20020694 Ver 2_Mitigation Report_20160926

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

Project Settiniz, Backsround, and Performance Summary
The project is in Wilkes County, NC and was designed and permitted in 2002. It is in the western piedmont -foothills with an overall project drainage of about 5 m2 and is part of the Yadkin -Pee
Dee River Basin. The watershed is rural with nearly half being forested and just over half in agriculture that includes a significant proportion of pasture with about 2% being low density
residential and roadways. Other than the northwestern portion of the watershed, the topography includes significant relief, rolling hills, with many steep valley side slopes, particularly in the
projects northeastern and southwestern drainages as well as the —2 miles of mainstem directly above the project (see topographic map below). Many of these valley slopes are maintained as
pasture similar to that immediately surrounding the project boundary, which exhibits significant compaction. Collectively, this likely contributes to the somewhat flashy hydrology that has been
observed on the site.
The project involved the restoration of 3,914 feet of Little Bugaboo Creek, 2,328 feet of an upper and lower tributary and an additional —250 feet of the upper tributary acquired and enhanced in
2009, 4.5 years after the original construction. The latter took place at the same time that channel repairs on the mainstem were completed in 2009 and was driven by the desire to address the
significant stressor that this reach represented. This —250 foot segment remained accessible to livestock, had an undersized culvert, and was covered in very large, mature stems of Chinese
Privet. Sediments and manure were accumulating in the bed upstream of the culvert in significant quantities and were being periodically flushed down to project reaches. At the very top of this
reach was a fenced, forested area with higher slopes. This one 250 foot segment represented a significant stressor that EEP was unable to address with the landowner during the original
restoration effort and has subsequently enhanced the protective continuity and function of the project.
The restoration plan reported historic channelization of project reaches, unrestricted livestock access, removal of riparian vegetation and the presence of a mill dam just below the project that was
estimated to impound water and accumulate fine sediments approximately halfway up the project mainstem (see fig 1 below). The combination of these factors, the aforementioned hydrology,
and a significant sediment supply led to extremely severe lateral and vertical instability, as depicted in the pre -construction photos below. The mainstem and lower tributary were described
predominantly as F channels with BHRs of 2.3, and 3.9 respectively. The majority of each project reach was devoid of bedform diversity and any instream or riparian habitat. The restoration
involved a PII approach with an E channel design target for the mainstem and a C design target for the tributaries specified in the mitigation plan, although the W/D ratios were nearly identical
near or at the Rosgen stream type break of 12. The project approach included the installation of a native riparian buffer, livestock exclusion, stabilization of lateral drainage features/draws,
construction of more stable channel geometries and the introduction of stream structures for improved habitat, bank protection and grade control.
Shortly after construction, the project exhibited areas of adjustment or instability associated with a storm event and the project underwent repair and EEP was dissatisfied with many of the
structures built on the lower tributary. The contractors were instructed to rebuild and replace these. Additional areas of concern developed in the year immediately following final construction
and took the form of bank erosion primarily on meander bends, many of which had subsequently stabilized/arrested or were tempered with the continued development of vegetation. The bank
stability issues primarily occurred on the mainstem between the upper tributary to just below crossing in the middle of the project. In general, many areas demonstrated toe retreat and steepening
of bank angles, which is typical of many meandering streams in the piedmont as banks that are not in depostional zones (e.g. point bars) and were originally constructed at lower angles lose their
herbaceous cover with the onset of canopy. These areas are not considered areas of concern, because they adjust to these conditions and then remain relatively stable with the woody root mass
that has taken the place of the herbaceous cover. However, there were other areas of active scour and mass wasting that did develop. By year 4 and 5 these too seemed to arrest and were not
advancing further in terms of severity, frequency, or extent, except for one area upstream and surrounding the confluence with the upper tributary spanning mainstem stations 20+00 to 22+00.
Page 2 of 27

