 PP1 PP40PP41 PP27 PP29 301+00 303+00 305+00 307+00 30 9 + 0 0 3 1 1 + 0 0 313+00 4 0 0 + 0 0 402+ 0 0 2 0 1 + 0 0 203 + 0 0 1 0 3 + 0 0 1 1 1 + 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 4 0 4 + 0 0 4 0 6 + 0 0 1 0 5 + 0 0 1 0 7 + 0 0 1 0 9 + 0 0 1 1 3 + 0 0 1 1 5 + 0 0 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 1 6 7 16 9 8 2 17 Figure 1a. Current Condition Plan View Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 150 300 Feet Wilkes County, NC ¹ 2022 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Ephemeral Step-Pool BMP Pocket Wetland BMP Vegetation Plot Condition - MY3 Criteria Met - Fixed Criteria Met - Random Vegetation Area of Concern - MY3 Cattail Treatment Ring Sprays Supplemental Planting - February 2023 Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Stream Areas of Concern - MY3 Areas for Repair As-Built Bankfull [[Fence Utility Line Cross-Sections !P Reach Breaks GF Photo Points !A Barotroll !A Flow Gauge !(Structures Kudzu Treatment [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !P !P !P !A !A !A Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 UT2 Reach 3 UT2B UT2 Reach 5 UT2 Reach 4 X S 1 2 XS7 XS14 X S 6 X S 4 X S 8 XS 5 XS13 X S 3 X S 1 1 PP7 PP8 PP9 PP6 PP14 PP33 PP32 PP42 PP15 PP16 PP13 PP12 PP11 PP10 PP36 PP34 PP35 PP28 PP27 PP29 PP30 PP31 30 9 + 0 0 3 1 1 + 0 0 313+00 315+00 317+00 319+00 32 1 + 0 0 501+00 1 1 7 + 0 0 1 1 9 + 0 0 12 1 + 0 0 123+00 125+0 0 12 7 + 0 0 129 + 0 0 131+00 13 5 + 0 0 13 3 + 0 0 1 1 3 + 0 0 1 1 5 + 0 0 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( @A 4 18 19 9 3 11 10 2 Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 150 300 Feet Wilkes County, NC ¹ 2022 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Vegetation Plot Condition - MY3 Criteria Met - Fixed Criteria Not Met - Fixed Criteria Not Met - Random Vegetation Area of Concern - MY3 Low Stem Density Mice Girdling Supplemental Planting - February 2023 Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Stream Areas of Concern - MY3 Areas for Repair As-Built Bankfull [[Fence [[New Fence Utility Line Cross-Sections !P Reach Breaks GF Photo Points !A Crest Gauge !A Flow Gauge !(Structures @A Trail Camera [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[ [ [ GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ !P !A !A !A Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 UT3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 UT4 XS7 XS1 8 X S 6 XS 1 6 XS17 X S 8 XS9 XS 5 PP9 PP44 PP43 PP18 PP50 PP14 PP17 PP45 PP46 PP48 PP15 PP49 PP16 PP13 PP12 PP11 PP10 PP47 123+00 125+0 0 12 7 + 0 0 129 + 0 0 131+0 0 612+ 0 0 13 5 + 0 0 13 3 + 0 0 1 3 7 + 0 0 139+00 141+ 0 0 7 0 0 + 0 0 600 + 0 0 60 2 + 0 0 60 4 + 0 0 606+00 608+00 61 0 + 0 0 614+ 0 0 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( @A @A 4 5 12 15 13 14 19 Figure 1c. Current Condition Plan View Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 150 300 Feet Wilkes County, NC ¹ 2022 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Vegetation Plot Condition - MY3 Criteria Met - Fixed Criteria Met - Random Criteria Not Met - Random Vegetation Area of Concern - MY3 Mice Girdling Supplemental Planting - February 2023 Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Stream Areas of Concern - MY3 Areas for Repair As-Built Bankfull [[Fence [[New Fence Utility Line Cross-Sections !P Reach Breaks GF Photo Points !A Crest Gauge !(Structures @A Trail Camera APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Big Bugaboo Reach 1 ‐ 4 3,996 7,992 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 10 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.242 97% 252 97% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 23 25 92% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 58 58 100% Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. UT1 390 780 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 4 4 100% Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 UT2 Reach 1 ‐ 5 2,053 4,106 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.20 99% 20 99% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 22 22 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 30 30 100% Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. UT2A Reach 1 ‐ 2 579 1,160 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.134 88% 134 88% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 14 14 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 7 7 100% Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. Totals: Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Totals: Bank Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 UT2B 167 336 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0 100% 0 100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 4 4 100% Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 00 N/A Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. UT3 1,384 2,768 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0 100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.28 99% 28 99% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 00 N/A Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 23 23 100% Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: % Stable, Performing as Intended Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Structure % Stable, Performing as Intended Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 UT4 131 262 Surface Scour/ Bare Bank Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or surface scour.0100% Toe Erosion Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0100% Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical ‐ rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse.0100% 0100% Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 00 N/A Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 00 N/A Visual assessment was completed November 30, 2023. % Stable, Performing as Intended Structure Major Channel Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Amount of Unstable Footage Assessed Stream Length Assessed Bank Length Bank Totals: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Planted Acreage 19.00 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10 0 0% 1.55* 9% 0.26 1% 1.81 10% Areas of Poor Growth Rates Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance Standard.0.10 0 0% 1.81 10% Visual assement was completed December 19, 2023. *A supplemental planting was conducted in February 2023. Easement Acreage 22.50 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (ac) Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage 0.01* 1% 4 kudzu runners*1% Easement Encroachment Areas Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area. none *Kudzu (Pueraria montana) runners and a dense patch of cattails (Typha latifolia) were treated July 2023. Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Total Cumulative Total 0 Encroachments Noted / 0 ac Invasive Areas of Concern Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short‐term or community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in summation above should be identified in report summary. 0.10 Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count criteria.0.10 STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 1 Big Bugaboo R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 1 Big Bugaboo R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Big Bugaboo R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Big Bugaboo R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Big Bugaboo R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Big Bugaboo R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 4 Big Bugaboo R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 4 Big Bugaboo R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Big Bugaboo R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Big Bugaboo R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Big Bugaboo R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Big Bugaboo R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 7 Big Bugaboo R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 7 Big Bugaboo R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 10 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 10 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 13 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 13 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 16 Big Bugaboo R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 16 Big Bugaboo R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 Big Bugaboo R4 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 Big Bugaboo R4 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 Big Bugaboo R4 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 Big Bugaboo R4 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 19 UT1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 19 UT1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 20 UT1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 20 UT1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 21 UT1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 21 UT1 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 22 UT1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 22 UT1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 23 UT2 R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 24 UT2 R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 25 UT2 R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 25 UT2 R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 26 UT2 R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 26 UT2 R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 27 UT2 R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 27 UT2 R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 28 UT2 R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 28 UT2 R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 29 UT2 R3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 29 UT2 R3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 30 UT2 R4 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 30 UT2 R4 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 31 UT2 R5 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 31 UT2 R5 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 32 UT2 R5 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 32 UT2 R5 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 R5 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 33 UT2 R5 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 R5 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 34 UT2 R5 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 R5 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 35 UT2 R5 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 R5 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 36 UT2 R5 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 37 UT2A R1 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 37 UT2A R1 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 38 UT2A R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 38 UT2A R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 39 UT2A R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 39 UT2A R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 40 UT2A R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 40 UT2A R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 41 UT2A R2 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 41 UT2A R2 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 42 UT2B – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 42 UT2B – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 43 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 43 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 44 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 44 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 45 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 45 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 46 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 46 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 47 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 47 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 48 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 48 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Stream Photographs PHOTO POINT 49 UT3 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 49 UT3 – downstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 50 UT4 – upstream (05/02/2023) PHOTO POINT 50 UT4 – downstream (05/02/2023) CULVERT CROSSING PHOTOGRAPHS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data ‐ Culvert Crossing Photographs Big Bugaboo Creek R2 ‐ Looking Upstream (11/30/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R2 ‐ Looking Downstream (11/30/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R3 ‐ Looking Upstream (11/30/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R3 ‐ Looking Downstream (11/30/2023) UT2 R5 ‐ Looking Upstream (11/30/2023) UT2 R5 ‐ Looking Downstream (11/30/2023) VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEG PLOT 1 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 2 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 