20140129 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2016_20170510

Monitoring Report
Year 2
FINAL
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
NCDEQ-DMS Project Number: 94147
Contract Number: 2029
USA CE Action ID: 2014-0386
DWR Permit: 14-0129
Cabarrus County
Data collection: September 2016
Submitted: March 2017
i
N
Prepared for:
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

Prepared by:
L
B]`�
Louis Berger
Louis Berger
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager:
Ed Samanns
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Setting and Background......................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Success Criteria.................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Mitigation Components and Design................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Monitoring Year 1 Conditions Assessment.................................................................................... 3
1.5.1 Vegetation Assessment................................................................................................................. 3
1.5.2 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................4
1. 5.3 Site Boundary Assessment............................................................................................................ 6
2.0 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Geomorphology.................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Longitudinal Profiles........................................................................................................................ 7
2.3 Cross Sections & Particle Size Distribution................................................................................... 7
2.4 Vegetation Monitoring...................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Hydrological Monitoring..................................................................................................................8
2.6 Photo Points & Visual Assessment.................................................................................................. 8
3.0 References.............................................................................................................................................. 9
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

Appendices
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map & Background Tables
Figure 1— Project Vicinity Map
Figure Al — Credit Generation Map
Table 1 — Project Mitigation Components
Table 2 — Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 —Project Contacts Table
Table 4 —Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2a -2j — Integrated Current Condition Plan View-MY2
Table 5a -g — Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6a -e — Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photo Appendices A-E: Vegetation Monitoring Photographs, Cross Section Photographs, Photo Station
Photographs, Problem Area Photographs, Significant Flow Events
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 — Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 —Total Planted Stems
Table 9 — CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata and Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with
Annual Means)
Appendix D. Stream Measurement & Geomorphology Data
Table I Oaa-af — Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table l0ba-bg — Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distribution)
Table 11 as-ag — Monitoring Data: Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross
Section)
Table 1 lba-bf — Monitoring Data: Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 3a -d — Longitudinal Profile Plots
Figure 4a -o — Cross-section Plots
Figure 5a -o —Pebble Count Plots
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 12 — Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Figure 6a -e — Water Level and Rainfall Plots
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Project Setting and Background
The Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation site is located in Cabarrus County, North Carolina, two miles
southwest of the Town of Gold Hill, and 12 miles east of Kannapolis. The site encompasses approximately
47 acres of former cattle pasture, crop land and riparian forest along Little Buffalo Creek and portions of
seven unnamed tributaries (Figures 1 and 2). Little Buffalo Creek is located within the Yadkin River Basin
(03040105; 03040105020060). Historic land use at the site had consisted primarily of ranching activities
that had allowed cattle access to the stream and riparian zone. Several reaches of the stream have bedrock
in their streambed and vertical migration of the stream has been confined to a small percentage of the project
site.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Restoration project include, but are not limited to, the
enhancement of water quality and aquatic/terrestrial habitat, stream stability improvement, and erosion
reduction. The uplift of these stream functions specifically requires:
• Protecting and improving water quality through the removal or minimization of the biological,
chemical, and physical stressors:
o Reducing sediment input into the stream from erosion;
o Reducing non -point pollutant impacts by removing livestock access (including restoring forested
buffer;
o Protecting headwater springs.
• Improving aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat:
o Moderating stream water temperatures by improving canopy coverage over the channel;
o Restoring, enhancing, reconnecting, and protecting valuable wildlife habitat.
• Restore floodplain connectivity:
o Reestablishing floodplain connection thereby dissipating energy associated with flood flows.
In addition to the ecological uplift that the project will provide to the Site through the improvement of the
stream functions, this project establishes the following environmentally advantageous goals:
• Providing a water source for livestock removed from the stream and riparian corridor;
• Reducing the number of locations that livestock are able to cross the stream;
• Providing a safe and environmentally appropriate stream crossing point for livestock.
In order to achieve the project goals, Berger proposes to accomplish the following objectives:
• Fence the cattle out of the stream and riparian corridor;
• Remove invasive vegetative species from the riparian corridor;
• Restore and enhance unstable portions of the stream;
• Preserve the stream channel and banks through a conservation easement;
• Plant the riparian corridor with native tree and shrub vegetation.
The expected ecological benefits and goals associated with the Little Buffalo Creek site mitigation plan
serve to meet objectives consistent with the resource protection objectives detailed in the Yadkin -Pee Dee
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 2008.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

1.3 Project Success Criteria
Streams
For stream hydrology, a minimum of two bankfull events must be documented within the standard 5 -year
monitoring period. In order for the monitoring to be considered complete, the two verification events must
occur in separate monitoring years. All of the morphologic and channel stability parameters will be
evaluated in the context of hydrologic events to which the system is exposed.
Dimension — General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain
features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional
stability. For stream dimension, cross-sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross-sectional
area, and the channel's width to depth ratios should demonstrate relative stability in order to be
deemed successful.
Pattern — Pattern features should show little adjustment over the standard 5 year monitoring period.
Rates of lateral migration need to be moderate.
Profile — For the channels' profile, the reach under assessment should not demonstrate any trends
in thalweg aggradation or degradation over any significant continuous portion of its length. Over
the monitoring period, the profile should also demonstrate the maintenance or development of
bedform (facets) more in keeping with reference level diversity and distributions for the stream
type in question. It should also provide a meaningful contrast in terms of bedform diversity against
the pre-existing condition. Bedform distributions, riffle/pool lengths and slopes will vary, but
should do so with maintenance around design distributions. This requires that the majority of pools
are maintained at greater depths with lower water surface slopes and riffles are shallow with greater
water surface slopes.
Substrate and Sediment Transport — Substrate measurements should indicate progression towards,
or maintenance of the known distributions from the design phase. Sediment Transport should be
deemed successful in by absence of any significant trend in the aggradation or depositional
potential of the channel.
Vegetation
Survival of woody species planted at mitigation sites should be at least 320 stems/acre through year three.
A 10 percent mortality rate will be accepted in year four (288 stems/acre) and another 10 percent in year
five resulting in a required survival rate of 260 trees/acre through year five. This is consistent with
Wilmington District (1993) guidance for wetland mitigation (USACE 2003).
1.4 Mitigation Components and Design
The Little Buffalo Creek Site consists of six reaches along the mainstem and seven unnamed tributaries
(UTs). The mainstem of Little Buffalo Creek as well as UT 4 and UT 7 are perennial streams. The
remainders of the UTs are intermittent streams associated with groundwater seeps. This stream mitigation
project includes reaches of restoration, enhancement, and preservation along the mainstem and the
associated UTs. In total, the Site will provide 13,362 linear feet of restoration, enhancement, and
preservation (Tables 1 & 4). A summary of restoration and enhancement activity and reporting history can
be found in Table 2.
Restoration activities have established a new, stable stream channel with the appropriate dimension, pattern
and profile to transport perennial flow and sediment and have re -connected the stream to its floodplain.
Reestablishment of native riparian forest vegetation and installation of cattle exclusion fencing were also
performed as part of the restoration activities. Enhancement activities included reestablishing native
riparian vegetation within a 50 -foot easement along each bank of the stream corridor and excluding cattle
with fencing. In the case of enhancement level I the activities included reshaping or relocating the bed and
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

banks and riparian forest planting. Preservation was conducted within portions of the stream corridors that
have intact riparian forests and stable stream reaches and included excluding cattle with fencing. At a 1:1
ratio for restoration, 1.5:1 for enhancement level I, 2.5:1 for enhancement level Il, and a 5:1 ratio for
preservation, the DMS will receive, as of January 2017, approximately 6,411 stream mitigation units from
the Site (Table 1). In addition, approximately 47 acres of riparian buffer have been protected within a
conservation easement. This stream credit generation has the potential to increase to 6,450 stream
mitigation units as a result of additional enhancement level I work conducted in the fall of 2016 within a
portion of UT3. This area, previously assessed as enhancement level II, had additional entrenched portions
of the tributary graded to re -connect the channel with its floodplain and the riparian zone replanted.
1.5 Monitoring Year 2 Conditions Assessment
1.5.1 Vegetation Assessment
In Year 2 of monitoring, four vegetation monitoring plots are exceeding requirements by 10% (436 to 823
stems/acre), two vegetation monitoring plots are exceeding requirements by less than 10% (each 339
stems/acre), two vegetation monitoring plots fail to meet requirements by less than 10% (each 290
stems/acre), and four vegetation monitoring plots are failing to meet requirements by over 10% (97 to 242
stems/acre). Recruitment of native plant seedlings was recorded in 11 of 12 monitoring plots (Tables 6, 7,
8, and 9). The current average estimate of 395 planted stems per acre for the site is exceeding the required
success criteria of 320 stems per acre. Uplift in previously poor performing areas is due to the additional
planting of approximately 3,000 trees within 7 riparian areas covering 7.6 acres that took place in February
2016. Any deficiencies are primarily associated with the areas around the six monitoring plots failing to
meet requirements. The likely cause of the poor performance in these areas, as well as lower than expected
survival in some replanted areas, is due mostly to an incident where a herd of cattle were allowed back into
the easement for an extended period of time. The intruding cattle grazed some of the planted stems and
trampled a small number of them as well. Additional planting of approximately 3,500 trees within 9 riparian
areas covering approximately 8.5 acres will take place in March 2017. Tree establishment and survival will
continue to be monitored.
Significant growth was observed in planted American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), and black willow (Salix nigra) trees. This is most
likely due to more normal precipitation levels in 2016 (NOAA Historical Palmer Drought Indices) and less
grazing by cattle on these specific plant species. Tree establishment and survival will continue to be
monitored.
Black willow and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) live stakes throughout the restoration areas are doing
well and very few have been observed to be dead. Surviving stakes are growing quickly and are already
contributing to bank stability. Soft rush (Juncus effusus) has become established on parts of the stream bank
and is adding additional stability to sections of UT7 and UT3. Additional stability is being provided by
grasses and sedges that have become established on banks throughout the site. Volunteer crop cover is no
longer present and has been outcompeted by other species such as goldenrods (Solidago), asters (Aster),
jimsonweed (Datura), and native grasses.
Previously there were areas within the riparian buffer that were having low success in establishing
herbaceous vegetation cover due to drought and sections of bank scour. These areas included approximately
300 feet along the mainstem of Reach 1, approximately 130 feet along the mainstem of Reach 4, and
approximately 530 feet of UT 3. These problem areas were reseeded with annual ryegrass and native forbs
in February 2016. Reseeded areas total approximately 1.8 acres and make up 53% of E1 areas and 20% of
restoration areas.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