The cuts in the outer meanders here were definitely active and prompted the channel repair in this area 2009, which included supplemental planting in other areas along the mainstem with
additional livestaking throughout the project. Subsequently, in 2010 a large storm generated other areas of bank erosion on the mainstem and lower tributary and also produced 2 significant
structural cutarounds on each reach. The monitoring performed by EEP between 2010 and 2013 indicated that some of these areas stabilized while others have advanced. Additional livestaking
on the mainstem was also carried out in 2012. The year 3 report (2007) indicated that the proportion of bank instability ranged from the high single digits to the mid teens, but by year 5 (2009)
reporting indicated this had reduced to the low single digits in terms of the proportion of bank which had yet to stabilize. The storm in 2010 increased this upwards again and as of an April 2013
assessment approximately 5.5 and 6% of the mainstem and lower tributary respectively exhibited some form of erosion with about 3% in each case being considered active. Bank pins were
installed in July 2012. Of the 35 installed, 6 demonstrated bank retreat in 4 or 5 areas as of April 2013 (ranging from 0.1 to 1.4 feet — Mean = 0.85 feet), with remainder exhibiting no retreat for
an overall project mean of 0.15 feet. The cross sections surveyed in year 5 were resurveyed in early 2013 and have shown some adjustment. XS 3 and 4 on the mainstem exhibited some
movement, but with concomitant deposition on the opposing bank, while XS 5 is definitely continuing to migrate laterally with some enlargement of the area of XS 6. The latter was primarily
toe retreat. XS 1 on the lower trib exhibited a shift of its thalweg to the other side of the stream, while XS2 exhibited stability. Four additional riffle cross sections were shot in 2013, two on the
mainstem and two on the lower trib to contribute to the overall riffle mean for comparison to the design cross sectional area. The overall mean riffle area for the mainstem was 53 ft2 (n = 5) in
2013, which compared favorably to the design of 56, but there was variability (-35 — 75 ft). The tributary varied between 21 and 33 for a riffle mean of 27 ft2 , which was the same as the design
target. Another significant flood occurred in July 2013, which attained a maximum stage about 3 feet above the bench (see hydrograph below) and demonstrated flows 1-2 feet above baseflow
for a 3-4 day period. This was a somewhat rare event with extended flow duration and the channel responded with new scour in some areas and worsening of some existing areas with additional
bank pin responses. Of the 35 installed, 25 demonstrated some bank retreat for a mean of 0.66 feet. The total bank erosion amounted to 8 and 6% for the trib and mainstem with 4-5% in each
case being considered very active as of the August assessment. However, the flood features are routinely accessed (see over bank hydrology section below). Wrack and fresh deposition were
observed frequently throughout the project. The number of overbank events represents a minimum count given the methods used. Examining the crest gage that was put in place in 2012, it can
be seen that 2 overbank events were observed in that time frame even with a period of gage malfunction with 2 additional near overbank events.
The project was designed and constructed in the earliest period of stream restoration in North Carolina and aspects of project implementation were not in keeping with current practice and
understanding and also include what are now identified as risk factors such as: structure placement downstream of meander bends increasing in -channel storage capacity (i.e., pools in the
upstream section of riffles/runs); E channel design targets coupled with Priority II approaches absent expansive floodplains and advanced woody vegetation; as well as meandering floodplains.
These factors coupled with the aforementioned hydrology and sediment supply as well as the legacy sediments in the valley from the prior impoundment likely contributed to the instability that
was observed. However, the proportions of the project channels that demonstrate active instability are relatively small (4-5%) as of the April 2013 observation. Even with these localized areas
of instability, the project exhibits good instream habitat and diversity of bedform and the majority of the project is exhibiting stability. The project represents a significant improvement over the
pre-existing condition.
Although the easement is narrow in some locations, the size, density and diversity of the buffer is generally excellent. Chinese Privet began colonizing the site during the monitoring period but is
being treated in 2013 and 2014 along with other invasives, which have emerged. Three of the 14 vegetation plots did not meet the planted density requirements, but averaged about 500 stems per
acre. When including volunteers, the average is about 1400 stems per acre ranging from 283 to about 3400. The species count ranged from 3 to 13 per plot with a total of 26 native woody
species observed site wide.
Page 3 of 27