3 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 4 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 5 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 6 (8/17/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs FIXED VEG PLOT 7 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 8 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 9 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 10 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 11 (8/17/2023) FIXED VEG PLOT 12 (8/17/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs RANDOM VEG PLOT 13 (8/17/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 14 (8/17/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 15 (8/17/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 16 (8/17/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 17 (8/17/2023) RANDOM VEG PLOT 18 (8/17/2023) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix A: Visual Assessment Data – Vegetation Plot Photographs RANDOM VEG PLOT 19 (12/19/2023) APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 19.00 2021‐04‐29 2023‐02‐06 2023‐08‐17 0.0247 Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC 1 1 1111 Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3322112211 Cornus amomum silky willow Tree FAC Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 2 2 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU 1 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC 1111 22 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 4411123311 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 3322113322 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU 1 1 Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL Sambucus canadensis common elderberry Tree FAC Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 1155 11 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC Sum 1212151534991010 Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU Sum 1212151534991010 12 15 4 9 10 486 607 162 364 405 59347 33 33 50 30 20 53432 00000 12 15 4 9 10 486 607 162 364 405 59347 33 33 50 30 20 53432 00000% Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Post Mitigation Plan Species Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Proposed Standard Performance Standard Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Veg Plot 5 FScientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub Indicator Status Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) 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. **Veg plots 16 R, 17 R, 18 R, and 19 R were additional transects not originally proposed in the Mitigation Plan. Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 19.00 2021‐04‐29 2023‐02‐06 2023‐08‐17 0.0247 Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW Cornus amomum silky willow Tree FAC Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL Sambucus canadensis common elderberry Tree FAC Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC Sum Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU Sum % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Post Mitigation Plan Species Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Proposed Standard Performance Standard Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Scientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub Indicator Status Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total 11 1111 22332222 22 11 22 11 11111111 1133231111 22 11 2211112222 11112222 3311223322 11 11 11 11 10 11 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 11 10 11 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 13 13 445 445 445 526 526 67689 27 27 27 23 15 54255 00000 11 11 11 13 13 445 445 445 526 526 67689 27 27 27 23 15 54255 00000 Veg Plot 10 FVeg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot 9 FVeg Plot 7 F 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. **Veg plots 16 R, 17 R, 18 R, and 19 R were additional transects not originally proposed in the Mitigation Plan. Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 19.00 2021‐04‐29 2023‐02‐06 2023‐08‐17 0.0247 Acer negundo boxelder Tree FAC Alnus serrulata hazel alder Tree OBL Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW Cornus amomum silky willow Tree FAC Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU Morus rubra red mulberry Tree FACU Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree FAC Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW Prunus serotina black cherry Tree FACU Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree FACU Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL Sambucus canadensis common elderberry Tree FAC Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree FAC Sum Acer rubrum red maple Tree FAC Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree FACU Sum % Invasives Current Year Stem Count Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Average Plot Height (ft.) Post Mitigation Plan Species Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard Current Year Stem Count Average Plot Height (ft.) % Invasives Proposed Standard Performance Standard Stems/Acre Species Count Dominant Species Composition (%) Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan Scientific Name Common Name Tree/ Shrub Indicator Status Planted Acreage Date of Initial Plant Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s) Date of Current Survey Plot size (ACRES) Veg Plot 13 R Veg Plot 14 R Veg Plot 15 R Veg Plot 16 R** Veg Plot 17 R** Veg Plot 18 R** Veg Plot 19 R** Planted Total Planted Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total 11126 11 1 13 33112 11212 12 2 1 11 2 33 2 22 1211153 11 11 1 2 1 219 1 1 3311 11 1111 15 15 4 8 14 4 22 9 11 7 7 8 3 15 15 4 8 14 4 22 9 14 7 7 15 8 14 4 22 9 11 7 7 607 324 567 162 567 364 445 283 283 8 75348445 20 25 42 50 86 22 42 43 28 4 337155334 0 00000000 15 8 14 4 22 9 14 7 7 607 324 567 162 567 364 567 283 283 8 75348545 20 25 42 50 86 22 42 43 28 4 337155334 0 00000000 Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot 12 F 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. **Veg plots 16 R, 17 R, 18 R, and 19 R were additional transects not originally proposed in the Mitigation Plan. Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 486 5 5 0 607 3 9 0 162 4 3 0 486 3 5 0 607 2 9 0 283 3 5 0 567 2 6 0 607 2 9 0 486 2 6 0 607 2 6 0 648 2 9 0 607 2 6 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 364 3 4 0 405 2 7 0 445 5 6 0 364 3 4 0 445 2 7 0 445 3 6 0 445 2 4 0 486 2 8 0 445 2 5 0 607 2 5 0 526 2 8 0 607 2 9 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 445 4 7 0 445 2 6 0 526 5 8 0 445 3 7 0 445 2 6 0 526 4 8 0 445 2 8 0 486 2 6 0 526 3 8 0 607 2 8 0 607 2 6 0 607 2 8 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 526 5 9 0 607 4 8 0 324 3 7 0 567 4 9 0 607 3 8 0 121 4 3 0 60729056727040210 607 2 9 0 607 2 8 0 607 2 8 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 567 3 5 0 162 7 3 0 567 15 4 0 4056304041040710 40526024334040310 526 2 7 0 607 2 5 0 567 2 7 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 364 5 8 0 445 3 4 0 283 3 4 0 364 4 3 0 243 5 4 0 162 4 3 0 Stems/Ac. Av. Ht. (ft) # Species % Invasives 283 4 5 0 283 3 4 0 Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 6 F Veg Plot 9 F Veg Plot 12 F *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. **Veg plots 16 R, 17 R, 18 R, and 19 R were additional transects not originally proposed in the Mitigation Plan. Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Veg Plot 10 F Veg Plot 11 F Veg Plot Group 13 R Veg Plot Group 14 R Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 F Veg Plot 7 F Veg Plot 8 F Veg Plot Group 19 R** Monitoring Year 7 Veg Plot Group 15 R Veg Plot Group 16 R** Veg Plot Group 17 R** Veg Plot Group 18 R** Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 0 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 5 Monitoring Year 3 Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring Year 0 APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data CROSS-SECTION PLOTS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,431.28 1,431.36 1,431.39 1,431.31 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.99 Thalweg Elevation 1,430.16 1,430.27 1,430.27 1,430.21 LTOB Elevation 1,431.28 1,431.31 1,431.30 1,431.30 LTOB Max Depth 1.13 1.04 1.03 1.09 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 4.03 3.71 3.40 3.32 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,428.97 1,428.97 1,428.76 1,428.55 LTOB Elevation 1,430.55 1,430.63 1,430.60 1,430.60 LTOB Max Depth 1.58 1.66 1.84 2.05 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.61 5.85 6.27 7.58 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,410.57 1,410.55 1,410.51 1,410.45 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.16 Thalweg Elevation 1,409.27 1,409.27 1,409.03 1,408.87 LTOB Elevation 1,410.57 1,410.60 1,410.63 1,410.71 LTOB Max Depth 1.30 1.33 1.60 1.84 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 7.26 7.75 8.42 9.67 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,408.32 1,408.33 1,407.41 1,407.54 LTOB Elevation 1,409.53 1,409.66 1,409.67 1,409.67 LTOB Max Depth 1.21 1.33 2.26 2.13 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.20 3.72 7.01 8.19 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,386.16 1,386.25 1,386.27 1,386.78 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.30 Thalweg Elevation 1,385.21 1,385.29 1,385.27 1,385.23 LTOB Elevation 1,386.16 1,386.09 1,386.11 1,385.70 LTOB Max Depth 0.95 0.80 0.84 0.47 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.66 3.88 4.06 1.02 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,383.73 1,384.05 1,383.88 1,383.79 LTOB Elevation 1,385.13 1,385.30 1,385.37 1,385.40 LTOB Max Depth 1.40 1.25 1.49 1.61 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 4.66 4.28 4.89 4.99 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,374.22 1,374.30 1,374.32 1,374.28 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.02 Thalweg Elevation 1,373.09 1,373.00 1,372.99 1,372.93 LTOB Elevation 1,374.22 1,374.28 1,374.29 1,374.31 LTOB Max Depth 1.13 1.28 1.30 1.38 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.64 5.50 5.46 5.89 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,371.33 1,371.75 1,371.68 1,371.54 LTOB Elevation 1,373.57 1,373.65 1,373.66 1,373.71 LTOB Max Depth 2.25 1.90 1.98 2.17 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 9.80 9.14 9.38 9.89 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,362.95 1,362.93 1,362.02 1,360.69 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.01 1.92 3.42 Thalweg Elevation 1,362.22 1,361.85 1,361.02 1,359.79 LTOB Elevation 1,362.95 1,362.94 1,362.94 1,362.87 LTOB Max Depth 0.73 1.09 1.92 3.08 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.58 3.66 9.66 21.92 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,427.68 1,427.86 1,427.82 1,427.76 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.18 Thalweg Elevation 1,427.22 1,427.30 1,427.39 1,427.19 LTOB Elevation 1,427.68 1,427.86 1,427.87 1,427.86 LTOB Max Depth 0.46 0.56 0.48 0.67 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.05 1.06 1.30 1.48 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross‐Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull Area 1,427.77 1,427.82 1,427.82 1,427.84 Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull Area 1.00 1.05 1.03 0.94 Thalweg Elevation 1,426.85 1,426.82 1,426.77 1,426.88 LTOB Elevation 1,427.77 1,427.87 1,427.85 1,427.79 LTOB Max Depth 0.92 1.05 1.08 0.91 LTOB Cross‐Sectional Area 2.50 2.75 2.66 2.26 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,414.97 1,415.02 1,415.03 1,415.14 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.81 Thalweg Elevation 1,414.43 1,414.47 1,414.46 1,414.24 LTOB Elevation 1,414.97 1,414.99 1,414.98 1,414.97 LTOB Max Depth 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.79 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.82 1.62 1.47 1.16 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,408.33 1,408.33 1,408.10 1,407.62 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00 1.32 2.01 Thalweg Elevation 1,407.66 1,407.63 1,407.29 1,406.87 LTOB Elevation 1,408.33 1,408.33 1,408.35 1,408.37 LTOB Max Depth 0.67 0.70 1.06 1.50 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.50 1.51 2.49 3.97 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,405.79 1,406.04 1,405.68 1,405.77 LTOB Elevation 1,408.04 1,407.99 1,408.04 1,408.04 LTOB Max Depth 2.25 1.95 2.36 2.27 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 10.58 10.16 12.81 12.00 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,448.11 1,448.14 1,448.19 1,448.20 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.00 1.08 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 1,447.42 1,447.50 1,447.52 1,447.33 LTOB Elevation 1,448.11 1,448.14 1,448.24 1,448.15 LTOB Max Depth 0.69 0.64 0.72 0.82 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 1.68 1.70 1.96 1.52 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,380.54 1,380.54 1,380.59 1,380.51 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.87 0.83 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 1,379.64 1,379.51 1,379.61 1,379.42 LTOB Elevation 1,380.54 1,380.40 1,380.42 1,380.45 LTOB Max Depth 0.90 0.89 0.81 1.03 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 3.31 2.49 2.32 2.98 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,367.93 1,367.90 1,367.80 1,367.85 LTOB Elevation 1,369.27 1,369.29 1,369.30 1,369.29 LTOB Max Depth 1.33 1.39 1.50 1.44 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 6.00 5.57 6.26 5.73 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data – Cross-Section Plots Downstream (5/9/2023) MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1,369.11 1,369.17 1,369.16 1,369.03 Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.07 Thalweg Elevation 1,367.87 1,367.89 1,367.74 1,367.41 LTOB Elevation 1,369.11 1,369.12 1,369.15 1,369.14 LTOB Max Depth 1.24 1.23 1.41 1.73 LTOB Cross-Sectional Area 5.85 5.46 5.79 6.86 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 8 14 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0315 0.0346 Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 11 20 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0196 0.0216 Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 8.3 12.5 2 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 23 52 48 80 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 0.5 0.7 2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 0.9 1.1 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 5.6 5.7 2 Width/Depth Ratio 1 12.2 27.4 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1 3.8 9.6 2 Bank Height Ratio 12 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 23 34 2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 16.2 20.5 2 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0173 0.0189 Other Big Bugaboo Reach 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0230 34.034.9 1.01 1.16 1.16 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 >2.2 B4 13.5 0.7 9.0 0.0171 2.6 1.0 65 66 B4 C4 C4 1.4 6.6 8.2 5.4 13.0 1.5 9 1.1 0.8 14.