The herbaceous cover in the 300 foot length of Reach 1 has improved since reseeding. The herbaceous
cover in the 130 foot section along the mainstem of reach 4 has improved slightly since reseeding, and the
herbaceous cover in the 530 foot section of UT3 is somewhat improved though sections have been affected
by scour and cattle grazing. Despite a period of cattle intrusion, overall herbaceous cover throughout the
site has greatly increased. This is most likely the result of more normal precipitation levels following a
drought year (NOAA Historical Palmer Drought Indices). Additional native grass and forb seeding will be
performed in the spring of 2017 to address any remaining areas with poor herbaceous cover establishment.
Past treatment and removal of privet (Ligustrum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and tree -of -heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) from riparian areas has been mostly successful, though a few problem areas remain
and follow up treatment will be performed. Through site inspections, tree -of -heaven is still established at
the upstream ends of both UT 2 (approx. 45 Oft) and UT 7 (approx. 400ft), as well as four large trees between
UT4 and UT3 (Figure 2). The larger trees at UT7 have been treated with herbicide and at time of monitoring
were either dead or dying. However, they still produced seeds or root sprouts and will require further
control. The UT 2 area was treated but will require further treatment as well. Privet continues to be present
in various areas throughout the site, particularly on the upper portion of UT2 and the lower portion of UT7.
Privet and tree -of -heaven were removed by hand from areas along UT 7 and UT 2 in February of 2016.
During the Year 2 monitoring event in September of 2016 tree -of -heaven and princess tree were removed
by hand from areas along UT 7, UT 2, Reach 3, and Reach 1. Both privet and tree -of -heaven will be treated
with herbicide application again in spring of 2017 in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture
(NCDA) rules and regulations.
1.5.2 Stream Assessment
For most of the site there has been very little change from the Year 1 monitoring survey completed in
September 2015 in regards to stream stability and conditions. The primary issue identified in Year 2
monitoring has been damage to multiple reaches and tributaries due to the intrusion by cattle. UT2 and
UT3, as smaller tributaries with soft clay soils, took the most observable damage. Cattle crossing and
grazing within the inner channel of the lower stem of UT2, near the confluence of Little Buffalo Creek, and
all of UT3 enhancement level I and restoration work, has formed areas with deep divots. Despite this
damage, the tops of banks remain stable and in good condition. Based on the soil types of these tributaries
and sediment load, it is believed that the damage can be reversed naturally through a significant flow events
that will re -deposit sediment within the depressions in the channel. UT4 and Reach 3 and 4 of Little Buffalo
Creek all showed minor damage to the channels due to cattle, and all in isolated spots of each segment.
With the exception of Reach 3, it is believed all damage can be reversed naturally through a significant
storm event. During the spring 2017 maintenance work, the damaged areas will be re-evaluated to determine
if signs of recovery area present, such as recent deposition. If it is evident that the stream segments cannot
recover in a short period without intervention, action will be taken to fix the sections accordingly.
In early winter 2016, DENR representatives conducted a site visit to observe site conditions following a
significant flow event. As part of this visit, a segment of UT3 was identified with a severe entrenchment
and headcut in a portion of enhancement level II. Additionally, the restoration section in Reach 3 showed
aggradation in both the riffle and pool sections connecting the restored channel to the existing channel at
the upstream and downstream connection points. In spring of 2016, Louis Berger staff observed signs of an
overflow chute forming in the Reach 3 restoration section as a result of the aggradation and high backwater
caused at the upstream connection to the existing channel.
As part of the September 2016 maintenance and monitoring work, the aggradation was removed on both
the upstream and downstream connections of the restoration portion of Reach 3. The material removed was
placed on the left bank to fill in the overflow chute, and the more extreme backwater condition immediately
upstream of the site work was reduced to a more suitable level. This work simultaneously patched the minor
cattle damage caused in the Reach 3 work area. Additionally, the entrenched banks identified in a portion
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

of UT3 were graded to remove entrenchment and reconnect the channel to the floodplain and plant the
riparian zone. This action is consistent with enhancement level I work, and creates the potential to raise the
enhancement level from EIl to EI in this 146 feet reach.
A sinuous low flow channel within the areas of restoration in Reach 1, Reach 3 and UT 7 continue to
develop as expected. The development of this sinuous channel at base flow conditions is important to
providing adequate riffle -pool systems needed at base flow to provide in -stream habitat areas for fish,
amphibians, and aquatic insects. In addition, the stream bedload was observed to continue to be sorted and
finer material has either moved to the stream bank edges or moved downstream and a courser bed material
is present within the channel. However, despite 2016 being a non -drought year, the months of June, July
and September were below average rainfall months and stretches of the main channel were dry during the
September monitoring. The pebble count recorded a higher percentage of silts deposited during the receding
flow. As a result of exceptionally high silt deposits, pebble count surveys were not conducted in the
following cross sections during the 2016 monitoring event: UT2-1R, UT34R, UT3-1P, UT3-2R, UT3-3R,
and UT7-1P. This is expected to be a temporary condition.
In -stream structures have generally maintained their stability and performance within the site, with the
exception of the step -pool system on UT 7 near the confluence with the mainstem. Due to the backflow
conditions generated in storm events in this area, bed material settlement was observed within the step -
pools. This was first identified within the Year 1 monitoring. Larger sediment material has filled the lower
two step pools, generating a longer riffle into the confluence of Little Buffalo Creek, and decreased the max
depth to mean depth ratio of less than 1.6 for habitat suitability in the upper pools. Although the step pools
have filled greater than desired with larger material, they still provide adequate fish passage during low
flow events when the channel is not dry. As the intent of the structures is to provide the head drop from the
higher floodplain of UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek in a stable manner, while still providing fish passage
within the tributary, no action to reshape the pools is proposed. This conclusion is also generated based on
the understanding that the larger sediment source comes from immediately upstream of the culverts at Old
Mine Road as part of the passage dissipation reinforcement, and that any attempt to remove the larger
cobble sediment will likely only result in the pools to refill from the same sediment source supply. In
addition to the lower step pools infilling, one rock vane step pool was identified for potential piping in the
September 2016 site assessment. As the channel was dry, it could not be verified that the structure is
allowing seepage beneath the vane. This will be observed in the Spring 2017 maintenance work and
corrective action taken to fix the structure if it indeed is allowing seepage beneath the vane.
Future channel maintenance may include chinking of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing of
loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the
channel bank. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require
maintenance to prevent bank failures and head- cutting.
The stream restoration and enhancement areas are relatively stable and will continue to adjust somewhat in
response to storm events. Gage data throughout the site supports four different bankfull events during the
Year 2 monitoring period which are supported by observations of rack debris outside of the top of bank and
in the floodplain of UT7 and the mainstem. The stream channel is beginning to develop the desired sinuosity
and in -stream structures are remaining stable and functioning as designed; the exception being the step -
pool system in UT -7 as noted above. No work is planned on these pools as of now but may occur during
the 2017 maintenance period if needed.
Two groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the top and bottom of UT3 in February of 2016 to
provide additional hydrological data to demonstrate groundwater connectivity to the stream channel of
UT3. The cross-section and longitudinal profiles were conducted during the dry season, resulting in water
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

surface elevations that were indistinguishable from the thalweg elevations at that time. Distinct water
surface elevations are included in the longitudinal profiles where water was flowing within the channel.
1. 5.3 Site Boundary Assessment
A number of site boundary issues were discovered during the Year 2 monitoring and maintenance period.
A corner of fence where UT 3 joins the mainstem was found to be cut and reassembled, presumably by the
land owner to remove escaped cattle. The electric wire of the cattle crossing fence in Reach 5 was broken,
likely due to storm debris and flows, and no longer providing an electrical charge. The larger portions of
the cattle crossing fence are up and functioning and the gates to the crossing are closed. The fence next to
the northwestern gate of the cattle crossing has also been cut and hastily repaired as well as a corner of
fence where UT 2 meets the mainstem. These damages are also likely the result of landowners moving
cattle into or from the easement. The barbed wire has been broken on a small section of fence along the
northeast edge of UT 7, possibly due to a tree fall in that area. The fence at the top of UT 1 has been
completely knocked down due to the accumulation of vegetation and log debris from the adjacent fields
causing enough force to push it over during a flood event.
At a point in between the February and September maintenance work of 2016, unknown persons installed
barbed wire and a woven metal fence "flood gate" across the easement along the downstream side of Old
Mine Road to close off access to Reach 2. This may have been installed by the landowner with the intention
of placing and keeping cattle within the easement. A team of surveyors discovered the cattle in early
September and they were removed within days of their first observation. At the time of Year 2 monitoring,
four cattle were observed in the easement and were removed the same day. Louis Berger is currently
assessing the level and cost of damage and working to identify those responsible.
Discussions with the landowner regarding maintenance of the crossing, fencing and encroachments into the
easement is ongoing. In the fall of 2016 additional fencing was installed along the mainstem at Old Mine
Road to prevent access to the easement at these locations and the barbed wire across Little Buffalo Creek
at Old Mine Road has also been removed. All other major fence repairs and the installation of conservation
easement boundary signs was also completed in the fall of 2016.
Summary information/data related to occurrence of items such as encroachment by landowners or evidence
of cattle intrusion and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report and in the
Mitigation Plan documents available on NCDEQ's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures
in the appendices is available from NCDEQ upon request.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