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

Mitigation
Components
Restoration
Segment/Reach
Mitigation
Approach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage/Acreage
Creditable
Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation Units
(SMU/WMU)
STREAM
6,408
Little Bugaboo Mainstem
R
2240
3914
3914
1:1
3914
Upper Tributary -1
R
102
439
439
1:1
439
Upper Tributary -2
E1
249
249
1.5:1
166
Lower Tributary
R
890
1889
1889
1:1
1889
Sums
3232 (5*iF7
6491
6491
6408
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation Units
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian
Total
Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Nutrient Offset
(SMU)
Units
Wetland Units
(WMU)
6,408
Page 5 of 27

i..
Figure 1. Li tle`ugarb© y'CrIf4)
Asset and orntoting Fe � srp`. '
.d
„
y
f .
¢ Y1tY1 :i�
,,_
1 � �
et
m

y +`Maptech@ S S Topogra hic Seri §T"' ©gip echo I 8 933-3000
wv�"w:r�apti�c .com/fopo; • �''�(—j-
7 r.
IM'ma \ �
opyngh �� .�
O
24
C
348
g?/
C 36
y / r G
��♦ h p' �___ 4 Watershed Area
1.39 sq miles
f ) 9ps
'�-....d°' ij a � -~ �s4�W" `_♦, `2qg � �t , a 4A���J I � 74 � I\ �? � Y '^\ 4°, ~
M
tl1
- ,..jam-i,,� �1i�' ! j • •` ( � _� � •' � ♦..
fl_ a /�__ . o,. ♦, .. x996 � r� � � ..
.'ate , /F` xry• ` f . �, 1I00 `", >> Site 'f L
\� � -l7r 1� . � � \ •Ui, - a. ��, z f - 4�_ �, "�.^rt''��..,. t�' �` lr ,1 �� �,..• ���.
Lit jay/-�L l i _. :`�',�} �i i� �j"� \"•O,_ 1996 .fie-,.---�,i "' % ( °�¢,�'`...-� -
d 7 l
Watershed Area / zJ6 f �r
3.45 sq miles
Source: USGS Quadrangles: 0 1,250 2,500 51000
Thurmond, NC, 1971; Ronda, NC, 1971; N.C. Wetlands Restoration Program
Roaring River, NC, 1966, Traphill, NC 1968. Feet NCDENR DWQ_
ASHE SURRY
FIGURE 4
WILKES Little Bugaboo Creek Watershed
AUGA � DKIN
Little Bugaboo Creek Restoration Plan
- Wilkes County, North Carolina
C ELL
(�ALEXANDER� IRE D L
DW7

. f
Easement Boundary
Stream Assets
Restoration Level
t
Standard Restoration 1:1 a•
Enhancement 11.5:1 - Ilk.
Single Sided Easement No Credit � ' ",-JJ�
itr' s "4.
- Stream Structures�+,y�
Prior Beaver Dam Removal Locations . !,+'' �� �y z - ¢'� •'":
V
2009 Repair Zone
ILI
,.: ., v 'a.1f ��.:`. ^ri moi,' �' _ -•r ,
IC,
Supplemental Planting Area
2009
Outer Meanders in This Area . ,..
Containerized WRC Materials
Livestaking Throughout Project
11:
�' ^ Fencing Contingency Area
0 400 800 1,600 2,400 3,200
Feet