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.02 6.0 10.4 0.0228 10.9 7.3 19.3 1.02 1.07 50 1.0 1.02 0.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 12.0 9.3 19 0.8 1.0 61 0.0350 B4 2.0 36.3 1.2 ‐‐‐ 12.4 1.04 1.02 80 0.0330 31 F4b 11.0 11.3 14 0.3 0.6 3.5 6.5 13.0 3.3 0.5 0.0217 B4 B4 B4 20.4 32.7 66 49 5.3 3.9 1.6 >1.4 11.9 0.8 PRE‐EXISTING CONDITIONS 6.0 1.1 3.4 ‐‐‐ Big Bugaboo Reach 2 4.2 16 1.3 3.3 Big Bugaboo Reach 1 >1.4 6.7 DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) 80 0.6 1.1 4.0 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 26 59 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity 1 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0127 0.0138 Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 5 9 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity 1 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0329 0.0362 Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 16 36 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0244 0.0266 Other 50.7 1.7 5.0 9.0 12 0.4 6.9 UT2 Reach 3 7.1 4.7 0.0520 0.0301 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.01 1.3 3.4 13.8 0.8 B4 B4 B4 14.6 10.0 1.10 1.04 1.04 67.0 4.0 1.0 34 >1.4 45 1.0 0.9 4.0 3.8 2.5 13.0 9.0 0.9 23.0 19 0.5 0.5 1.0 13.3 5.1 1.0 0.0387 13.0 >1.4 20 0.4 0.7 3.5 21.2 2.3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0350 0.0160 3.9 3.2 1.00 1.0 1.00 24 53 32 B4 B4 B4 0.3 2.7 1.4 0.5 19 0.3 0.5 20 0.2 0.4 0.0166 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ UT1 4.2 3.711.6 48.3 9.2 1.02 1.021.03 54.5 37 84 20 F4 C4 C4 24.6 14.0 1.2 >2.2 2.7 1.01.0 23 0.8 0.1 1.2 14.1 10.3 1.3 PRE‐EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) Big Bugaboo Reach 4 18.6 11.8 8.7 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 16 36 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0282 0.0307 Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 19 24 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0183 0.0200 Other Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 1 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 6 11 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)11 Width/Depth Ratio 1 1 Entrenchment Ratio 1 1 Bank Height Ratio 11 Max particle size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 1 0.0454 0.0514 Other 0.0490 0.0398 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 7.3 5.9 1.04 1.03 1.03 8.3 4.8 1.0 58 84 40 A4 B4a B4a 11.0 13.0 13.5 2.4 >1.4 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.0 1.7 0.6 UT2A Reach 2 5.0 5.1 4.8 12 14 25 0.4 0.7 1.5 11.6 6.0 13 0.3 0.5 1.8 26.5 1.9 0.0175 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.0369 0.0200 18.8 3.6 1.01 1.06 1.06 34 48 18 F4b C4b C4b 13.8 23.0 13.0 1.3 >2.2 3.4 1.0 12 0.4 0.6 0.9 4.0 5.4 0.0334 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ UT2 Reach 5 9.0 8.4 4.2 14.6 5.0 1.07 1.07 1.07 13.8 34 ‐‐‐26 B4 B4 B4 23.0 13.0 1.3 >1.4 3.4 1.0 12 0.4 0.5 0.9 4.0 3.8 PRE‐EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) UT2 Reach 4 9.0 7.1 6.9 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Parameter Riffle Only Min Max n Min Max Min Max n Bankfull Width (ft) 1 6.6 9.2 2 Floodprone Width (ft) 1 21 48 2 Bankfull Mean Depth 1 0.5 0.6 2 Bankfull Max Depth 1 0.9 1.2 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 3.3 5.8 2 Width/Depth Ratio 1 13.1 14.6 2 Entrenchment Ratio 1 9.8 13.7 2 Bank Height Ratio 12 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 24 30 2 Rosgen Classification Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 1 9.7 19.8 2.0 Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 1 0.0142 0.0154 Other 1.04 1.21 1.21 1.4 >2.2 2.1 1.0 43 54 0.0199 0.0164 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ G4 C4b C4b 24.621.7 1.1 5 6.8 8 13.0 1.0 1.1 990 0.8 0.7 PRE‐EXISTING CONDITIONS DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE (MY0) UT3 7 9.5 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1,431.28 1,431.36 1,431.39 1,431.31 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,410.57 1,410.55 1,410.51 1,410.45 Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.96 0.92 0.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.16 Thalweg Elevation 1,430.16 1,430.27 1,430.27 1,430.21 1,428.97 1,428.97 1,428.76 1,428.55 1,409.27 1,409.27 1,409.03 1,408.87 LTOB2 Elevation 1,431.28 1,431.31 1,431.30 1,431.30 1,430.55 1,430.63 1,430.60 1,430.60 1,410.57 1,410.60 1,410.63 1,410.71 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.13 1.04 1.03 1.09 1.58 1.66 1.84 2.05 1.30 1.33 1.60 1.84 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.03 3.71 3.40 3.32 5.61 5.85 6.27 7.58 7.26 7.75 8.42 9.67 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,386.16 1,386.25 1,386.27 1,386.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.84 0.84 0.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A Thalweg Elevation 1,408.32 1,408.33 1,407.41 1,407.54 1,385.21 1,385.29 1,385.27 1,385.23 1,383.73 1,384.05 1,383.88 1,383.79 LTOB2 Elevation 1,409.53 1,409.66 1,409.67 1,409.67 1,386.16 1,386.09 1386.11 1,385.70 1,385.13 1,385.30 1,385.37 1,385.40 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.21 1.33 2.26 2.13 0.95 0.80 0.84 0.47 1.40 1.25 1.49 1.61 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.20 3.72 7.01 8.19 5.66 3.88 4.06 1.02 4.66 4.28 4.89 4.99 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1,374.22 1,374.30 1,374.32 1,374.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,362.95 1,362.93 1,362.02 1,360.69 Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.01 1.92 3.42 Thalweg Elevation 1,373.09 1,373.00 1,372.99 1,372.93 1,371.33 1,371.75 1,371.68 1,371.54 1,362.22 1,361.85 1,361.02 1,359.79 LTOB2 Elevation 1,374.22 1,374.28 1,374.29 1,374.31 1,373.57 1,373.65 1,373.66 1,373.71 1,362.95 1,362.94 1,362.94 1,362.87 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)1.13 1.28 1.30 1.38 2.25 1.90 1.98 2.17 0.73 1.09 1.92 3.08 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.64 5.50 5.46 5.89 9.80 9.14 9.38 9.89 3.58 3.66 9.66 21.92 1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. Big Bugaboo Reach 3 2LTOB Area and Max depth ‐ These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. Big Bugaboo Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Reach 4 Cross‐Section 7 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 8 (Pool) Cross‐Section 9 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 5 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 6 (Pool) Big Bugaboo Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Reach 3 Table 9. Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Big Bugaboo Reach 1 Cross‐Section 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 2 (Pool) Cross‐Section 3 (Riffle) Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1,427.68 1,427.86 1,427.82 1,427.76 1,427.77 1,427.82 1,427.82 1,427.84 1,414.97 1,415.02 1,415.03 1,415.14 Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.18 1.00 1.05 1.03 0.94 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.81 Thalweg Elevation 1,427.22 1,427.30 1,427.39 1,427.19 1,426.85 1,426.82 1,426.77 1,426.88 1,414.43 1,414.47 1,414.46 1,414.24 LTOB2 Elevation 1,427.68 1,427.86 1,427.87 1,427.86 1,427.77 1,427.87 1,427.85 1,427.79 1,414.97 1,414.99 1,414.98 1,414.97 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.46 0.56 0.48 0.67 0.92 1.05 1.08 0.91 0.54 0.52 0.52 0.79 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.05 1.06 1.30 1.48 2.50 2.75 2.66 2.26 1.82 1.62 1.47 1.16 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1,408.33 1,408.33 1,408.10 1,407.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,448.11 1,448.14 1,448.19 1,448.20 Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 1.00 1.32 2.01 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.08 0.95 Thalweg Elevation 1,407.66 1,407.63 1,407.29 1,406.87 1,405.79 1,406.04 1,405.68 1,405.77 1,447.42 1,447.50 1,447.52 1,447.33 LTOB2 Elevation 1,408.33 1,408.33 1,408.35 1,408.37 1,408.04 1,407.99 1,408.04 1,408.04 1,448.11 1,448.14 1,448.24 1,448.15 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.67 0.70 1.06 1.50 2.25 1.95 2.36 2.27 0.69 0.64 0.72 0.82 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.50 1.51 2.49 3.97 10.58 10.16 12.81 12.00 1.68 1.70 1.96 1.52 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 Bankfull Elevation (ft) ‐ Based on AB‐Bankfull1 Area 1,380.54 1,380.54 1,380.59 1,380.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,369.11 1,369.17 1,369.16 1,369.03 Bank Height Ratio ‐ Based on AB Bankfull1 Area 1.00 0.87 0.83 0.95 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.07 Thalweg Elevation 1,379.64 1,379.51 1,379.61 1,379.42 1,367.93 1,367.90 1,367.80 1,367.85 1,367.87 1,367.89 1,367.74 1,367.41 LTOB2 Elevation 1,380.54 1,380.40 1,380.42 1,380.45 1,369.27 1,369.29 1,369.30 1,369.29 1,369.11 1,369.12 1,369.15 1,369.14 LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)0.90 0.89 0.81 1.03 1.33 1.39 1.50 1.44 1.24 1.23 1.41 1.73 LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.31 2.49 2.32 2.98 6.00 5.57 6.26 5.73 5.85 5.46 5.79 6.86 1Bank Height Ratio (BHR) takes the As‐built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. Cross‐Section 14 (Pool) Cross‐Section 15 (Riffle) Table 9. Cross‐Section Morphology Monitoring Summary Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 UT2 Reach 4 Cross‐Section 10 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 11 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 12 (Riffle) 2LTOB Area and Max depth ‐ These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey (The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation (same as in the BHR calculation) will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth. UT1 UT2 Reach 3 UT2 Reach 5 UT2A UT3 Cross‐Section 16 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 17 (Pool) Cross‐Section 18 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 13 (Riffle) APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data Reach MY1 (2021) MY2 (2022) MY3 (2023) MY4 (2024) MY5 (2025) MY6 (2026) MY7 (2027) Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 8/15/2021 8/18/2021 10/6/2021 3/23/2022 5/26/2022 8/15/2022 11/11/2022 4/28/2023 6/20/2023 8/2/2023 8/6/2023 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 8/17/2021 8/15/2022 4/28/2023 UT2 Reach 5 3/31/2021 6/12/2021 7/2/2021 2/4/2022 2/26/2022 3/23/2022 5/26/2022 8/15/2022 11/11/2022 12/15/2022 1/14/2023 1/27/2023 8/6/2023 UT3 8/18/2021 9/1/2021 9/18/2021 10/6/2021 5/26/2022 8/15/2022 4/28/2023 6/20/2023 8/2/2023 8/6/2023 8/28/2023 9/13/2023 9/17/2023 11/29/2023 MY1 (2021) MY2 (2022) MY3 (2023)* MY4 (2024) MY5 (2025) MY6 (2026) MY7 (2027) Annual Precip Total 41.71 56.50 51.29* WETS 30th Percentile 43.05 42.70 43.01 WETS 70th Percentile 53.13 52.76 53.24 Normal LH* *Annual precipitation total was collected up until 12/5/2023. Data will be updated in MY4. Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Table 10. Bankfull Events Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Table 11. Rainfall Summary Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 ‐1.0 0.0 1.