2.0 Methodology
Monitoring for stream stability, stream hydrology, and vegetation will be monitored annually for five years
following the initial Baseline and As -Built Report. Annual monitoring requirements are based on the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation Guidelines document (USAGE 2003) and supplemental
requirements listed in the DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines dated February
2014 (NCEEP 2014). Establishment, collection, and summarization of data collected was in accordance
with the NCDEQ guidance document EEP Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and
Content Guidance (April 2015).
2.1 Geomorphology
Surveys for Year 2 monitoring were conducted by Louis Berger in September 2016 using a Trimble M3
Total Station, geo referenced to North Carolina State Plane (NAD83-State Plane Feet-FIPS3200) with
vertical datum North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (Feet NAVD88).
2.2 Longitudinal Profiles
A total of approximately 2950 feet of channel along 8 longitudinal profiles is being surveyed annually. This
includes 335 feet on LBC Reach 1, 225 feet on LBC Reach 3, 112 feet on LBC Reach 4, 51 feet on UT 2,
771 feet on UT 3, 411 feet on UT 4, 977 on UT 7 and 62 feet on UT 8. Data collected from annual
monitoring is being compared with the as -built conditions to document the current state of the channel and
any trends in the stream profile occurring throughout the monitoring period. The start and finish locations
of each cross-section and longitudinal profile are collected using a Total Station.
2.3 Cross Sections & Particle Size Distribution
A total of 15 cross-sections, including 9 riffles and 6 pools were installed upon completion of construction
and are being monitored annually. Two additional cross-sections were added within the step -pool portion
of UT 7 in monitoring Year 2. The total number of cross-sections includes five on the mainstem of Little
Buffalo Creek, one on UT 2, four on UT 3, two on UT 4, and five on UT 7.
Pebble count surveys were conducted at each cross section. Moving from bank to bank, particles were
picked up blindly and at random and measured in millimeters. Enough samples were taken to get a
representative sample of particle size distribution for each cross section. Sample size ranged from 50 in
pool areas dominated by fines to 100 in flowing riffle areas with a diversity of particle sizes.
2.4 Vegetation Monitoring
The CVS -DMS entry tool database was used to calculate the number of monitoring plots needed based on
project acreage. Louis Berger established twelve vegetation monitoring plots across all reaches and
tributaries of the project area based on guidance given in the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Each plot measures approximately 0.025 acres individually and is staked out
with bright orange painted rebar and marked with two upright sections of PVC pipe. Photos were taken of
each plot and Year 2 monitoring data was entered into the CVS -DMS database under the Little Buffalo
Creek Stream Mitigation Project (Project ID 94147). Additional PVC markers were added to plot corners
during Year 2 in order to make corner stakes easier to find among the increasing herbaceous cover.
For a monitoring event, yellow rope is tied around the four corner stakes to mark out the plot. In Year 0, a
GPS was used to collect coordinates of each stem and their position was measured in relation to the X and
Y axis of the plot. Additionally, each stem was marked with pink flagging to make them easy to locate and
identify during the next monitoring event. Flagging is re-applied each year. Planted stems were identified,
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

measured, and given a vigor score ranging from 0 to 4 based on the CVS -DMS database. Naturally recruited
stems were identified and tallied only if alive. These stems were not measured or given a vigor score.
2.5 Hydrological Monitoring
A total of eight water level gages were installed on site. The gages are being monitored biannually to
document highest stage for the monitoring interval and verify occurrences of bankfull and geomorphically
significant flow events. In addition, observations of wrack and depositional features in the floodplain, if
present, are being documented with photos. In February of 2016 two groundwater monitoring wells were
installed at the top and bottom of UT 3 to provide additional hydrological data to demonstrate groundwater
connectivity to the stream channel.
2.6 Photo Points & Visual Assessment
Permanent photo stations were established at each cross-section to digitally document annual conditions of
the left and right banks. Each vegetation monitoring plot includes a photo station taken diagonally from a
plot corner towards the opposite plot corner. Additional permanent photo locations have been established
throughout the project area and can be found on the CCPV maps in Appendix A. Visual stream assessments
are conducted during annual monitoring to summarize performance percentages of morphological and
structural features. Visual vegetation assessments are also occurring to catalog the extent and type of
vegetation issue areas as compared to the total planted acreage within the project site.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final

3.0 References
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Historical Palmer Drought Indices. December 2014
through November 2015. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-
palmers/psi/201412-201511/. Accessed October 2016.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring
Guidelines. February 2014.7pp.
USACE 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared by: USACE, NCDWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Final 9

Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map &
Background Tables

Yadkin River Basin
...........
L E;,
%
k4
03-07-12 r'7 r
F
—A:V
4
k-
J
Reference Site
N
%
C..
A'4
4,
3" - �*i;t
W
T
A
N" '�-�.5 �Vk—.
W1. Old
Mine oad
>
- . , 1, -1 . - L� . I --
f II f
r
L
[I QF
'T F,
N
1411 r
Irytill-4
I- r
A
-"J
J:
f
hq: 'AK
'Ve
JA I44 r!
7�
V
7.
-'y
e ?
Project
Ji t Site
1. J,L­
L
R I
"A
JI 4
41 " �71 J1 b /7
A-7 )'j
7
L4 r s. J. P.
V) t
oil. -I
PC L- -
N
P.V J�:"":
W,
'; Z'
Al .
771
Re
'J
7- % 7�
J
irt&:
4' -J.
J
<
0
-J 0
Legend
Project Stream Segments
Reference Reach
Source: USGS Topographic Quads: 0 0.5 1
Gold Hill, Rockwell, Richfield, Miles
and Mount Pleasant, NC
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Little Buffalo Creek Creek
Stream Restoration, Cabarrus County, NC
DMS Project # 94147
Promect Location Map
®THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP Figure 1
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605 November 2016