Figure 3. Maintenance Plan View.
Legend
---------- Silt fence
Road ea;
Top of bank
--------- Area of disturbance
To existing gravel road � �
xwe noe.sy
aFRM
NFNTc
119.. _.. ,,,,'\ -- �VSFRtrAproNFgaFMFryr
cs
\.20\CROSS SEC F1 ON #3
S 80^ 32 16.4- F \ Install, - '(EMpOR
85727 ' ,.• � _\.. � ... ....� -
rock j -hook at r at Station 20+80
.. _ end � y
Removed mid -channel bar; reshaped
left bank for proper cross-section dimension
from station station 21+00 to station 21+80
Installed rock sill to mitigate headcut
— Stockpile
Area
— ' � ' ' ' TFMw sb>FFN•'
o&,qRY cF
C7
2
+ 2
Installed rock j -hook at station 21+90 - t`7 4
N
Cg
6 �. xW 107
a tih
+ 25 s,
a
J tb
?4
Installed rock to raise elevation
of existing cross vane
we„ z Access through pasture -
S
FiyO /oN�
Not OS /
Plan view map 7saut[o scale. Se `r Vq I
2.S trucn, €plat tit on pI n sheetcpre fo I ton only - .Oereri NF• �` � .
Actual placemen[ ahaltfie-duected by Project Coord`f*amr. \ Pyan S
e
R er_
Const Seque ce - '+z, OT 1'b , 19 Construction Sequence (continued) - g -(EP -P
I. Obtain plan approval and other applicable permits A , 12. Shape streambanks to design elevations and construct bankfull benches.Sl*e from the back ofthe bankfull benches toexisting gr i d
2. Stockpile sediment and erostoz8 t:omrolmatenals on site. ar , - elevation not to exceed 2l „install in -stream structures. Covet disturbed ground with salvaged sod mats or seed, fertilize, and cover with coir
3. Stake sensitive areas, construction limits and corridors as indicated on construction plans. matting and/or straw mulch by the e °
4. Move heavy equipment on site and walk through entire project with contractor. _13 R move pumps and temporary dikes than w within the arm= channel at the end of each day.
N 5. Install temporary -gravel constmetumentmnces, as needed. .,,'�Ot _ - 14. Fertilize,
lime, seed, and mulch all remaining disturbed areas at the end of each day. '.
6. Install sediment and erosion control measures around staging and stockpiling aresa p `8 15. Upon completing a section, heavy equipment and pumps will be moved to the next section using log mats to cross existing tributaries and ditches_
7. Haul boulders, mot wads, and logs to the site for building stream structures. et%-� - �'-- 16. Install permanent fencing.
8. Install temporary dikes and pumps necessary to dewater the portion of channel being worked on each day, as necessary. - -- 17. Upon lRimpletion of construction, all remaining disturbed areas will be repaired.
9. Project will be constructed by first replacing the CMP, enhancing the unnamed tributary, and completing maintenance on Little Bugaboo Creekl8. IFemove all equipment and unused construction materials, g y project -
10. Sequence construction an that the Restore the unnamed tributaries dimension and profile from the downstream end, working to upstre_a_ m. 19: FerWize, lime, seed and mulch all remaining disturbed areas.
als, includin an trash or waste, from t site.
11. Soil disturbance will be limited to only what work can be accomplished and stabilized on a daily basis. - _ 20 --quer site is ambilized, remove Mlat p ry - g , _�y � i 7 U
control measures I MIN CL I
nd of each work day. _ _ 21 Install bare -root, container grown, and hi c stake plane material during the domrant gr m season.
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION
WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT GROUP Little Bugaboo Creek Mitigation Site Maintenance to Little Bugaboo Creek
P. O. BOX 387 336-527-1547 OFFICE
ELKIN, NORTH CAROLINA 28621 336-527-1548 FAX
Wilkes County, North Carolina
EEP Project Number: 00056
Little Bugaboo Creek 8
EEP Project Number: 00056
2009 Maintenance Report — Draft, June 2010
Plan View
SHEET
1
OF 1

age 12 of 2
UT to Bugaboo Creek/ Project No. 00056
Cross -Section 1 -Pool
1110
1120
1118
UT to Bugaboo Creek XS 2 - Year 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay
1109
1108
1112
1107
C 1106
1116
c
1106
1105
0 1110
1104
1109
W 1103
1112
W
1110
1102
1101
1100
1108
1099
1105
1106
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60
Station
1105
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
—F Year 2 - 11/06 f Year 3 - 11/07 X Year 4 - 12/15/08
Year 5 - 12/10/09 Closeout- 2/6/13
1106
0+00
0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00
Station
2-11106(Year 3- 11/07 —Year 4- 12/16/055 - 12/11/19 —Closeout - 216/13
7t:yy7,:_-7
0
1104
age 12 of 2
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross -Section 3 - Riffle
1120
1118
UT to Bugaboo Creek XS 2 - Year 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay
1112
1107
1111
1116
c
1106
0 1110
1114
1109
1112
W
1110
1108
w
1108
1105
1106
1105
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
1106
0+00
0+20 0+40 0+60 0+80 1+00
Station
2-11106(Year 3- 11/07 —Year 4- 12/16/055 - 12/11/19 —Closeout - 216/13
7t:yy7,:_-7
0
1104
f Year 2 - 11/06 Year 3 - 11/07 Year 4 - 12/16/08
�Year5-12/11/09 —Closeout -216113
age 12 of 2
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross -Section 4 - Riffle
1113
UT to Bugaboo Creek XS 2 - Year 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay
1112
1107
1111
1106
0 1110
1109
1108
w
1107
1105
1106
1105
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
2-11106(Year 3- 11/07 —Year 4- 12/16/055 - 12/11/19 —Closeout - 216/13
7t:yy7,:_-7
0
1104
m
w
1103
11102-
1101
1100
1099
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station
—0--Year2-11/06--+—Year3-11/07—Year4-12/15/08—x— Year 5-12/10/09
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross -Section 4 - Riffle
1113
1112
1111
0 1110
1109
1108
w
1107
1106
1105
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
2-11106(Year 3- 11/07 —Year 4- 12/16/055 - 12/11/19 —Closeout - 216/13
7t:yy7,:_-7

Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross -Section 6 - Riffle
1100
1099
Left Pin was Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
reset during Cross -Section 5 - Pool
1098
01097
closeout due to failing bank
>1096
^: r
"'1095
1104
1094
1102
1093
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
—$--Year 1 - 2/06 Year 2 - 11106 Year 3 - 11/07
Year 4 12/16!08 —Year 5 - 12/11/09 Closeout - 216113
1100
1111
0
1109
1098
1107
a0
W 1096
1094
1105
1103
1092
LU
-0+10
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
Year 1 - 2/06 Year 2 - 11/06 Year 3 - 11/07
-
Year 4 - 12/16/08 Year 5 - 12/11/09 Closeout 2/6/13
1099
V
V
Bugaboo Creek / Project No. 00056
Cross -Section 6 - Riffle
1100
1099
Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (0-2000)
1098
01097
Stations differ between monitoring years.
>1096
^: r
"'1095
1094
1093
0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70
Station
—$--Year 1 - 2/06 Year 2 - 11106 Year 3 - 11/07
Year 4 12/16!08 —Year 5 - 12/11/09 Closeout - 216113
Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (0-2000)
Stations differ between monitoring years.
1113
1111
1109
1107
a0
to
d
1105
1103
LU
1101
-
1099
V
V
1097
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1800 2000
Station (ft)
Year 1 - 2/06 -Year 2 - 11/06 Year 3 - 11/07 Year 4 - 12/15/08 and 12/16/08 Year 5 - 12/11/09 -2009 Water Surface
2009 Structure

Bugaboo Creek - Year 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 Overlay (2000-4500)
Stations differ between monitoring years.
UT to Little Bugaboo Creek
1102
Longitudinal Profile, Year 2 and 3 Overlay
1100
Overlay adjusted by matching cross section 1.
1098
0
1096
-
�
-
0
1094
°'
1100-
1095_....
w
1092
- _ -
1090
iw=
LU
1088
1085
1086
0 200
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Station
1084
Year 2 - 11/06 -Year 3 - 11/07 Year 4 - 12/15/08 Water Surface 2008 Structure
1082
2000
2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Station (ft)
Year 1 -2/06 Year 2 -11/06 Year 3 -11/07 -Year 4 -12/15/08 and 12/16/08 Year 5 - 12/11/09 -2009 Water Surface • 2009 Beaver Dam 2009 Structure
UT to Little Bugaboo Creek
Longitudinal Profile, Year 2 and 3 Overlay
Overlay adjusted by matching cross section 1.
1115
0
1110 -'-
1105
-
�
-
°'
1100-
1095_....
- _ -
iw=
1090
1085
0 200
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Station
Year 2 - 11/06 -Year 3 - 11/07 Year 4 - 12/15/08 Water Surface 2008 Structure