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) Wa t e r Le v e l (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters : Big Bugaboo Creek R3 Gauge removed 8/17/23 in anticipation of approved repairs. Trail camera installed on 12/19/23 in place of gauge. Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 ‐1.0 0.0 1.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) Wa t e r Le v e l (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters : Big Bugaboo Creek R4 Gauge removed 8/17/23 in anticipation of approved repairs. Trail camera installed on 12/19/23 in place of gauge. Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 ‐1.0 0.0 1.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) Wa t e r Le v e l (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters : UT2 R5 Gauge lost during a storm event. Replaced on 6/27/23. Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 ‐1.0 0.0 1.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) Wa t e r Le v e l (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters : UT3 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 MY1 (2021) MY2 (2022) MY3 (2023)** MY4 (2024) MY5 (2025) MY6 (2026) MY7 (2027) UT1 276 Days/ 276 Days 365 Days/ 365 Days 333 Days/ 333 Days UT2 Reach 1 276 Days/ 276 Days 357 Days/ 364 Days 333 Days/ 333 Days UT2A Reach 2 276 Days/ 276 Days 357 Days/ 365 Days 228 Days/ *** 228 Days UT2B 255 Days/ 255 Days 365 Days/ 365 Days 333 Days/ 333 Days ***Gauge malfunctioned. *Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow. Table 12. Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Summary Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Reach Max Consecutive Days/ Total Days Meeting Success Criteria* **Last gauge download was 11/30/2023. Data will be updated in MY4. Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 333 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,431.0 1,431.5 1,432.0 1,432.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters: UT1 Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 333 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,457.5 1,458.0 1,458.5 1,459.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters: UT2 Reach 1 Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 228 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,447.5 1,448.0 1,448.5 1,449.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters: UT2A Reach 2 Gauge malfunctioned 8/17/23. Replaced on 12/19/23. Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Plot Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 333 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,417.5 1,418.0 1,418.5 1,419.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 3 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Bug Headwaters: UT2B APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info DMS Project No. 100084 DMS Project No. 100084 Kudzu Treatment July 2023 December 2021 Table 13. Project Activity and Reporting History Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Task Completion or Deliverable Submission Project Instituted NA June 2018 Mitigation Plan Approved September 2020 September 2020 As‐Built Survey Completed May 2021 October 2021 May 2021 Construction (Grading) Completed NA April 2021 Planting Completed NA April 2021 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) Stream Survey April 2021 July 2021 Vegetation Survey April 2021 Year 2 Monitoring December 2022 Supplemental Planting March 2022 Year 1 Monitoring Murdannia Treatment Stream Survey May 2022 Vegetation Survey August & October 2022 Murdannia Treatment May ‐ August 2022 Stream Survey October 2021 Vegetation Survey October 2021 Year 4 Monitoring December 2024 Supplemental Planting & Live Stakes February 2023 December 2023Year 3 Monitoring Soil Amendments, Capsaicin Tablets, & Tree Tubes Stream Survey May 2023 Vegetation Survey August & December 2023 May 2023 Murdannia Treatment Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2025 December 2025Vegetation Survey 2025 Year 6 Monitoring December 2026 Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2027 December 2027Vegetation Survey 2027 Monitoring, POC Jason Lorch 919.851.9986 Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Construction Contractor Wildlands Construction 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Table 14. Project Contact Table Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Designer Nicole Macaluso Millns, PE Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 919.851.9986 July & August 2023 Cattail Treatment July 2023 Ring Sprays July 2023 APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation From:Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) To:Jeff Keaton Cc:matthew.reid@ncdenr.gov; Wiesner, Paul; Carolyn Lanza; Emily Israel Subject:RE: Bug Headwaters Follow Up Date:Thursday, November 10, 2022 1:57:44 PM 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 l 919.946.5107 -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Keaton <jkeaton@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 9:43 AM To: Isenhour, Kimberly T CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <Kimberly.D.Browning@usace.army.mil> Cc: matthew.reid@ncdenr.gov; Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner@ncdenr.gov>; Carolyn Lanza <clanza@wildlandseng.com>; Emily Israel <eisrael@wildlandseng.com> 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 | Senior Water Resources Engineer O: 919.851.9986 x103 M: 919.302.6919 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <Blockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/> 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [[[ [ [[[[[ [[[ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[[[ [ [[ [ [ [[ [[[[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [[ [ !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 UT3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 UT2A Reach 1 UT2 Reach 1 UT4 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 UT2 Reach 3 UT1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2B UT2A Reach 2 UT2 Reach 5 UT2 Reach 4 Figure 1. Supplemental Planting Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 2 - 2022 0 200 400 Feet Wilkes County, NC ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Proposed Floodplain Replant Zone 1 - Bare Roots Wetlands Zone 2 - Bare Roots Upland Zone 3 - Bare Roots & Whips Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit [[Existing Fence Utility Line Table 1. Proposed Supplemental Planting Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 2 - 2021 Species Common Name Size Stratum Wetland Indicator Status Number of Stems % 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 serrulata Tag Alder* 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Subcanopy OBL 30 10% Swida amomum Silky Dogwood* 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Subcanopy FACW 30 10% Salix sericea 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 canadensis Elderberry* 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Shrub FAC 30 10% 300 100% *Not included in height criteria. 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 virginiana Common Persimmon 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Canopy FAC 6 10% Acer negundo Boxelder 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Canopy FAC 6 10% Prunus serotina Black Cherry 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Canopy FACU 6 10% 58 100% Upland Planting - Zone 2 (0.16 Acre) Bare Roots Wetland Planting - Zone 1 (1.02 Acres) Bare Roots Total: Total: Table 1. Proposed Supplemental Planting Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 2 - 2021 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 serrulata 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% Salix sericea Silky Willow* 0.5" - 1.5" cal. Subcanopy FAC Bare Root 6 5% Salix sericea 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. Wetland Planting - Zone 3 (0.36 Acre) Bare Roots and Whips MEMORANDUM TO: 401/404 Permit Reviewers FROM: Carolyn Lanza, Wildlands Engineering DATE: August 10, 2023 RE: Project Repair Plan ‐ Supporting Documentation BUG HEADWATERS MITIGATION SITE Wilkes County, NC On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is requesting a new Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) and Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for an existing stream mitigation project in Wilkes County, NC. The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site was originally permitted in November of 2020 under USACE NWP 27 and NCDWR Water Quality General Certification Number 4134 (the WQC associated with 2017 NWP 27). The project was constructed between January and April of 2021. Minor repairs are now needed for this mitigation site and the previous Nationwide Permit and Water Quality Certification for the project have expired. The repairs are intended to be permitted by the USACE under Nationwide Permit 27 and by NCDWR under Water Quality General Certification 4255. Most of the repairs are simply replacing structures that were originally constructed in 2021 but have become damaged, as well as repairing bank erosion. Supplemental items for the electronic Pre‐ Construction Notification are attached, including details of the proposed repairs. If you have additional questions or need more information about the repair plan, please do not hesitate to contact me at 313‐969‐7318 or at clanza@wildlandseng.com should you have any questions. Sincerely, Carolyn Lanza Environmental Scientist Contents A. Landowner Authorization B. Figures Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map Figure 2 Soils Map Figure 3 Impact Map Overview Figure 3a Impact Map Figure 3b Impact Map Figure 3c Impact Map C. Proposed Repairs & Stream Area of Concern Photographs D. Categorical Exclusion Checklist & Updated IPaC Report A. Landowner Authorization B. Figures USGS Topographic MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin River Basin (030 4010 1) Wilkes County, NC ¹0 1,0 00500 Fee t Conservation Easement Thurm ond, NC Quadrangle Conservation Easement ¹0 500250 Feet Soils MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin River Basin (030 4010 1) Wilkes County, NC Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 UT3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 UT2A Reach 1 UT2 Reach 1 UT4 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 UT2 Reach 3 UT1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2B UT2A Reach 2 UT2 Reach 5 UT2 Reach 4 Figure 3. Impact Map Overview Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 200 400 Feet Wilkes County, NC 2022 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Ephemeral Step-Pool BMP Pocket Wetland BMP Existing Wetlands Temporary Wetland Impact Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Permanent Stream Impact Topographic Contours (4') Reach Breaks Figure 3a. Figure 3b. Figure 3c. 301+00 303+00 305+00 307+00 30 9 + 0 0 3 1 1 + 0 0 4 0 0 + 0 0 402+ 0 0 2 0 1 + 0 0 203 + 0 0 1 0 3 + 0 0 1 1 1 + 0 0 1 0 1 + 0 0 4 0 4 + 0 0 4 0 6 + 0 0 1 0 5 + 0 0 1 0 7 + 0 0 1 0 9 + 0 0 1 1 3 + 0 0 1 1 5 + 0 0 UT2A Reach 1 UT2 Reach 1 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 UT2 Reach 3 UT1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2A Reach 2 S2 - Repair Constructed Riffle & Log Sill S1 - Build Constructed Riffles and Pools W2 - Key in Log Sill W1 - Stream & Bank Stabilization Figure 3a. Impact Map Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 150 300 Feet Wilkes County, NC Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Ephemeral Step-Pool BMP Pocket Wetland BMP Existing Wetlands Temporary Wetland Impact Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Permanent Stream Impact Topographic Contours (4') Reach Breaks 2022 Aerial Photography 30 9 + 0 0 3 1 1 + 0 0 313+00 315+00 317+00 319+00 32 1 + 0 0 501+00 1 1 7 + 0 0 1 1 9 + 0 0 12 1 + 0 0 123+00 125+00 12 7 + 0 0 129 + 0 0 131+00 13 5 + 0 0 13 3 + 0 0 1 1 3 + 0 0 1 1 5 + 0 0 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 UT2 Reach 3 UT2B UT2 Reach 5 UT2 Reach 4 S3 - Repair Constructed Riffle Figure 3b. Impact Map Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 150 300 Feet Wilkes County, NC 2022 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Permanent Stream Impact Topographic Contours (4') Reach Breaks 123+00 125+0 0 12 7 + 0 0 129 + 0 0 131+00 612+ 0 0 13 5 + 0 0 13 3 + 0 0 1 3 7 + 0 0 139+00 141+ 0 0 7 0 0 + 0 0 600 + 0 0 60 2 + 0 0 60 4 + 0 0 606+00 608+00 61 0 + 0 0 614+ 0 0 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 UT3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 UT4 S3 - Repair Eroded Banks S3 - Add Constructed Riffle S3 - Repair Constructed Riffle S4 - Repair Constructed Riffle S3 - Repair Constructed Riffle W3 - Bank Stabilization W3 - Bank Stabilization Figure 3c. Impact Map Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 - 2023 0 150 300 Feet Wilkes County, NC 2022 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Existing Wetlands Temporary Wetland Impact Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II No Credit Permanent Stream Impact Topographic Contours (4') Reach Breaks C. Proposed Repairs & Stream Area of Concern Photographs Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 100084 Monitoring Year 3 ‐ 2023 Reach Approach Start Station End Station Length (LF) Description Planned 2023 Management Action 120+25 120+50 25 Riffle material washed away and eroded banks. Replace riffle material and reform eroded banks, mat or sod mat, reseed, and livestake. 