a�
E
D
U)
c
0
0
CT
c
c
0
cm
0
0
I
L
0
c
.o
cm
0
0
V)
0
0
0
m
I
00
0
0
N
V)
c
0
C)
0
E
0
c
a�
LL -
REACH 6
BEGIN UT -8 RESTORA ION
STA 10+19.08/ "
BEGIN UT -7 E1
STA 10+00
STA 11+46.80
END UT -7 E1
LITTLE B FFALO STA. 104+96.09 BEGIN UT -7 RESTORATION
EN PRESERVATION
TEND REACH 6
h" UT -8 STA.10+80.78
1. END UT -8 RESTORATION
gLI
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.99+48.10\
UT -7 STA. 21+26.71 \
END UT 7 RESTORATION t
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.74+87.83
END REACH 5
BUFFALO STA. 82+55.35
ND PRESERVATION
i
REACH 5
REACH 4
UT -3 STA. 10 00
BEGIN RESTORATION
REACH 3 REACH 2
UT -3 STA. 12+115.05
�'I E2+78.56
END RESTORA ION, I BEGIN I END RESTORATION
BEGIN E2 AEA
UT -3 STA, 16J9 UT -3 STA. 14+66:62
END RESTORATI N 1 UT -4 STA. 18+30.57
BEGIN E1 I LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 56+93
BEGIN E1
END REACH 3 UT -2 STA, 14+27.35
UT -3 STA. 20+90.79 UT -3 STA, 16+60 I BEGIN REACH 4 END RE TORATION
END E1 /° - BEGIN E2
-2 STA. 10+00 00
EGIN PRESERVATION
1� UT -2 STA, 13+34.67
END PRESERVATION
BEGIN E2
END E1
BEGIN E2 BEGIN RESTORATION
!/ I BEGIN DOWNSTREAM �" UT -1 STA. 11+10.63
/ter UT -3 STA. 21+29 MAINSTEM RESTO ATION LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 32+9
C0 CRETE REMOVAL END UT -1 E2
UT -3 STA, 21+55 ND E2 STA. 48+12. 5
)': 1
END RESTORATION BEGIN RESTORATION TA 563+100.48 END E2
BEGIN E1 f�
UT -3 STA, 22+32.49 END E2 _
ND E1 EGIN E1 AREA
UT -3 STA. 24+05 BEGIN E2 _
END E2
BEGIN RESTORATION s
UT -6 ST . 11+51.33 m� -- -
TTLE BUFFALO STA .74+06'
/ / a 1�, /.,' UT -2 STA. 19+50.70
EN E2 UT_3 STA. 24+50 / STA.
/ - i°..Q �_� LITTLE BUFFALO 42+4
\\ I END RESTORATION �i - END UT -2 E2
BEGIN E2 �- - C ) ,•m LI
g /LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 33+66.34
CONCRETE REMOVALS !
STA.65+21.37
\ BEGIN REACH 2
END E1 AREA END DOWNSTREAM
\ LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 46+10
BEGIN E2 °�1
UT -3 STA.24+74.90 MAINSTEM RESTORATION ACH 2
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.66+62 UT -4 END 14+21.25 STA. 50+56.51 BEGIN REACH 3
/ LITTLE BUFFALO STA.75+19.223LZ
D UT -3 E2 BEGIN E1 BEGIN E2
BEGIN PRESEKVAIiuiv END REACH 4
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 91+88.65 BEGIN REACH 6 BEGIN REACH 5 UT -4 STA. 10+00.00
S RVATION
UT -6 STA. 10+00.00 UT -5 STA. 11+84.46 BEGIN E2
BEGIN E2 u -5 STA, 10+00.00 LITTLE BUFFALO STA.71+04
MAINSTEM
RESTORATION
TRIBUTARY
PLAN
INDEX
DITCH PLUG INSTALLATION.
ALIGNMENT
MITIGATION ACTIVITY
MITIGATION ACTIVITY
START STATION
START STATION
END STATION
END STATION
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
10+00
STREAM BANK GRADING.
2
22+00000
( E1)
CONCRETE REMOVAL FROM CHANNEL.
RESTORATION
PLANTING AND INVASIVE PLANT REMOVAL.
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
22+00.00
PRESERVATION
PLANTING AND INVASIVE PLANT REMOVAL.
25+77.37
10+00
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
25+77.37
�0
ENHANCEMENT
33+04.88
2
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
33+660
34
Lw
48+12.
45
MAINSTEM
RESTORATION
13+78.56
48+12.
45
50+560
51
LEVEL
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
50+560
51
UT -3
63+700
48
RESTORATION
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
1
63+700
48
12+15. 05
65+21.
37
LL
LL_O��
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
65+21.
37
74+870
83
PRESERVATION
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
75+19.
23
14+66.62
82+550
35
UT -3
PRESERVATION
�OuZ
RESTORATION
91+88.
65
104+96.09
MITIGATION ACTIVITY
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
TRIBUTARY
CHANNEL RE -ALIGNMENT AND CREATION.
PLAN INDEX
DITCH PLUG INSTALLATION.
RESTORATION
IN -STREAM STRUCTURE INSTALLATION,
MITIGATION ACTIVITY
INCLUDING LOG VANES, ROCK CROSS VANES,
START STATION
STEP POOLS AND ROOT WADS.
END STATION
STREAM BANK RE -GRADING. PLANTING AND
-1
INVASIVE PLANT REMOVAL.
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
STREAM BANK GRADING.
2
MINOR CHANNEL REGRADING.
( E1)
CONCRETE REMOVAL FROM CHANNEL.
1 1 +1 Oo 63
PLANTING AND INVASIVE PLANT REMOVAL.
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
PRESERVATION
PLANTING AND INVASIVE PLANT REMOVAL.
( E2)
REACH 1
BEGIN UPSTREAM
�ISTFM RESTORATION
STA. 22+00
END E2
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 10+00.00
BEGIN E2
X: 1595368.236
Y: 640628.321
jam
UT -1 STA. 10+00.00 \
BEGIN E2 �.\ ,, � � $� �•`
a
k
END UPSTREAM
MAINSTEM RESTORATION
E BUFFALO STA. 33+04.88 STA. 25+77.37
END E2 BEGIN E2
END REACH 1
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
w
Q
0
z
0
Fn
w
1
II
ci
ti
� =3 N
rn � cz
V Q)
L.L Q
W
-U
who
0o z
c/)o
D .5
O co
J w
w
2
TRIBUTARY
RESTORATION
PLAN INDEX
ALI GNMENT
MITIGATION ACTIVITY
U
START STATION
END STATION
UT
-1
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEE
2
W
10+00
1 1 +1 Oo 63
UT -2
00�
PRESERVATION
w
U
10+00
D
13+34. 67
UT -2
o0
�0
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
13+34.67
ll�
13+780 56
UT -2
z
Lw
RESTORATION
v)
0
13+78.56
1 4+270 35
UT -2
Uo�o
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
�
14+27.35
10+500 70
UT -3
Q
0
RESTORATION
U
C�
10+00
12+15. 05
UT -3
LL
LL_O��
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
1 2+1 50 05
14+66. 62
UT -3
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
1
14+66.62
16+60
UT -3
0
�OuZ
RESTORATION
16+60
16+79
UT -3
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
1
v�
16+79
cry
20+900 79
UT
-3
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
20+90.79
21+29
UT
-3
RESTORATION
21+29
21+55
UT
-3
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
1
Q
21+55
22+320 49
UT
-3
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
22+32049
24+05
UT
-3
RESTORATION
24+05
24+50
UT
-3
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
24+50
24+74090
UT -4
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
10+00
14+210 25
UT -4
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
1
14+21.25
18+300 57
UT -5
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
10+00
11+840 46
UT -6
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
2
10+00
11+510 33
UT -7
ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL
1
10+00
11+460 80
UT -7
RESTORATION
11+46.80
21 +260 71
UT -8
RESTORATION
10+19.08
1 0+800 78
w
Q
0
z
0
Fn
w
1
II
ci
ti
� =3 N
rn � cz
V Q)
L.L Q
W
-U
who
0o z
c/)o
D .5
O co
J w
w
2
DATE FEBRUARY 2016
PROJECT NO. 94147
FIGURE Al
z
U
W
C/7)
00�
B
w
U
D
>
o0
�0
0:�
LL]
ll�
>_
LLI
z
Lw
v)
0
Uo�o
�
Q
0
�0
U
C�
QQQ
cry
c
LL
LL_O��
LLLI
O
LLI
00
LL
0
�OuZ
LLI
�
v�
cry
0
W
m
Q
DATE FEBRUARY 2016
PROJECT NO. 94147
FIGURE Al

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94147
Mitigation Credit Summations
StreamRi
arian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus Nutrient Offset
Overall Mitigation Units
6,411
0
0
Project Components
Reach ID
Stationing
Existing Feet linear feet
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Restoration Level
Restoration or Rest E uiv.
Mitigation Ratio
Stream Mitigation Units
Notes
Reach 1
10+00 to 33+05
2,305
377 R
1928 EII
Restoration
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
1148
Reach 2
33+66 to 46+10
1,244
1244 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
498
Reach 3
46+10 to 56+93
1,083
244 R
839 EII
Restoration
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
580
Reach 4
56+93 to 66+62
969
151 EI
818 EII
Enhancement Level I
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 11.5:1
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
428
Reach 5
66+62 to 74+88
826
826 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
330
Reach 6
75+19 to 82+55;
91+89 to 104+96
2,043
2,043 P
Preservation
N/A
Preservation 5:1
409
UT 1
10+00 to 11+11
111
111 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level I12.5:1
44
UT 2
10+00 to 19+51
951
49 R
567 EII
335 P
Restoration
Enhancement Level II
Preservation
N/A
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
Preservation 5:1
343
UT 3
10+00 to 24+75
1,475
305 R;
536 EI
634 EII
Restoration
Enhancement Level I
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement Level 11.5:1
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
916
Potential to increase mitigation units
after conversion of an EII area to EI
UT 4
100+00 to 18+31
831
410 EI
421 EII
Enhancement Level I
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 11.5:1
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
442
UT 5
10+00 to 11+84
184
184 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
74
UT 6
10+00 to 11+51
151
151 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 112.5:1
60
UT 7
10+00 to 21+27
1,127
980 R
147 EI
Restoration
Enhancement Level I
N/A
Restoration 1:1
Enhancement Level 11.5:1
1078
UT 8
10+19 to 10+81
62
62 R
Restoration
N/A
Restoration 1:1
62
Note: Due to rounding some of the values when added may appear to be 1' short of total, this is purely a product of values being rounded to nearest linear foot
Length and Area Summations
Restoration Level
Stream linear feet
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non -riparian Wetland acres
Buffer (square feet
Upland acres
Riverine
Non-riverine
Restoration
2,017
N/A
N/A
N/A
201,700
N/A
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement I
1,244
N/A
N/A
N/A
124,400
N/A
Enhancement II
7,723
N/A
N/A
N/A
772,300
N/A
Creation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
2,378
N/A
N/A
N/A
237,800
N/A
High Quality Preservation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes

Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94147
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
Technical Proposal
June 2009
August 2008
Categorical Exclusion
February 2010
March 2010
Secure Conservation Easement
March 2010
July 2012
Mitigation Plan
August 2010
April 2014
Final Design — Construction Plans
N/A
May 2014
Construction
June 2014
December 2014
Fencing Installation
June 2014
December 2014
Native Species Planting
December 2014
December 2014
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0
Monitoring — Baseline)
March 2015
June 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2015
December 2015
Replanting & Reseeding
N/A
February 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
September 2016
January 2017
Replanting & Reseeding
N/A
March 2017
Invasive Treatment
N/A
March 2017
Fence Repairs
N/A
December 2016
Construction Repairs
N/A
September 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring

Table 3: Project Contact Table
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94147
Designer
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605
Primary Project Design POC
Edward Samanns [phone]
Construction Contractor
Backwater Environmental, Doug Smith
P.O. BOX 1107
Construction contractor POC
Eden, NC 27289
Fencing Contractor
Strader Fencing Inc
5434 Amick Road
Julian, NC 27283
Fencing Contractor POC
Planting Contractor
Carolina Sylvics
908 Indian Trail
Edenton, NC 27932
Planting Contract POC
Mellow Marsh
1312 Woody Store Rd.
Siler City, NC 27344
919-742-1200
ArborGen Inc.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
2011 Broadbank Court
Ridgeville, SC 29472
843-851-4129
Superior Trees Inc.
12493 US -90
Lee, FL 32059
850-971-5159
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Monitoring Performers
Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Louis Berger Group, Inc., Ed Samanns, CE, PWS (973-
407-1468)
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Louis Berger Group, Inc.