Table VIII: Morohologv and Hvdraulic Monitoring Summary
Table VIII: Mornhologv and Hvdraulic Monitoring Summary (cont.)
Table 11a. 2013 Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Little Bugaboo
Mainstem
Unnamed Tributary
EEP Project Number 00056
XS -3
Riffle
XS -4
Riffle
XS -5
Pool
Little Bugaboo Creek
UT Project Number 00056
XS -1 Riffle - XS -8 Riffle
Extra Extra
Parameter
Parameter
1112.8
Cross Section 1
Pool
1100.2
1096.5
Cross Section 2
Riffle
995.669
XS -2 Riffle
Dimension
Parameter
MY3 MY4 MY5
Cross Section 3
Riffle
MY3
MY4
MY5
Cross Section 4
Pool
23.5
13.8
Cross Section 5
Pool
15.6
18.8
17.4
Cross Section 6
Riffle
12.6
14.7
Dimension
Myl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYI
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MYl
M12
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
27.1
19.3
22.4
20.8
45.6
20.6
14 22.6 22.5
17.5
31.3
27.3
19
17.3
19.6
17.8
13.3
13.2
15.7
20.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
91.3
91
80.5
95
95
68.8
49.3 >50 >50
60
52.8 >50
8.2
>55 >55
55
39
45
38
45
45
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
63.2
45.7
51.3
60.5
65.2
34
21.6 42.4 41.7
37.1
47
31
39.2
42.1
59.2
20.6
23.1
21
23.5
42.6
BF Mean Depth
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.9
1.4
1.7
1.5 1.9 1.9
2.1
1.5
1.1
2.1
2.4
3
1.2
1.7
1.6
1.5
2
BF MaxDepth
4.7
4.2
3.2
4.4
5.1
3.7
2.6 2.9 3.7
3.5
5
4.4
4.6
4.5
5.2
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.3
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
8.2
9.7
7.2
31.9
12.5
9.1 12 12.2
8.3
20.8
24.1
9.2
7.2
6.5
15.5
7.7
8.3
10.5
10.3
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
4.7
3.6
4.6
2.1
3.3
3.5 >2.2 >2.2
3.4
1.7 >1.8
>2.9
3.2
2.8
2.2
3.4
2.9
2.9
2.1
Bank Height Ratio
1
1.4
1
1 --
I 1 1
1 --
1.4
1
1
1 --
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30
21.8
24.2
24
49.6
22.9
15.8 24.3 25
19.5
36.2
32.4
24.1
22.5
25.8
19.3
14.8
15.3
17.6
24.1
Hydraulic radius (ft)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.5
1.3
1.5
1.4 1.7 1.7
1.9
1.3
1
1.6
1.9
2.3
1.1
1.6
1.4
1.31
1.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
5
6
7
1.8
3.5
0.29
13 1.1 9.9
18
0.29
0.94
0.69
0.2
0.45
21.13
48
46
6.9
45
P84 (mm)
151
64
181
181
38
2.33
59 1.7 371
1101
2
481
30
11
6
54.5
130
90
31
110
Table VIII: Mornhologv and Hvdraulic Monitoring Summary (cont.)
Table 11a. 2013 Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Little Bugaboo
Mainstem
Unnamed Tributary
EEP Project Number 00056
XS -3
Riffle
XS -4
Riffle
XS -5
Pool
XS -6
Riffle
XS -1 Riffle - XS -8 Riffle
Extra Extra
Parameter
Parameter
1112.8
Cross Section 1
Pool
1100.2
1096.5
Cross Section 2
Riffle
995.669
XS -2 Riffle
Dimension
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MYl MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
23.5
13.8
15.1 14.6
15.6
18.8
17.4
14.8
12.6
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
52 >42.7
2.5
>47 >45 >45
2.5
32.4 >81.0
15.1
>50 >51
>51
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
38.3
23.3
25.5 29.3
33.3
30.7
30.5
26.9
28
32.3
BF Mean Depth
1.6
1.7
1.7 2
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.2
BF Max Depth
3.8
3.5
3.7 3.5
3.7
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.5
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
8.2
9 7.3
7.3
11.5
9.9
8.2
5.7
6.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2 >3.1
>3.1 3.1
2.9
1.7 >4.7
>3.4
4
3.5
Bank Height Ratio
--
1
1 1
1 --
1
1
1
1
Wetted Peritneter (ft)
25.7
17.5
18.2 18.9
19.8
20.7
19.6
17.8
15.3
17.6
Hydraulic radius (ft)
1.5
1.3
1.4 1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.2
12
0.38 8.9
4.3
23.4
22
55
7.1
9.4
P84 (mm)
0.71
681
901 451
23
51.31
681
1001
341
33
Table 11a. 2013 Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Little Bugaboo
Mainstem
Parameter
Dimension
XS -3
Riffle
XS -4
Riffle
XS -5
Pool
XS -6
Riffle
XS -1 Riffle - XS -8 Riffle
Extra Extra
Parameter
Record Elevation (datum) Used
1112.8
1109.7
1100.2
1096.5
998.155
995.669
XS -2 Riffle
Bankfull width (ft)
20.7
19.4
45.2
19.4
30.4
14.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>97.2
>50
>100
>50
>50
>30.3
Record Elevation (datum) Used
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
3.1
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.3
15.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1
4.8 1
3.4 1
6.5 1
3.1
4.3
3.2
62.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
64.1
50.8
114.2
38.7
75.2
34.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.7
7.4
17.9
9.7
12.3 1
6.3
33.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.7 1
>2.6 1
>2.2
>2.6
>1.6 1
>2.1
0 12
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0 1
1.2 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Table Ila. 2013 Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary UT to Little
Bubaboo
Parameter
XS-UT1
XS-UT2
XS -1 Pool
XS -2 Riffle
Riffle
Dimension
Riffle Extra
Extra
Record Elevation (datum) Used
1104.430
1103.213
999.666
994.556
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.6
15.1
11.5
15.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50
>50
>50
62.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.0
2.2
1.9
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.3
2.8
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
36.3
33.4
21.4
27.1
n-L4;M Alr.,t.h/n-.t, n.,.:,.
n c
a o
c 1
0 12