125+44 125+68 24 Riffle material washed away and eroded banks. Replace riffle material and reform eroded banks, mat or sod mat, reseed, and livestake. 137+55 137+75 20 Eroded right bank below log sill.Repair eroded bank. Mat or sod mat, reseed, and livestake. 138+60 140+33 173 Riffle material washed away due to bedrock. Banks are eroded due to lack of vegetation from Murdianna spraying. Add boulder around bedrock to prevent future erosion. Rebuild eroded banks, mat or sod mat, reseed, and livestake. ‐‐‐ Log sill was tilted too much towards the left bank, pushing water directly into left bank and not over the center of the channel. Adjust elevation across log sill, matt or sod matt, reseed, and livestake. ‐‐Eroded left bank around log sill. Repair bank around log sill, mat or sod mat, reseed, and livestake 141+20 141+30 10 Stream is pushing into left bank, creating scour. Push riffle material to the left side of the stream to prevent further scour. UT2 Reach 3 Restoration 307+30 307+50 20 Riffle material washed out. Rebuild riffle with larger material. 400+00 401+19 119 Enhancement II section downcutting. Rebuild reach as an Enhancement I section by keeping same alignment but raising stream bed and building riffles and pools. 400+55 400+70 15 Stream is pushing into left bank, creating scour. Grade back left bank so stream can have access to floodplain during storm events. UT3 Restoration 612+02 612+30 28 Eroded banks.Reform eroded banks, mat or sod mat, reseed, and livestake. Note: Stream impacts on Big Bugaboo Creek Reaches 3 and 4 are combined into a single impact in Sections D.2 and D.3 on the PCN and in the corresponding ORM form. UT2A Reach 1 Enhancement I Enhancement II Table 1. Repair Summary Table Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 Restoration 140+28 139+55 Big Bugaboo Creek R3 STA 120+25 – 120+50 – Riffle material washed away and eroded banks (05/02/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R3 STA 125+44 – 125+68 – Riffle material washed away & eroded bank (05/09/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R3 STA 137+55 – 137+75 – Eroded right bank below log sill (05/09/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R4 STA 138+60 – 138+80 – Riffle material washed away and eroded banks (11/17/2022) Big Bugaboo Creek R4 STA 138+60 – 140+33 – Eroded banks (05/09/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R4 STA 139+55 – Eroded log sill (05/09/2023) Big Bugaboo Creek R4 STA 141+20 – 141+30 – Scouring left bank (05/02/2023) UT2 R3 STA 307+30 – 307+50 – Riffle material washed out (05/02/2023) UT2A R1 STA 400+00 – 401+19 – Downcutting EII section (11/17/2022) UT2A R1 STA 400+55 – 400+70 – Eroded left bank (11/17/2022) UT3 STA 612+02 – 612+30 – Eroded banks (05/09/2023) D. Categorical Exclusion Checklist & Updated IPaC Report Part 2: All Projects Regulation/Question Response Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes No 2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No N/A 3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes No N/A 4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program? Yes No N/A Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes No 2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been designated as commercial or industrial? Yes No N/A 3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? Yes No N/A 4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? Yes No N/A 5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous waste sites within the project area? Yes No N/A 6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes No N/A National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places in the project area? Yes No 2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes No N/A 3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes No N/A Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) 1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes No 2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes No N/A 3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes No N/A 4. Has the owner of the property been informed: * prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and * what the fair market value is believed to be? Yes No N/A Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7 Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities Regulation/Question Response American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) 1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians? Yes No 2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes No N/A 3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places? Yes No N/A 4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes No N/A Antiquities Act (AA) 1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes No 2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects of antiquity? Yes No N/A 3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes No N/A 4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes No N/A Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) 1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes No 2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes No N/A 3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes No N/A 4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes No N/A Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat listed for the county? Yes No 2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes No N/A 3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Habitat? Yes No N/A 4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify” Designated Critical Habitat? Yes No N/A 5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes No N/A 6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes No N/A Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8 Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory” by the EBCI? Yes No 2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed project? Yes No N/A 3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites? Yes No N/A Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) 1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes No 2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally important farmland? Yes No N/A 3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes No N/A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any water body? Yes No 2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes No N/A Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)) 1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, outdoor recreation? Yes No 2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes No N/A Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) 1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes No 2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes No N/A 3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the project on EFH? Yes No N/A 4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes No N/A 5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes No N/A Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes No 2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes No N/A Wilderness Act 1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes No 2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining federal agency? Yes No N/A Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9 August 09, 2023 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801-1082 Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0114845 Project Name: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The enclosed species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please note that new species information can change your official species list. Under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The Service recommends you visit the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation to ensure your species list is accurate or obtain an updated species list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A biological assessment (BA) or biological evaluation (BE) should be completed for your project. A BA is required for major construction activities (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) considered to be Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)) (NEPA). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a BE be prepared to determine effects of the action and whether those effects may affect listed species and/or designated critical habitat. E?ects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of other 08/09/2023 2 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it is reasonably certain to occur and would not occur “but for” the proposed action.. Recommended contents of a BA/BE are described at 50 CFR 402.12. More information and resources about project review and preparing a BA/BE can be found at the following web link: https://www.fws.gov/office/asheville-ecological-services/asheville-field-office-online-review- process-overview. If a Federal agency determines listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. The Service is not required to concur with "no effect" determinations from Federal action agencies. If consultation is required, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, proposed critical habitat, and at-risk species be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or licensed applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at the following web link: https://www.fws.gov/media/endangered-species-consultation- handbook. Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Act, there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project- related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). More information about MBTA and BGEPA can be found at the following web link: https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds. We appreciate your consideration of Federally listed species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species in their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please contact our staff at 828-258-3939, if you have any questions. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference the Consultation Code which can be found in the header of this letter. Attachment(s): Official Species List USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Migratory Birds Wetlands OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". 08/09/2023 3 This species list is provided by: Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801-1082 (828) 258-3939 08/09/2023 4 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2023-0114845 Project Name:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Project Type:Restoration / Enhancement of Waterbody Project Description:Proposed repairs within an existing conservation easement. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@36.32059195,-80.98437149583496,14z Counties:Wilkes County, North Carolina 08/09/2023 5 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Gray Bat Myotis grisescens No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329 Endangered Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Endangered Tricolored Bat Perimyotis subflavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 Proposed Endangered REPTILES NAME STATUS Bog Turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii Population: U.S.A. (GA, NC, SC, TN, VA) No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962 Similarity of Appearance (Threatened) 1 08/09/2023 6 1. 2. 3. INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. USFWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LANDS AND FISH HATCHERIES Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. MIGRATORY BIRDS Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to 1 2 08/09/2023 7 1. additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME BREEDING SEASON Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25 Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Aug 20 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 08/09/2023 8 2. 3. no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Chimney Swift BCC Rangewide (CON) Eastern Whip-poor- will BCC Rangewide (CON) Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) 08/09/2023 9 ▪ ▪ ▪ Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/ collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf MIGRATORY BIRDS FAQ Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and 08/09/2023 10 1. 2. 3. how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. 