Table 4 Project Information
Project Name
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
County
Cabarrus County
Project Area acres
12
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
35.491041 °N . -80.366698° W.
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 13040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
3040105020060
DWQ Sub-basin
03-07-12
Project Drainage Area acres
4,039
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Rural
Reach Summary Information (Mainstem)
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5 Reach 6
Length of reach linear feet
2,305
1,244
1,083
969
826 2,043
Valley classification
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8
Type 8 Type 8
Drainage area acres
1914
2146
2446
2568
2632 4039
NCDWQ stream identification score
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5
37.5 37.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
C C
Morphological Description stream e
C4/F4
C4/E4
C4/F4
C4
C4/D4b C4
Design Ros en Stream Type
C4
C4
C4
C4
JC4 C4
Evolutionary Trend
Design Approach (P I, P2 P3 E etc
R; Ell
Ell
R; Ell
El; EII
Ell P
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacla/
Goldston
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla
Chewacla Chewacla
Drainage class
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well Mod. Well
Drained - Well Drained - Well
Drained Drained
Soil Hydric status
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric Non-hydric
Sloe
10.48%
10.38%
10.51%
10.39%
10.47% 0.43%
FEMA classificationN/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Native vegetation communityPasmre
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture Pasture
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
Reach Summary Information named Tributaries
Parameters
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
UT 5 UT 6
UT 7/UT 8
Length of reach linear feet
111
951
1,475
831
184 151
1,127
Valley classification
N/A
Type 2
Type 2
Type 2
N/A N/A
Type 8
Drainage area acres
293
193
62
254
8 16
1222
NCDWQ stream identification score
21
20
26.5
36.5
27.5 24.8
36.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
C C
C
Morphological Description stream e
N/A
B6
B6/G6
B4c
N/A N/A
F4
Desian Ros en Stream Type
No Restoration
1136
B6
B4c
I No Restoration No Restoration
C4
Evolutionary Trend
Design Approach P1 P2 P3 E etc
Ell
R; EII, P
R; E1; Ell
EI; EII
Ell EII
R; EI
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacla
Chewacla
Badin/Georgevil Goldston
le
Goldston Goldston
Chewacla
Drainage class
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Mod. Well Mod. Well
Drained - Well Drained - Well
Drained Drained
Mod. Well
Drained - Well
Drained
Soil Hydric stars
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Non-hydric Non-hydric
Non-hydric
Sloe
N/A
12.45%
12.35%
12.17%
N/A N/A
0.96%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Native vegetation communityN/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Percent composition of exaotic invasive vegetation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Weiland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size of Wetland acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian
N/A
N/A
N/A
Mapped Soil Series
N/A
N/A
N/A
Drainage class
N/A
N/A
N/A
Soil Hydric Status
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source ofHydrology
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hydrologic rrn airmentN/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation communityN/A
N/A
N/A
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Y
Y
Permit 2014-00386
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Y
Y
Letter from NCDENR dated
February 24, 2015
Nationwide Permit Number 27
Endangered Species Act
Y
Y
Letter to USFW S dated
November 16, 2009
Historic Preservation Act
Y
Y
Letter from NC SHPO dated
February 2, 2010
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA / Coastal Area Management
N
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Y
Y
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Restoration Plan Appendix 9
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
N/A
N/A

Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data

Figures 2a-j - Integrated Current Condition Plan View-MY2

3m�
a
�/!/1'IAIII®Y
e 0' 100' 200'
E SCALE: 1 "= 100'
srs-
LEGEND:
THALWEG
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
�- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
- -— CONSERVATION FENCE
_ CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
0 CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
H POOR HABITAT
AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14 VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
P STRUCTURE SEEPAGE
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
L REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT - FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT - FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGREGATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
W
C5 ABSENI
w
O_
V)
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z
r 6
VCJ
G
ota I
Lu
C)
U
z
U
C
(L Lo
CD
O r--
D N
C
> O
W Q co
W
cv
W o
00 .— z
co
O
J �
W
i
N
u
0 D' w
wL W >
Wm�m
� z z
000 g
o�u[-- a -
J Q Q
QD'(nC� Z
�o�� o
� U)
mWQ o
wmmm z
0 0
Q U U
� Z
� w
u
C)
JANUARY 2017
CT No 94147
2 OF 10
No
1�����1'��������
r 6
VCJ
G
ota I
Lu
C)
U
z
U
C
(L Lo
CD
O r--
D N
C
> O
W Q co
W
cv
W o
00 .— z
co
O
J �
W
i
N
u
0 D' w
wL W >
Wm�m
� z z
000 g
o�u[-- a -
J Q Q
QD'(nC� Z
�o�� o
� U)
mWQ o
wmmm z
0 0
Q U U
� Z
� w
u
C)
JANUARY 2017
CT No 94147
2 OF 10

LEGEND:
THALWEG
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
0
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
vmm,
POOR HABITAT
P
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
STRUCTURE SEEPAGE
z
o
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
z
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
c
w
z
L7
VEGPLOT - FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
0
AGGREGATION
L
Y
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
VEGETATION COVERAGE
n
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
V)
W_
U ABSENT
W
i W
V)
W PRESENT
n >
COMMON
AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14 / •i'�'
C)
Q
pzrz
-�,
Y
.
ow 0-
vmm,
AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14 / •i'�'
C)
Q
Y
.
ow 0-
z
o
z
c
w
z
L7
-
z
.. 10+00.00
EStRVATMN
U
a Lo
CD
O r--
N
D
0
W Q co
D
ca
3:4�_'
00 .— z
Wow
O
J �
UT -2
Lu
ENID STA, 13+34,67
w
N
2
UUT U
O D'
W W � W
W W � u�
_W
�
Z
"0 0
z
g
op-_ UO F7
a -
J Q Q
QW n (D
z
O
O_
mU)H
m LdQ
W
JMO
O
Q O
U
J W -
~
z
W
�
W
W
_
D
U
-
0' 100'200'
1111E JANUARY 2017
- - -
SCALE: 1 "=
100'
PROJECT No. 94147
FIGURE 4 of 10

LEGEND:
THALWEG
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
A
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
P
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
STRUCTURE SEEPAGE
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT — FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
Q
VEGPLOT — FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGREGATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
N (>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
_w
U ABSENT
w
fL
V)
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z:
a
s '
o
0' 100' 200' AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14
E SCALE: 1"= 100'
co
6
0
U
Z
1.
a o
0
5 N
C co
>O
W Q co
� aU
cv
W o
00 — Z
co
O
J �
W
I
cV
~ W
W O
D >
�0 m
mmw w
w a- un >
UzZz z
000 g
_j < < o
mun0 cn
O _D z
� �_ 0
m U)
w <LLJ o
ll� M
J Q �Z
Q U C)
J W -
G' Z
W
u� Q�
D
U
JANUARY 2017
CT NO 94147
6 OF 10
, &,v-qw
im, WE
a
s '
o
0' 100' 200' AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14
E SCALE: 1"= 100'
co
6
0
U
Z
1.
a o
0
5 N
C co
>O
W Q co
� aU
cv
W o
00 — Z
co
O
J �
W
I
cV
~ W
W O
D >
�0 m
mmw w
w a- un >
UzZz z
000 g
_j < < o
mun0 cn
O _D z
� �_ 0
m U)
w <LLJ o
ll� M
J Q �Z
Q U C)
J W -
G' Z
W
u� Q�
D
U
JANUARY 2017
CT NO 94147
6 OF 10

LEGEND:
THALWEG
pzrz
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSERVATION FENCE
�41Xg.
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
A
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
P
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
STRUCTURE SEEPAGE
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
— EXCEEDS
F*lVEGPLOT
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
— FAILS
F*_1VEGPLOT
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY
>10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGREGATION
0
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (759'-40%) (<409e)
N
W
w ABSENI
a -
U)
w PRESENT
* COMMON
Z
3
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1"= 100'
AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14
F_
a o
o
� N
C @
C7�c
O
wa@
a)
_0
Ill > 0
co z
i)OL
5—.2)
o
J w
W
2
I
N
u
U
U I
W
O p w
W ll� >_LL
W �_ i%1
Z - z
"0o0 g
o�--u�- n
J Q Q
Q(LU)0 Z
O �_ O
W H
m W Q
W W m z
O
U U
~ Q 77
O H
J W Z
� W W
U >
W
D
U
JANUARY 2017
cr No 94147
8 OF 10
mmmmmlillml
pzrz
�41Xg.
��4r
�1v
����
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1"= 100'
AERIAL SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE 11/30/14
F_
a o
o
� N
C @
C7�c
O
wa@
a)
_0
Ill > 0
co z
i)OL
5—.2)
o
J w
W
2
I
N
u
U
U I
W
O p w
W ll� >_LL
W �_ i%1
Z - z
"0o0 g
o�--u�- n
J Q Q
Q(LU)0 Z
O �_ O
W H
m W Q
W W m z
O
U U
~ Q 77
O H
J W Z
� W W
U >
W
D
U
JANUARY 2017
cr No 94147
8 OF 10

Tables 5a-g - Visual Stream Morphology Assessment

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 381
Number
Numberwith
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footaa
Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
6
6
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate?
3
3
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)?
3
3
100%
4. Thalwag Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)?
3
3
100%
1. BankBank
1. Scoured/Eroding
lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
Log Vane structures installed incorrectly during construction, final as -built developed inner berm material overtop structures to bury the
log vanes and have no structures within this reach.

Reach ID Reach 3
Assessed Length 261
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
2
72
86%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
3
3
100%
1. BankBank
1. Scoured/Eroding
lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
1
20
96%
1
20
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
20
96%
1
20
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance
2
2
100%
3. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Reach ID Reach 4
Assessed Length 200
Major
Channel
Cate o
Channel
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Se ments
Amount of
Unstable
Footaa
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve elation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aegradation - No visual aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
3
3
100%
2. BankBank
1. Scoured/Eroding
lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth, no
scouring occurred of bank
1
200
0
50 /0
0
0
0
74/o
2. Undercut
Banks undercutioverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
200
50%
0
0
74%

Reach ID UT 2
Assessed Length 49
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footaa
Intended
Ve elation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aegradation - No visual aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
0
1
0%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
1001/0

Reach ID UT 3
Assessed Length 898
Major
Channel
Cate o
Channel
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Se ments
Amount of
Unstable
Footaa
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Agaradation - No visual aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
8
8
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
1
276
o
85 /0
0
0
0
85/o
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
276
85%
0
0
85%

Reach ID UT 4
Assessed Length 410
Major
Channel
Cate o
Channel
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Se ments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate?
3
3
100%
4. Thalwag Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)?
3
3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)?
3
3
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
1
10
99%
1
10
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
10
99%
1
10
100%

Reach ID UT 7/8
Assessed Length 1189
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - degradation in last curve pool before step pool system
1
40
98%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
11
11
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
4
75%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length appropriate?
4
4
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)?
4
4
100%
4. Thalwag Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)?
4
4
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0 0
o
100 / 0
0
0 100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
1
0 0
100% 0
0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100% 0
0 100%
0 0
100% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. -
2a. Piping
Possible piping under one rock vane step pool spotted in september field
8
9
I
89%
work, but no water to observe if actually happening
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does ngt exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring guidance
9
9
100%
document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow:
step pools filled with large boulders from upstream of site, maintains
3
9
33%
small pools at low flow, but <1.6 Max to Mean Deptj