Overbank Events -Bugaboo Creek
Date of Observation
Date of Occurrence
Method(s)
s
2/4/2005
Unknown
Floodplain Indicator Photos
12/2/2007
Jan -07
USGS Proxy
12/16/2008
Aug -08
USGS Proxy
12/16/2008
Nov -08
USGS Proxy and Photos Doc
12/10/2009
Unknown
USGS and Photo Doc
1/29/2010
Jan -10
Photo Doc - Fresh deposition and wrack
1/28/2011
Unknown
Photo Doc - Fresh deposition and wrack
12/26/2012
12/26/2012
90% bankfull occurrence
1/17/2013
1/17/2013
Continuous Stage Recorder
1/30/2013
1/30/2013
95% bankfull occurrence - Continuous Rec
7/5/2013
7/5/2013
12 X bankfull - Continuous Rec
Little Bugaboo
7
fi
s
a
C+
W
.Approximate Rankfull 3.5 Feet
3
2
I
Gauge Malfunction
u
Page 16 of 27

Page 17 of 27
... (MY6 2010)
Callicarpa americana
Fagusgrandifolia 'American beech
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
Pinusvirginiana
Platanus occidental is
Sambucus canadensis
Stem count
size (ares)
0
0
0
©d
©0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems perACRE
Page 17 of 27

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

Pre -Construction Photos
Page 19 of 27

go-,
•
Pfm
',
MEW
Q }
qv
7 / 1,r11•
� r
t
i/
l
w
411

Post -Construction Photos

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

APPENDIX A - Watershed Planning Summary
Figure A-1. Bugaboo Creek Project Site and EEP TLWs
Little' Wer 8 Bru Creek _
v
SURRY
�i
Bugaboo � - h,Ttchell Rives
■ j% � �i. jib ,/ �// j j j CPE2k.
VIVILi(ES
Edon -
0
�/9-
n
Janesville _ e
iYADMN
Upper Yadkin 1 v trwM,,_b,d -`
Kerr Scutt s U r c EEF• C4.
Reservoir LWP «
Legend ,
❑ EEP Projects- 2013 Closeouts
•
EEP Projects (Tier lr
= Agricultural BM Ps (Yadkin 01) -
319 Projects H—twn Creex
1 DAIMTF Sites 0
EEP Local Watershed Plans IN �
EEPTargeted Local Watersheds WE EEP 2013 Project Closeout 0 1 2 4
O Catalog Units 1�` Mlles
® County Boundaries s Bugaboo Creek'Y'adkin3U4Q141) Rev_ 12June2013