08/09/2023 11 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. WETLANDS Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. RIVERINE R4SBC R5UBH FRESHWATER POND PUBHh FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1Ah 08/09/2023 12 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Private Entity Name:Sydni Law Address:312 W. Millbrook Rd Address Line 2:Suite 225 City:Raleigh State:NC Zip:27609 Email slaw@wildlandseng.com Phone:9198519986 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION Lead Agency:Army Corps of Engineers U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW-2018-01788 County: Wilkes U.S.G.S. Quad: NC-Thurmond GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION Permittee: NC Division of Mitigation Services Permittee: Wildlands Engineering, Inc Attn: Mr. Lin Xu Attn: Jeff Keaton Address: 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A Address: 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone:919-707-8319 Telephone 919-851-9986 Size (acres) 22.7 Nearest Town Traphill Nearest Waterway Big Bugaboo Creek River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS HUC 03040101 Latitude: 36.320698°N Longitude: -80.984329°W Location description: The NCDMS Bug Headwaters Mitigation site is located at 8600 Austin Traphill Rd, Traphill, Wilkes County, North Carolina. (PIN 1902517, 1902520). Description of projects area and activity: The co-applicants, NCDMS and Wildlands Engineering, Inc have requested a Department of the Army permit authorization to discharge dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States associated with the NCDMS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. Implementation of the proposed restoration and enhancement activities will result in the discharge of fill material into 419 linear feet of stream channel, and 0.044 acres of wetlands associated with mechanized land clearing, excavation, placement of fill material, and stream relocation activities for the mitigation site. Compensatory mitigation is NOT required in conjunction with the aforementioned activities. Refer to the enclosed Table 1 for a detailed summary of impacts. Applicable Law: Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403) Authorization: Regional General Permit Number and/or Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 27 – Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Establishment Activities SEE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted application and attached information dated 8/11/2023. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action. This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide and/or regional general permit authorization is modified, suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide and/or regional general permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide and/or regional general permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide and/or regional general permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months SAW-2018-01788 of the date of the nationwide and/or regional general permit’s expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization. Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone 919-807- 6300) to determine Section 401 requirements. For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808-2808. This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State or local approvals/permits. If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Casey Haywood, (919) 750-7397 Corps Regulatory Official: Date: 9/26/2023 Expiration Date of Verification: March 14, 2026 SAW-2018-01788 Table 1. Authorized discharge of fill material into waters of the United States in association with the NCDMS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site (SAW-2018-01788). 1. Total Impacts: Stream – 419 LF, Wetland 0.044 AC Impact Number Classification Fill Length of Stream (lf) Fill acreage wetland (ac) Duration of Fill Material Regulated Discharge of Fill Material Activity W-1 Headwater Forest 0.022 Temporary Repair/Ecological Restoration W-2 Headwater Forest 0.001 Temporary Ecological Restoration W-3 Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.021 Temporary Ecological Restoration TOTAL WETLAND IMPACTS 0.044 S1 River/Stream 119 Permanent Stabilization/Ecological Restoration S2 River/Stream 20 Permanent Stabilization/Ecological Restoration S3 River/Stream 252 Permanent Stabilization/Ecological Restoration S4 River/Stream 28 Permanent Stabilization/Ecological Restoration TOTAL STREAM IMPACTS 419 *Impacts are associated with aquatic resource restoration and enhancement activities and are expected to result in a net gain in Waters of the US. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The permittee understands and agrees that the document entitled “Mitigation Plan Final- Bug Headwaters” dated September 2020, and the Memorandum dated July 7, 2023, is incorporated and made part of this permit. Execution of the work and terms given in the approved mitigation plan are a condition of this permit. 2. Tree clearing must be avoided from April 1 to October 15, when TCB (and NLEB) is most likely to be foraging/roosting in forested areas, and during pup season (June 1 - July 31). 3. This Nationwide Permit verification does not imply suitability of this property for compensatory mitigation for any particular project. The use of any portion of this site as compensatory mitigation for a particular project will be determined during the permit review process for that project. SAW-2018-01788 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Action ID Number: SAW-2018-01788 County: Wilkes Permittee: NC Division of Mitigation Services Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Attn: Mr. Lin Xu Attn: Jeff Keaton Project Name: NCDMS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date Verification Issued: September 26, 2023 Project Manager: Steve Kichefski Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Regulatory Division Mitigation Office Attn: Casey Haywood 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action. I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit conditions. _______________________________________ ______________________ Signature of Permittee Date North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 September 26, 2023 DWR # 20181273 Wilkes County NC Division of Mitigation Services Attn: Lin Xu 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Attn: Carolyn Lanza 312 W. Millbrook Rd., Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609 Delivered via email to: Lin.xu@deq.nc.gov; clanza@wildlandseng.com Subject: Approval of Individual 401 Water Quality Certification Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site USACE Action ID. No. SAW-2018-01788 Dear Mr. Xu and Ms. Lanza: Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. WQC006306 issued to Lin Xu of NC Division of Mitigation Services and Carolyn Lanza and Wildlands Engineering, Inc., dated September 26, 2023. This Certification authorizes impacts to perform repairs associated with a previous Certification issued on November 13, 2020. This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of this Water Quality Certification. If you change your project, you must notify the Division and you may be required to submit a new application package with the appropriate fee. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and is responsible for complying with all conditions. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)(2)]. The issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification for the restoration/enhancement project does not represent an approval of credit yield for the project. This Water Quality Certification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain all other required Federal, State, or Local approvals before proceeding with the project, including those required by, but not limited to, Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, Water Supply Watershed, and Trout Buffer regulations. This Water Quality Certification neither grants nor affirms any property right, license, or privilege in any lands or waters, or any right of use in any waters. This Water Quality Certification does not authorize any DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 2 of 12 person to interfere with the riparian rights, littoral rights, or water use rights of any other person and does not create any prescriptive right or any right of priority regarding any usage of water. This Water Quality Certification shall not be interposed as a defense in any action respecting the determination of riparian or littoral rights or other rights to water use. No consumptive user is deemed by virtue of this Water Quality Certification to possess any prescriptive or other right of priority with respect to any other consumptive user. Upon the presentation of proper credentials, the Division may inspect the property. This Water Quality Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Section 404 Permit. The conditions shall remain in effect for the life of the project, regardless of the expiration date of this Water Quality Certification. Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth may result in revocation of this Water Quality Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil penalties. If you are unable to comply with any of the conditions of this Water Quality Certification you must notify the Division’s Central Office within 24 hours (or the next business day if a weekend or holiday) from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The permittee shall report to the Division’s Central Office any noncompliance with, and/or any violation of, stream or wetland standards [15A NCAC 02B .0200] including but not limited to sediment impacts to streams or wetlands. Information shall be provided orally within 24 hours (or the next business day if a weekend or holiday) from the time the permittee became aware of the non-compliance circumstances. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested [G.S. 143-215.5]. This Certification can be contested as provided in Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes by filing a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing (Petition) with the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) within sixty (60) calendar days. Requirements for filing a Petition are set forth in Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and Title 26 of the North Carolina Administrative Code. Additional information regarding requirements for filing a Petition and Petition forms may be accessed at http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH Clerk’s Office at (919) 431-3000. A party filing a Petition must serve a copy of the Petition on: William F. Lane, General Counsel Department of Environmental Quality 1601 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 If the party filing the Petition is not the permittee, then the party must also serve the recipient of the Certification in accordance with N.C.G.S 150B-23(a). DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 3 of 12 This letter completes the Division’s review under section 401 of the Clean Water Act and 15A NCAC 02H .0500. Please contact Maria Polizzi at (919)-815-4586 or maria.polizzi@deq.nc.gov if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Stephanie Goss, Supervisor 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ Electronic cc: Todd Tugwell, Kim Isenhour, Casey Haywood, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Amie Hoy, DWR Mooresville Regional Office DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Electronic file Filename: 20181273 Ver 2_Bug Headwater(Alexander)_401_approval_ltr.09.26.2023.docx DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 4 of 12 NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION # WQC006306 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92- 500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to North Carolina’s Regulations in 15 NCAC 02H .0500 and 15A NCAC 02B .0200, to Lin Xu of NC Division of Mitigation Services and Carolyn Lanza and Wildlands Engineering, Inc., who have authorization for the impacts listed below, as described within your application received by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (Division) on July 7th 2023. The State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will comply with water quality requirements and the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth. The following impacts are hereby approved. No other impacts are approved, including incidental impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)] Type of Impact Amount Approved (units) Permanent Amount Approved (units) Temporary Stream S1 119 (linear feet) 0 (linear feet) S2 20 0 S3 252 0 S4 28 Total 419 linear feet 0 linear feet 404/401 Wetlands W1 (acres) 0.022 (acres) W2 0 0.001 W3 0 0.021 Total 0 acres 0.044 acres This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the certification below. CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION [15A NCAC 02H .0507(c)]: 1. The permittee shall report to the Division’s Central Office any noncompliance with, and/or any violation of, stream or wetland standards [15A NCAC 02B .0200], including but not limited to sediment impacts to streams or wetlands. Information shall be provided orally within 24 hours (or the next business day if a weekend or holiday) from the time the permittee became aware of the non-compliance circumstances. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Timely reporting of non-compliance is important in identifying and minimizing detrimental impacts to water quality and avoiding impacts due to water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 5 of 12 2. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands or waters beyond the footprint of the approved impacts (including temporary impacts). Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506; 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule (including, at minimum: aquatic life propagation, survival, and maintenance of biological integrity; wildlife; secondary contact recreation; agriculture); and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. 3. All activities shall be in compliance with any applicable State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules in Chapter 2B of Title 15A in the North Carolina Administrative Code. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: The referenced Riparian Buffer rules were adopted to address water quality impairments and further protect existing uses. 4. When applicable, all construction activities shall be performed and maintained in full compliance with G.S. Chapter 113A Article 4 (Sediment and Pollution Control Act of 1973). Regardless of applicability of the Sediment and Pollution Control Act, all projects shall incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices for the control of sediment and erosion so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of all sediment and erosion control measures shall be equal to or exceed the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or for linear transportation projects, the North Carolina Department of Transportation Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. All devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) sites, including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project. Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures and stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures shall be designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual. Reclamation measures and implementation shall comply with the reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the Mining Act of 1971. If the project occurs in waters or watersheds classified as Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs), SA, WS-I, WS- II, High Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), then the sedimentation and erosion control designs shall comply with the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 04B .0124, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC02B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0231 DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 6 of 12 5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be installed in wetland or waters except within the footprint of temporary or permanent impacts otherwise authorized by this Certification. If placed within authorized impact areas, then placement of such measures shall not be conducted in a manner that results in dis-equilibrium of any wetlands, streambeds, or streambanks. Any silt fence installed within wetlands shall be removed from wetlands and the natural grade restored within two (2) months of the date that DEMLR or locally delegated program has released the specific area within the project to ensure wetland standards are maintained upon completion of the project. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0231 Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses, and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. As cited in Stream Standards: (12) Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses; and (21) turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes, or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. As cited in Wetland Standards: (c)(1) Liquids, fill or other solids, or dissolved gases shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses; and (3) Materials producing color or odor shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses. 6. Erosion control matting that incorporates plastic mesh and/or plastic twine shall not be used along streambanks or within wetlands. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses (including aquatic life propagation and biological integrity), and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Protections are necessary to ensure any remaining surface waters or wetlands, and any surface waters or wetlands downstream, continue to support existing uses during and after project completion. The Division must evaluate if the activity has avoided and minimized impacts to waters, would cause or contribute to a violation of standards, or would result in secondary or cumulative impacts. 7. If the project is covered by NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Number NCG010000 or NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Number NCG250000, full compliance with permit conditions including the erosion & sedimentation control plan, inspections and maintenance, self-monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements is required. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0231 Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses, and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. As cited in Stream Standards: (12) Oils, DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 7 of 12 deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses; and (21) turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes, or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. As cited in Wetland Standards: (c)(1) Liquids, fill or other solids, or dissolved gases shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses; and (3) Materials producing color or odor shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses. 8. All work in or adjacent to streams shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does not come in contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the most current version of the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC Department of Transportation Construction and Maintenance Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, and other diversion structures shall be used to minimize excavation in flowing water. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0200 Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. As cited in Stream Standards: (12) Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses; and (21) turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) in streams not designated as trout waters and 10 NTU in streams, lakes, or reservoirs designated as trout waters; for lakes and reservoirs not designated as trout waters, the turbidity shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds these levels due to natural background conditions, the existing turbidity level shall not be increased. 9. In-stream structures installed to mimic natural channel geomorphology such as cross-vanes, sills, step- pool structures, etc. shall be designed and installed in such a manner that allow for continued aquatic life movement. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. Ensuring that in-stream structures are installed properly will ensure that surface water quality standards are met and conditions of waters are suitable for all best uses. 10. Culverts shall be designed and installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles are not altered and allow for aquatic life movement during low flows. The dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below a pipe or culvert shall not be modified by widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream in connection with the construction activity. The width, height, DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 8 of 12 and gradient of a proposed culvert shall be such as to pass the average historical low flow and spring flow without adversely altering flow velocity. If the width of the culvert is wider than the stream channel, the culvert shall include multiple boxes/pipes, baffles, benches and/or sills to maintain the natural width of the stream channel. If multiple culverts/pipes/barrels are used, low flows shall be accommodated in one culvert/pipe and additional culverts/pipes shall be installed such that they receive only flows above bankfull. Placement of culverts and other structures in streams shall be below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20% of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than or equal to 48 inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life. If the culvert outlet is submerged within a pool or scour hole and designed to provide for aquatic passage, then culvert burial into the streambed is not required. For structures less than 72” in diameter/width, and topographic constraints indicate culvert slopes of greater than 2.5% culvert burial is not required, provided that all alternative options for flattening the slope have been investigated and aquatic life movement/connectivity has been provided when possible (e.g. rock ladders, cross-vanes, sills, baffles etc.). Notification, including supporting documentation to include a location map of the culvert, culvert profile drawings, and slope calculations, shall be provided to DWR 30 calendar days prior to the installation of the culvert. When bedrock is present in culvert locations, culvert burial is not required, provided that there is sufficient documentation of the presence of bedrock. Notification, including supporting documentation such as a location map of the culvert, geotechnical reports, photographs, etc. shall be provided to DWR a minimum of 30 calendar days prior to the installation of the culvert. If bedrock is discovered during construction, then DWR shall be notified by phone or email within 24 hours of discovery. Installation of culverts in wetlands shall ensure continuity of water movement and be designed to adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions. When roadways, causeways, or other fill projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts or bridges shall be provided to maintain the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent constriction of the floodway that may result in destabilization of streams or wetlands. The establishment of native woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization techniques shall be used where practicable instead of rip-rap or other bank hardening methods. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. Ensuring that structures are installed properly in waters will ensure that surface water quality standards are met and conditions of waters are suitable for all best uses. 11. Application of fertilizer to establish planted/seeded vegetation within disturbed riparian areas and/or wetlands shall be conducted at agronomic rates and shall comply with all other Federal, State and Local regulations. Fertilizer application shall be accomplished in a manner that minimizes the risk of contact between the fertilizer and surface waters. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 9 of 12 Citation: 15A 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0231 Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses, and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. As cited in Stream Standards: (12) Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses. As cited in Wetland Standards: (c)(1) Liquids, fill or other solids, or dissolved gases shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses; and (3) Materials producing color or odor shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses. 12. If concrete is used during construction, then all necessary measures shall be taken to prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to waters of the state. Citation: 15A 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0231 Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses, and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. As cited in Stream Standards: (12) Oils, deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses. As cited in Wetland Standards: (c)(1) Liquids, fill or other solids, or dissolved gases shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses; and (3) Materials producing color or odor shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses. 13. All proposed and approved temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the impacted area shall be returned to natural conditions within 60 calendar days after the temporary impact is no longer necessary. The impacted areas shall be restored to original grade, including each stream’s original cross-sectional dimensions, planform pattern, and longitudinal bed profile. All temporarily impacted sites shall be restored and stabilized with native vegetation. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H.0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses, and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Protections are necessary to ensure any remaining surface waters or wetlands, and any surface waters or wetlands downstream, continue to support existing uses after project completion. 14. All proposed and approved temporary pipes/culverts/rip-rap pads etc. in streams or wetlands shall be installed as outlined in the most recent edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual or the North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities so as not to restrict stream flow or cause dis-equilibrium during use of this Certification. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 10 of 12 Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. Ensuring that structures are installed properly in waters will ensure that surface water quality standards are met and conditions of waters are suitable for all best uses. 15. Any rip-rap required for proper culvert placement, stream stabilization, or restoration of temporarily disturbed areas shall be restricted to the area directly impacted by the approved construction activity. All rip-rap shall be placed such that the original streambed elevation and streambank contours are restored and maintained and shall consist of clean rock or masonry material free of debris or toxic pollutants. Placement of rip-rap or other approved materials shall not result in de-stabilization of the stream bed or banks upstream or downstream of the area or be installed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. The Division must evaluate if the activity has avoided and minimized impacts to waters, would cause or contribute to a violation of standards, or would result in secondary or cumulative impacts. 16. Any rip-rap used for stream or shoreline stabilization shall be of a size and density to prevent movement by wave, current action, or stream flows, and shall consist of clean rock or masonry material free of debris or toxic pollutants. Rip-rap shall not be installed in the streambed except in specific areas required for velocity control and to ensure structural integrity of bank stabilization measures. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0201 Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. The Division must evaluate if the activity has avoided and minimized impacts to waters, would cause or contribute to a violation of standards, or would result in secondary or cumulative impacts. 17. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters shall be inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination of surface waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. Construction shall be staged in order to minimize the exposure of equipment to surface waters to the maximum extent practicable. Fueling, lubrication, and general equipment maintenance shall be performed in a manner to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, contamination of surface waters by fuels and oils. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0200; 15A NCAC 02B .0231 Justification: A project that affects waters shall not be permitted unless the existing uses, and the water quality to protect such uses, are protected. Activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. As cited in Stream Standards: (12) Oils, DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 11 of 12 deleterious substances, or colored or other wastes: only such amounts as shall not render the waters injurious to public health, secondary recreation, or to aquatic life and wildlife, or adversely affect the palatability of fish, aesthetic quality, or impair the waters for any designated uses. As cited in Wetland Standards: (c)(1) Liquids, fill or other solids, or dissolved gases shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses; and (3) Materials producing color or odor shall not be present in amounts that may cause adverse impacts on existing wetland uses. 18. Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats or other measures shall be taken to minimize soil disturbance and compaction. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); 15A NCAC 02B .0231 Justification: Wetland standards require maintenance or enhancement of existing uses of wetlands such that hydrologic conditions necessary to support natural biological and physical characteristics are protected; populations of wetland flora and fauna are maintained to protect biological integrity of the wetland; and materials or substances are not present in amounts that may cause adverse impact on existing wetland uses. 19. In accordance with 143-215.85(b), the permittee shall report any petroleum spill of 25 gallons or more; any spill regardless of amount that causes a sheen on surface waters; any petroleum spill regardless of amount occurring within 100 feet of surface waters; and any petroleum spill less than 25 gallons that cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c); N.C.G.S 143-215.85(b) Justification: Person(s) owning or having control over oil or other substances upon notice of discharge must immediately notify the Department, or any of its agents or employees, of the nature, location, and time of the discharge and of the measures which are being taken or are proposed to be taken to contain and remove the discharge. This action is required in order to contain or divert the substances to prevent entry into the surface waters. Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule (including, at minimum: aquatic life propagation, survival, and maintenance of biological integrity; wildlife; secondary contact recreation; agriculture); and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short- term or long-term basis. 20. The permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with §303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other appropriate requirements of State and Federal Law. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Surface water quality standards require that conditions of waters be suitable for all best uses provided for in state rule, and that activities must not cause water pollution that precludes any best use on a short-term or long-term basis. The Division must evaluate if the activity has avoided and minimized impacts to waters, would cause or contribute to a violation of standards, or would result in secondary or cumulative impacts. DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources 512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611 919.707.9000 Bug Headwater Mitigation Site DWR# 20181273 Ver. 2 Individual Certification #WQC006306 Page 12 of 12 21. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and conditions of this certification in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project with a copy of this Water Quality Certification. A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be available at the project site during the construction and maintenance of this project. Citation: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b); 15A NCAC 02H .0507(c) Justification: Those actually performing the work should be aware of the requirements of this 401 Water Quality Certification to minimize water quality impacts. This approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance shall remain in effect for the life of the project, regardless of the expiration date of this Certification. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(c)] This, the 26th day of September 2023 Stephanie Goss, Supervisor 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ MAP #WQC006306 DocuSign Envelope ID: FCF604FC-093A-4340-BA97-D68AF41EDEFC 1 Tasha King From:Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov> Sent:Wednesday, September 6, 2023 8:45 AM To:Tasha King Cc:Kirsten Gimbert Subject:Re: [EXTERNAL] Bug Headwater Mitigation Site Repairs - Tricolored Bat consultation request Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Thank you, Tasha. Given the information you've provided, it doesn't sound like the proposed work will result in impacts to tricolored bat. From an official standpoint, the USFWS doesn't provide concurrence on "no effect" determinations. From an unofficial stance, and for the purposes of your inquiry, we would agree that the work will not affect tricolored bat. Let me know if you need anything else. Best, Holland Youngman (she/her) Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina, 28801 Cell: 828-575-3920 From: Tasha King <tking@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 4:07 PM To: Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov> Cc: Kirsten Gimbert <kgimbert@wildlandseng.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Bug Headwater Mitigation Site Repairs ‐ Tricolored Bat consultation request Good afternoon, Thank you for responding so quickly. You are correct, no repair work will be done on culverts or within the forested riparian buffers. There may be some impacts to some small trees as the mini excavator moves from the conservation easement gate to the stream channel. These small trees are three years old at the most. They were either planted after the original stream restoration or they are volunteer trees that have since sprouted. They are not suitable habitat for the tricolored bat due to their small size and smooth bark. No mature trees from the canopy that existed before the stream restoration project will be impacted. I have attached an overview repair map with three zoomed in maps and turned off a few layers to make it easier to see the larger canopy trees. In Figure 1c, I hope it is now easier to see that there is space between what larger trees exist and the Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 stream channel. This is the corridor that will be used to access the stream channel for those repairs. I hope this is helpful but please let me know if there is more information that I can provide to help clarify. Thank you again, we appreciate your help. All the best, Tasha 2 From: Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:11 PM To: Tasha King <tking@wildlandseng.com> Cc: Kirsten Gimbert <kgimbert@wildlandseng.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Bug Headwater Mitigation Site Repairs ‐ Tricolored Bat consultation request Hi Tasha, thanks for providing that information. You've mentioned that suitable habitat is absent for tricolored bat within the work area(s). Does that mean that repair work will not take place within forested riparian buffers or in/on culverts? If repair work won't take place in areas of suitable habitat ‐ or if it will take place in areas of suitable habitat but work will not cause impacts to bats (i.e. impacted culverts are inspected immediately prior to work and confirmed free of bats/signs of bat use and heavy equipment work won't take place within the forested riparian buffer (if that's what's at the bottom of the project, hard to say via the aerial)) ‐ then a No Effect determination may be appropriate. Once I have a better idea of those things I can give you some better feedback. Thanks! Holland Youngman (she/her) Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina, 28801 Cell: 828-575-3920 From: Tasha King <tking@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 1:22 PM To: Youngman, Holland J <holland_youngman@fws.gov> Cc: Kirsten Gimbert <kgimbert@wildlandseng.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Bug Headwater Mitigation Site Repairs ‐ Tricolored Bat consultation request This email has been received from outside of DOI ‐ Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. Dear Ms. Youngman, In the process of requesting a new 401/404 permit to conduct repairs at Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site (SAW‐2018‐ 01788, DMS Project #100084), the Army Corps of Engineers has requested that we consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus) due to its impending official listing this September. The Bug Headwaters stream restoration site is located in Wilkes County, NC off Austin Traphill Road in Traphill, NC (36.320698, ‐ 80.984329). Wildlands originally consulted with USFWS before construction in July 2018. No official response was received from USFWS at that time and a Categorical Exclusion package was approved by FHWA on 11/7/2018. A mitigation Plan was approved on September 2020 and construction was conducted between January and April 2021. Since then, heavy rains have caused erosional damage to project stream channels. Repairs include replacing damaged stream structures and bank stabilization. Construction repairs are scheduled for late September and should take approximately two weeks to complete. A mini excavator will be used to complete the repairs and access to the conservation easement will be along existing dirt farm roads through the open cow pastures surrounding it. 3 Construction crews will use the closest gate to the repair locations to access the stream channel. Please refer to the attached Figure 1 for repair locations. According to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer, the closest known tricolored bat occurrence is approximately 6.5 miles from the Bug Headwater Mitigation Site. No suitable habitat is present for the tricolored bat within the proposed repair or access areas. Thereby, Wildlands respectfully requests concurrence from USFWS with a species determination of “No effect” for the tricolored bat. If you require additional information to provide concurrence for this minor repair, please advise. We thank you in advance for your response. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Tasha King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tasha King | Environmental Scientist O: 919.851.9986 x116 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609