Tables 6a -i - Vegetation Condition Assessment Table

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Reach 1
Planted Acreage' 5.47
Easement Acreaae2 7.29
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
_Polygons
Acreaa
Acrea e
Vegetation CateaoryDefinitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Fence down due to storm debris, not cut. Will be replaced.
none
Pattern andColor
1
0.02
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
road to keepcattle from escaping.
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0
3
1.15
21.0%
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
3
1.15
21.0%
Easement Acreaae2 7.29
Reach 2
Planted Acreage' 2.85
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation CateaoryDefinitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Japenese Honeysuckle, Adult Princess Tree
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
2
0.20
2.8%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Fence down due to storm debris, not cut. Will be replaced.
none
Pattern andColor
1
0.02
0.3
Reach 2
Planted Acreage' 2.85
Easement Acreaae2 3.73
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Pol ons
Acrea aAcrea
e
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
a
Cows in Easement, heavy grazing and barb wire fence with woven gate installed across channel at old mill
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
road to keepcattle from escaping.
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0
1
0.95
33.3%
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
0.95
33.3%
Easement Acreaae2 3.73
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
a
Cows in Easement, heavy grazing and barb wire fence with woven gate installed across channel at old mill
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
road to keepcattle from escaping.
none
Color
1
3.73
100.0

Reach 3
Planted Acreage' 2.65
Easement Acreacie2 3.83
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cows in easement, heavy grazing in restoration reach with damage channel. Channel reworked as part of
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
I3 MY2 maintenance for aaqradation and dama e.
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0%
1
0.89
33.8%
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
0.89
33.8%
Easement Acreacie2 3.83
Reach 4
Planted Acreage' 2.26
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Princess Tree
1000 SF
Color
1
0.17
4.3%
Color
Cows in easement, heavy grazing in restoration reach with damage channel. Channel reworked as part of
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
I3 MY2 maintenance for aaqradation and dama e.
none
Color
1
3.83
100.0%
Reach 4
Planted Acreage' 2.26
Easement Acreaae2 3.1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
1
0.10
4.3%
Color
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Heavy grazing and cows in easement, cow tracks through channel at area of E1
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0%
1
1.02
45.2%
Color
Totall
1
1 0.10
1 4.3%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Totall
2
1 1.12
1 49.5%
Easement Acreaae2 3.1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol ons
Acreaa
Acrea e
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Japenese Honeysuckle in small patch near vegplot 4
1000 SF
Color
1
0.02
0.6%
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Heavy grazing and cows in easement, cow tracks through channel at area of E1
none
Color
1
3.10
100.0%

Reach 5
Planted Acreage' 2.05
Easement Acreacle2 2.74
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
a
Cattle prints heavy in channel/damage, mostly in lower 300 feet of channel, grazing heavy in lower portion
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Electric wire on cattle crossing fence broken on both sides of crossing. Gates to crossing closed. Cows in
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0
1
0.34
16.6%
Color
3
2.74
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
0.34
16.6%
Easement Acreacle2 2.74
UT 2
Planted Acreage' 1.25
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
PolVqons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
a
Cattle prints heavy in channel/damage, mostly in lower 300 feet of channel, grazing heavy in lower portion
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Electric wire on cattle crossing fence broken on both sides of crossing. Gates to crossing closed. Cows in
none
Pattern and
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
easement, woven wire fence cut at corner of cattle crossin .
none
Color
3
2.74
100.0%
UT 2
Planted Acreage' 1.25
Easement Acreaae2 2.65
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
a
Cattle prints heavy in channel/damage, mostly in lower 300 feet of channel, grazing heavy in lower portion
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
of trib not as bad in the u stream ortion. Corner of Fence cut.
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0
1
1.25
100.0%
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
1.25
100.0%
Easement Acreaae2 2.65
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol ons
Acreaa
Acrea e
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Privet, tree of heaven
1000 SF
Color
1
1.03
38.9%
a
Cattle prints heavy in channel/damage, mostly in lower 300 feet of channel, grazing heavy in lower portion
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
of trib not as bad in the u stream ortion. Corner of Fence cut.
none
Color
1
2.65
100.0

UT 3
Planted Acreage' 3.21
Easement Acreacle2 4.11
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Color
1
0.08
2.4%
Color
Cows within the easement, prints and trail formed through thicker vegetation, minor damage to channel at
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Cows in easement, heavy grazing, damage throughout channel bottom.
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0%
2
3.21
100.0%
Color
Total
1
0.08
2.4%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
3
3.29
102.4%
Easement Acreacle2 4.11
UT 4
Planted Acreage' 1.43
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Privet patch
1000 SF
Color
1
0.01
0.2%
Color
Cows within the easement, prints and trail formed through thicker vegetation, minor damage to channel at
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Cows in easement, heavy grazing, damage throughout channel bottom.
none
Color
1
4.11
100.0%
UT 4
Planted Acreage' 1.43
Easement Acreaae2 2.01
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Top of bank area bare where sheet flow washed seeding into channel
0.1 acres
Color
1
0.02
1.5%
Color
Cows within the easement, prints and trail formed through thicker vegetation, minor damage to channel at
Pattern and
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
the top of the restoration work (damage can recover naturally)
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
100.0%
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Totall
1
1 0.02
1 1.5%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Totall
1
1 0.02
1 1.5%
Easement Acreaae2 2.01
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Pol ons
Acreage
Acrea e
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Privet spotted in small patch
1000 SF
Color
1
0.04
1.9%
Cows within the easement, prints and trail formed through thicker vegetation, minor damage to channel at
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
the top of the restoration work (damage can recover naturally)
none
I Color
2
2.01
100.0%

UT 7
Planted Acreage' 2.63
Easement Acreacie2 6.07
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
2
0.04
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreacie2 6.07
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Japenese Honeysuckle, Tree of Heaven, Chinese Privet
1000 SF
3
0.86
14.1%
Color
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Cow prints located in easement areas and have trampled soil. Fence partially broken due to trees falling
none
Color
2
0.04
0.7%

i
Jfr�
! � r
r
1
� I
1; !
� t
g �h
f W .!
`9r16l2a16
I6'.14
r

i.
f r v
� _ � 1 � 4 if\�Q T. I � h � %3 ' i as ,ag •r1 � t�
ix-
Y
�'� I y •'Fi' S � .'fit 2 }`,,�1"�"���': � -� � � l �

'-
�
9/17/2016 8:28

1 pt P' p I S
i
,'.tea 3 r �4§ •+ � T � a¢�,�a` � � '}z 1 't`'�`.' .�
IA
9/15/2016 16:30

-120V 15,55

A '
'
_
��
�v
i ..
(fi
f
�
i
r i ,:
��
t :, ..: , .,
-
r
� �,
..
�
',,
;/
,�

Cross Section MS -1R Downstream
Cross Section MS -1R Upstream

' ti5
I �
. fit'
t -
N

....
I , _

l
'Y
'Nor
f
F�
v i
r�M

Cross Section UT2-1R Downstream
,� / � '. baht p•
Cross Section UT2-1R Upstream

err
a
Cross Section UT3-1P Upstream

�
_. _ :-
I.
;_-� ...
$
.;.

t
lip
9! 16,'2016 13 1�1.
�ts._
11 r'
S
��� 1/-1 C, 2016 13:31
t
lip
9! 16,'2016 13 1�1.
�ts._

l
�
r s

14
...
4
i
.
40 i
l
.
r
T
(j

Cross Section UT7-1R Downstream
Cross Section UT7-1R Upstream

3,'7 r 'P' r'"'�i ►T s
s.�
� D 0 16 18 :21 '7 1

Photo Appendix C: Photo Stations
Photo Location 1-A— Mainstem Upstream
Photo Location 1-B — Mainstem Downstream

y
i
4_
v"
0 .441
�s
Y
44
1 u � i
/
4 }(s

C
-
r
-am TM?
t
f � 'w. � � �-�'�°yu✓ �°h�5�„� t� l '�'th 4�3y _�' � M��.44 'o'A ..,,'�z ..�+ � � '��'' ;' :�-
14.:-
a
4:'
..

- -a
.' �. R � Wit« .�� '� �� .. _ � ..�".� , : _ •�^s:�;

wFr
[F ry i Ty'(�A�fl,,= fi •.
/+F 6
WTI
1
•
9%14/2016,
14.50
wFr

,grrY ^G�i�b
y
r 1 i105 4
e
IIA�d 6[k' r..�. .. 1h.3zk� a"vd+ •{iRh353.f'•�.� f"L '✓y' - t ': Y.-. , .-.

�s
y
ti
'..4
�
� � � 4 ✓- % ,� J � ' -. a.L „
n
y wry
�R�d�
affil CA
S
�
k sib ox
!. �ti
9, +1 2 0, 16 5 ire c
.�wy.,s, V ��.yy7�
,.�'

+�:: .•tea i:' i � � "
Wi
• �1 ifs I� °`.' 1 rte`. A '? +
� °'"
79 a
St
•p t t
9/14/2016,: 15:54

9/14/2016 1612

Photo Location 10-A— Mainstem Downstream
Photo Location 10-B — Mainstem Upstream

Photo Location 10-C — UT2 Upstream
Photo Location 11-A —Downstream

Owlt
I
IV
•
i�
161521
� f
d. £
X. 3
Aw
�+ lira Iii' � ,,, r � a � M� I, .�, .���• _
9/15/2016 9:00

Y� !1
14
15,
ei
rc'F
,r
7 �
L
9/15/2016~ 9'00

Photo Appendix D: Problem Areas
Barbed wire fence installed at Old Mine Rd.
Fence installed across mainstem at Old Mine Rd. has since been removed.
Upstream view.

UT2 — Damage done by cattle crossing stream at bottom of trib.
UT2 — Lower trib filled in with mud due to cattle trampling.
Downstream view.

UT2 — Lower trib filled in with mud due to cattle trampling. Upstream view.
Headcut forming on bank in the middle mainstem. Downstream view.