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

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200220955 County: Wilkes
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property
Owner NC Wetlands Restoration Program
Attn: Jeff Jurek _
Address 1619 Mail Service Center
Ralei h NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number 336-733-5208
Authorized
Agent NA
Address
Telephone Number.
Size and Location of Fro er wnterbod ffi-thw4d One/number town etc.: The project is
located along Bugaboo Creek and Little Bugaboo Creek, north of Roaring River, Wilkes County, North
Carolina. The site is located in the 'Yadkin River Basin,.
_Description of Activity: This permit authorizes stream channel excavation and relocation, the placement
of Fill material (stream diversion plugs), and the installation of in -stream structures (including coir fiber
rolls, log and rock vanes, root wads, riprap, etc.) associated with the construction of the little Bugaboo
Stream Restoration Project. Impacts to existing waters of the U.S. authorized by this permit total 6,30
linear feet of stream channel. Sec attached special conditions.
Applicable Law: _XSection 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only_
Authorization: Regional General Permit Dumber
2� Nationwide Permit Number
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may
subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General :Permit or Nationwide Permit verification docs not
relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local
approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before
beginning work. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program,
please contact Todd Tugwell at telephone number_ (919) 876 - 8$41 extension 26
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Authorization Date July 15, 2002 Expiration Date Jut 15 21104
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CF:
T,nn/7nn•; OTAQ:# eg'i ZKd Z�VSn EZ899L86t6 LZ=80 ZOOZ,9Z'�nv

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Copy
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 200900224 County: Wilkes
USGS Quad: Ronda
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Address: ATTN: Mr. Gregory Melia
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Telephone No.: 919-715-0476
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): The project site is located off Hoots Road
(SR 2014) approximately 3 miles northwest of Ronda, in Wilkes County, North Carolina. The water bodies include
Little Bugaboo Creek and an unnamed tributary to Little Bugaboo Creek, both are within the Yadkin River Basin.
Description of projects area and activity: This permit MODIFICATION verifies permanent impacts to 200 linear
feet of stream channel within Little Bugaboo Creek for the purpose of restoring damaged areas of a previous
restoration site (NWP 3). In addition, permanent impacts to 285 linear feet to an unnamed tributary to Little
Bul4aboo Creek are verified for stream enhancement (NWP 27). All work must be in compliance with the plans
attached to the permit application. Since the purpose of this work is stream restoration, no compensatory
mitigation is required. This permit contains Special Conditions (please see below).
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 3 and 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revoca(ion. 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. Y'ou
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAM A),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal- Management .
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Monte Matthews.
Permit Condition: 1) Due to previous information concerning this site and the overall need for repair work, additional
monitoring will be required. Therefore, the 5 (five) year monitoring period will restart with the implementation of
impacts verified under this permit. If 3 (three) consecutive years of monitoring shows a successful and stable project, the
Corps Representative may eliminate the remaining 2 years of monitoring.
2) Since the restoration work to the unnamed tributary is for mitigation, all standard 5 -year monitoring requirements
apply.
Page 1 of 3

Corps Regulatory Official: Monte Matthews �!!—� •� Date: February 13, 2009
Expiration Date of Verification: February 13, 2011
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue ro do so.
please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http://I'eeulatory.usacesurvey.comi to complete the survey
online.
Page 2 of 3

Mitigation Project Name Bugaboo Creek
EEP IMS ID 56
River Basin YADKIN
Cataloging Unit 03040101
Armlied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 0.5:1 1:1 1:1
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/09/2013
E E°
EE```3oo
E dEo
W
ytL
A E m
L D:O
O.
m0oEm
Z 2Z
L
Z W
ir/,N
p d
z`
L
IO W
UM
L
o
m 0
U
L
n E
m L
U W
LI
U a
L7COO
C
2.
yU
`� N
��
3
E w
y0t
0W
�'m Z Z
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
6,242.00 249.00
NCDOT Pre-EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits feet and acres):
DWQ Permits USACE Action IDs Impact Project Name
NCDOT TIP R -2239C -
1999-0492 1999-20833 Widening of US 421
6,141.00 133.50
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
101.00 115.50
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 08/09/2013