Damage from cattle crossing lower mainstem.
UT3 — Large headcut forming in bank.
Heavy cattle damage in streambed. Upstream view.

UT3 — Heavy cattle damage in streambed. Upstream view.
UT3 — Cattle damage crossing bottom of trib. Upstream view.

Wires cut leaving slack in cattle crossing. Fence not electrified.
Fence has been cut and hastily repaired adjacent to cattle crossing.

UT7 — Barbed wire broken. Cattle jump over the fence.
_ t ::� • •,6,•*"'. ,r -t ' ..� . - ,,fit, vI A W
r
UT7 — Cow prints in banks and streambed.

it,
I .
UT7 — Water beginning to move under stone blocks in step pools.
Heavy grazing by cattle along reach 3. Upstream View.
Herbaceous vegetation and planted trees affected.

UT4 — Cow path and grazing at top of trib. Upstream view.
UT3 — Cow path and heavy grazing along UT3. Downstream view.

Photo Appendix E: Significant Flow Events
UT7 — Lower step pool section. Rock debris in floodplain. February 2016.
UT7 — Lower section before step pools. Rack deposits after bankfull event.
February 2016.

UT7 — Rack deposits in Veg Plot 1 after bankfull event. February 2016.
Mainstem — Concrete removal section, vegetation above bankfull bent to direction of
flow. February 2016.

Mainstem — Upstream restoration area. Area flooded after bankfull event.
February 2016.

Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7 - Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Plot MYl SuccesCriteria Met
Tract Mean
1 Y
50%
2 N
3 N
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 N
8 Y
9 Y
10 N
11 I N
12 1 N

Table 8 - CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By Gregory A. Russo
Date Prepared 10/11/2016 16:01
database name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location C:\Users\grrusso\Desktop
computer name MTN-GRRUSSO
file size 61444096
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code 94147
project Name Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Description Louis Berger is restoring the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Site in Cabarrus County, North Carolina for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Berger will be planting the riparian corridor with native tree and shrub vegetation.
River Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m) 48265.23781
Required Plots (calculated) 12
Sampled Plots 12

Table 9 - Planted and Total Stem Counts
Colorfar Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
E—ds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails [o meet requirements, by lessthan 10%
Fails to meet requlients by more than 10%
MEMO
size (ares
Colorfar Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
E—ds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails [o meet requirements, by lessthan 10%
Fails to meet requlients by more than 10%

Appendix D - Stream Measurement &
Geomorphology Data

aseDat
Little Buffalo .. . - -
. ease®eeeee®eeeee®ee®eeeee
MMMMMIMMM
�mm0®mmmma®mmmma®m®®mm®ma
�mmmm��®m©m®mmmommmmmmmmo
MEMOmmmmm©mmmmo�mm®®®®ma
mmmmmo®®®®momm®mmmmmo
�mmmm�m�®©mmmmmommmmmmmmo
-- • �mmm®��®mo®mmmmo®®®mmmmmo
--•�mmmmmm®m©mmmmmo®®®®®®®mo
-.. �mmm��m®mmmmmmmov000000mo
�mmmmmmmmmom®®mommm®®mmmm
:.' �mmmmmmmmm�mmmmommmommmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmm®®mmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmm®mmmm
• �mmmmmmmmmm®®®mam®®mmmmmm
- • ����®��®®o®®®moo®®®®®®®moo
--•�mmm�mmmmmmmmmm0000mmmmmo
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�m���m�mm
�mm�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
--•�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®mmm®mmm
Table •. . B. -M. St,..m Data Summary
(1,083 feet)
�mm0®mmmma®mmmma®m®®mm®ma
�mmmmmmmm©mmmmmommmmmmmmo
- • ����®��®®o®®®moo®®®®®®®moo
--•�mmm�mmmmmmmmmm0000mmmmmo
�COMM!

•. .erin - ate, um ry
• 1.
LittleTable1
�mmm®mmmmammmmmm®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmo
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
'..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm©
Table 1. Base ine Stream Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek Segment/Reach: UT 3 (1,475 feet
�mm®®mmmma®mmmma®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
'..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm©
��

Table1{)aBa erin Stream Data Summary
-: • •. -- ,
�mmm®mmmmammmmmm®mm®�mmma
-..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�mm0®mmmma®�mmma®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmo®mmmmo®®®®mmmm©
�mmmmmm®®mmmmmmommmm��mm©
'..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmm©
Table 1. Base ine Stream Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek Segment/Reach: UT 7 (1,127 feet
�mm0®mmmma®�mmma®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmo®mmmmo®®®®mmmm©
�mmmmmm®®mmmmmmommmm��mm©
'..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmm©
��

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Seqment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 1 (2,305 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design
As-built/Baseline
41.3 13 13 32.7 0 25.8 20.2 26 28 0
SC%if Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 17 20 41 22 0 0 10.2 20.4 59.2 0
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 41.8 25.4 19.4 13.4 0
30.5 14.7 36.8 18 0
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 26 22.1 51.9 0 0 0 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / diP / diep (mm) 0.04 0.69 2.33 10.3 21.3 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
Entrenchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 /2.0-4.9/ 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 0 100 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
100 0 0 0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt(Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, dap = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assignibin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assigntbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are looslay built around the Rosgen classicalion and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference datributuns.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the ranch. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily'mtegrsted and provide
a more complete sample distnbution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 3 (1,083 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
41.3 13 13 32.7 0 25.8 20.2 26 28 0
SC%if Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 17 20 41 22 0 0 10.2 20.4 59.2 0
0 10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / diep (mm) 0.06 0.9 12.5 94.2 159 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8
bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 5 95 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
98 2 0 0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, dial, = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Asaign/bin the reach footage into the Gasses indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as wall as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coersar bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely an facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical lmgitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 4 (969 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach es Data
Design As-built/Baseline
90 2 6 2 0
SC if Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 40.9
28.8 11.7 18.6 01
11 1
40.9 28.8 11.7
SC%/ Sa% / G% / C%/ B% / Be% 24.8
21 28.6 2.9 1
21.9 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2
d16 / d35/ d50/ d84 / d95/di'/ diap (mm) 0.04
0.74 2.75 bedroc bedrock 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 /2.0-4.9/ 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 0 100
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
100 0 01-
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SilUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = maz pave, diap =max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the perce lage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are looslay built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling ofthe BHR st riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coveage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: UT2 (951 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S% 100 0 0 0 0
90 2 6 2 0
SC if Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / di" (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 90 10 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
90 10 0 0
Shaded cells Indicate that these will typically not be filled In.
1 = Rtfle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = maz pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - AssigNbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assignlbin the reach footage Into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loceey built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring Information with a good general sense of the eAnt of hydrologic containment In the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a sub-ple (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsempias have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre- orstrullon distribution of these parameters, leaving the readarlcensumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily Integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: UT3 (1,475 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built/Baseline
Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 100 0 0 0 0
83.7 3.2 5.5 7.6 0
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / di'/ diap (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
d16 / d35/ d50/ d84 / d95/di'/ diap (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 /2.0-4.9/ 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 50 30 20 0
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
80 18 2 0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt(Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assignibin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Reagan classicalion and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the readedconsumer of design and monkoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the ranch. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling or the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: UT4 (831 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As-built/Baseline
R1% RU%/P%/G%/S% 1 11
43.1 21.2 19.7 16 0
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0
10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / di'/ diap (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 0 100 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
100 0 0 0
Shaded cells Indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt(Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - AssigNbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adl usted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the preexisting and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subs nhple (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsampies have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should Include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR A riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Banks, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distribution)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: UT7 (1,127 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 40.71 18.91 15.6 15.1 9.71
34.9 26.1 12.1 18.2 8.7
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 24.3 19.4 50.5 5.8 0 0 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 02
10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / di° / di" (mm) 0.04 0.78 3.3 14.3 75.1 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 /2.0-4.9/ 5.0-9.9 / >10
0 0 0 15 85
Incision Class <1.2/1.2-1.4911.5-1.99/>2.0
95 5 0 0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assignlbin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the readerlconsumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distribution..
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-construfron distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Table 11a.
Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 Segment/ ach: Mainstem Reach 1 2,305 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1 R
Cross Section 2 (Pool) -1 P
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) use 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.21 640.24
640.24 640.24 640.24 640.24 640.24
Bankfull Width (ft) 35.21 36.55 37.70 35.77
36.90 36.53
Floodprone Width (ft) >80 125.20 135.20 >80
127.00 158.50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft 1.23 1.16 1.15 1.11
0.97 1.15
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.79 1 1.78 1.96 2.48
2.03 2.52
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 43.15 42.32 43.25 39.80
35.60 42.08
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 28.73 31.56 32.87 32.15
38.17 31.71
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 3.43 3.59 >2.2
3.44 4.34
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.73
1.07 0.93
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fe)l 77.79 86.15 1 88.38 85.42
81.10 88.9
d50 (mm)l 15.90 1 21.00 1 22.00 5.00
1 16.00 11 1-7
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
I Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) I
Little Buffalo Creek (941471 Seament/Reach: Mainstem Reach 4 (969 feet)
Cross Section 1
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' I Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY+
Record elevation (datum) usedl 624.26 1 624.26 1 624.261624.261624.261624.261 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft11 1.87 1 2.38 1 2.36 1 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft54.90 1 61.79 1 58.25
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol 15.69 1 10.89 1 10.42
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol 0.70 1 0.61 1 0.68
Crncs RenfinnA Araa hatwaan and nins ff?J 106.25 1 112.61 1 110.74
1 d50 (mm)1 3.40 1 13.00 1 19.50 1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Table 11a.
Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 Segment/ ach: Mainstem Reach 3 1,083 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -211
Cross Section 2 (Pool) -21?
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
XS 2R and 2P reshaped as part of MY2 to remove backwater and overflow conditions
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 630.92 630.92 630.92 630.92 630.92 630.92 629.80
629.80 629.80 629.80 629.80 629.80
Bankfull Width ft 38.31 41.03 38.35 39.59
26.70 33.35
Floodprone Width ft >90 419.00 488.00 >90
350.00 368.00
Bankfull Mean Depth ft 1.26 1.25 1.37 1.11
1.59 1.00
Bankfull Max Depth ft 1.90 2.18 2.97 2.44
2.20 2.26
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 48.23 51.15 52.43 1 43.79
42.50 1 33.19
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 30.43 32.91 28.05 35.79
16.77 33.52
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 10.21 12.73 >2.2
13.11 11.03
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 0.94 0.92 0.88 0.69
0.80 0.91
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fe) 116.34 104.46 103.94 1 89.91
77.86 68.32
d50 mm 31.00 29.00 13.5 1 1 6.70
9.00 14.50
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
I Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) I
Little Buffalo Creek (941471 Seament/Reach: Mainstem Reach 4 (969 feet)
Cross Section 1
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' I Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY+
Record elevation (datum) usedl 624.26 1 624.26 1 624.261624.261624.261624.261 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft11 1.87 1 2.38 1 2.36 1 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft54.90 1 61.79 1 58.25
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol 15.69 1 10.89 1 10.42
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol 0.70 1 0.61 1 0.68
Crncs RenfinnA Araa hatwaan and nins ff?J 106.25 1 112.61 1 110.74
1 d50 (mm)1 3.40 1 13.00 1 19.50 1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

I Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) I
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Seqment/Reach: UT 2 (951 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1R
on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 I MY4
Record elevation (datum) used 639.34 639.34 639.34 639.34 639.34
Bankfull Width ft 3.52 6.23 4.31
Floodorone Width (ft) 8.34 31.10 40.80
Bankfull Max Depth (ftJ 0.72 1 0.96 1 1.03
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1.82 1 2.65 1 3.43
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.37 5.00 9.46
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol 1.01 0.65 0.84
Cross Sectinnal Area between end nins (fizl 20.73 1 21.69 1 20.37
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Table 11a.
Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 Segment/Reach: UT3 1,475 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1 R
Cross Section 2 (Riffle) -2R
Cross Section 3 (Riffle) -3R
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1R
Cross Section 4 (Pool) -1 P
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same
bankfull elevation as baseline data for
1 R. MY1 Bankfull for 2R, 3R and 1 P
established as baseline bankfull as the
original bankfull only had slope
indications to identify, where MY1
provided more thorough evidence of
hnnkfnll
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 647.14 647.14 647.14 647.14 647.14 647.14 632.79 633.69 633.69 633.69 633.69 633.69 622.92 623.77 623.77 623.77 623.77 623.77 638.72 639.22 639.22 639.22 639.22 639.22
Bankfull Width ft 3.50 5.20 5.42 5.91 11.93 8.65 3.73 7.17 8.16 4.06 8.51 6.87
Floodprone Width ft 24.45 29.60 27.50 13.14 31.20 30.20 6.35 >100 >100 8.28 20.40 15.30
Bankfull Mean Depth ft 0.53 0.30 5.42 0.29 0.99 1.19 0.20 0.48 0.58 0.25 0.58 0.46
Bankfull Max Depth ft 0.82 0.78 0.60 0.61 1.62 1.56 0.31 1.05 1.08 0.46 1.19 0.79
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftp 1.84 1.55 1.80 1.69 11.79 10.31 0.75 1 3.41 4.75 1.01 4.90 3.14
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.66 17.47 16.31 20.67 12.06 7.25 18.61 15.08 14.02 16.32 8.51 15.06
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 6.99 5.70 5.07 2.22 2.62 3.49 1.70 >2.2 >2.2 2.04 2.40 2.23
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 0.74 1.08 0.94 0.57 0.35 0.56 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.47 0.97
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(fl? 13.50 13.86 15.62 26.63 32.12 30.79 15.64 14.90 15.72 27.61 28.88 24.81
d50 (mm) silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay 4.50 0.19 silt/clay 0.11 silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll 0.60 1 1.03 1 1.14 1 1 1 1 1 0.63 1 0.91 1 0.99
Crnss Sprtinnnl Arpn hatwppn and nins (fizl 29.20 1 32.81 1 31.19 1 1 1 1 1 54.73 1 53.60 1 54.93
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Table 11a.
Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 Se ment/Reach: UT 4 831 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1R
Cross Section 2 (Pool) -1P
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 627.41
627.41
627.41
627.41 627.41 627.41
629.84
629.84 629.84 629.84 629.84 629.84
Bankfull Width ft
13.32
13.94
14.33
20.38
17.20 19.45
Floodprone Width ft
>50
>100
>100
>100
>100 >100
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.91
0.89
0.73
1.34
1.35 1.22
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.71
1.65
1.74
2.71
2.53 2.94
El
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1
12.13
12.35
10.42
1 27.37
23.29 23.75
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll 0.60 1 1.03 1 1.14 1 1 1 1 1 0.63 1 0.91 1 0.99
Crnss Sprtinnnl Arpn hatwppn and nins (fizl 29.20 1 32.81 1 31.19 1 1 1 1 1 54.73 1 53.60 1 54.93
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.
Table 11a.
Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 Segment/Reach: UT 7 1,127 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)-1 R
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)-2R
Cross Section 3 (Pool)-1 P Cross Section 4 (Step Pool)-STP1
Cross Section 5 (Step Pool)-STP2
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 615.87
615.87
615.87
615.87 615.87 615.87
613.60
613.60 613.60 613.60 613.60 613.60
614.93
614.93 614.93 614.93 614.93 614.93
612.87 612.87 612.87 612.87
610.22 610.22 610.22 610.22
Bankfull Width ft
20.71
21.76
21.47
18.58
21.20 21.61
27.10
29.90 23.14
28.17
20.56
Floodprone Width ft
>100
>100
>100
>80
>100 >100
>80
>100 >100
>100
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.96
0.75
0.98
1.17
1.02 1.21
0.96
0.81 1.24
1.86
1.66
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.17
0.92
1.29
1.69
1.82 2.04
1.29
1.25 1.53
2.55
2.32
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area W
19.93
16.42
21.15
1 1
21.68
21.71 1 26.11 1 1
25.98
24.19 28.70 1
52.44 1
1 34.22
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
21.52
28.86
21.80
15.92
20.70 17.89
28.27
36.96 1 18.65
15.13 1
1 12.35
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2 >2.2
>2.2
>2.2 >2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
0.78
1.06
0.87
0.92
1.16 0.93
0.67
1.26 0.67
0.92
0.78
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fe)
66.61
65.98
73.43
52.17
56.85 61.51
76.83
80.07 90.25
149.86
200.48
4
d50 mm
23.00
11.00
18.00
0.50
0.50 20.00
silt/cla
silt/cla silt/cla
49.00
30.00
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum
used for prior years this must be discussed with DMS. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
NOTE: MY1 Data modified to use same bankfull elevation as baseline data.

Snaded cans indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-secdon measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Sil /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/nestled only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 1 (2,305 fee
Bankfull Cross Sectional
Wldthbe:
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Water Surface Slope tChannel) (fUft)
NA (DRY)
NA (DRY/STAGNET WATER)
®�o�®®�®oma
Snaded cans indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-secdon measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Sil /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/nestled only if the n exceeds 3

bnaced cans mmcate that [nese will typically not oe ruled in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: Mainstern Reach 3 (1,083 feet)
.::.. �
����io
• F•,� F•,� F•��
.' :: •.. ����ii����ii�����iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
milllll�ffM-
EN
�®�®iii®®�ii�
, •
���i�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
�i�Y®ii
YYYii�■i���
ii iiiii iiiiiiiiiii
. - ... . •.. • . ........ .... .. iiiiiiii
from baseline
:. Y®®®iiiiiYii��i
•.. iia®ilii
i
�fi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
t.:
,tt
. .: .•
��iiii___iii®0�®�i�iiiiiiiiiii�iiiii
bnaced cans mmcate that [nese will typically not oe ruled in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

shaded cans indicate that these will typically not be fined in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profle.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 2 (951 feet)
.' :. •.. ����io����ii�����iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
• •
-
�®®
f f ii����ii�����i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
• - ..-
f f
f f
f f
f f . ��
, ••:
, •l:
f •r: f •,: ii
f f •
, •
f f f • • �iCiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
����ii
��Yii�■i��■
ii iiiii iiiiiiiiiii
. - ... . •.. • . ........ .... .. iiiiiiii
from baseline
:. ����ii
ii�ii��i
•..
����ii
i
�fi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Additional Reach Parameters
■�iii�
iii��000�
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
NONE
shaded cans indicate that these will typically not be fined in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profle.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

bnacea cans maicate mat [nese will typically not oe tinea in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: LIT 3 (1,475 feet)
®�®i■i©�Y®Yi©i�i�i�i��®iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
•
--..
. ::
�®��i©����io®����®
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
- . •..
t t
t t
t t ,iii
•r t • . t • . t t ii
Not Identifiable due to cattle iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Yi�Yi■ii
YYYii�����i
iiia iiiiiiiii�i
. - ... . •.. • . ........ .... .. iiiii��i
from baseline
= Yi��iiiiiYii��i
•
Y®Yi�ii
i
�fi ii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i
dditional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
bnacea cans maicate mat [nese will typically not oe tinea in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

bnaced cans maica[e mar [nese will typically not oe tinea in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, dial, = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (831 feet)
.' :. •..
����io®®®®io�����otiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
•
-
����ii®���ii�����iCiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iii
, ,
,
, ,M 0
ff-TOR
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
Yi�Yi�ii�--Yii�■i��■
ii iiii� iiiiiiiii�i
from baseline
••
®�Y®ii
i
�fi ii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i
Additional Reach Parameters
VOW
bnaced cans maica[e mar [nese will typically not oe tinea in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, dial, = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

bnaced cans maicate mar [nese will typically not oe ruled in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: LIT 7 (1,127 feet)
-
Yi,Y®i©i■YYYi©i�i�ii®�®iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
•
. ::...
���®i©
���i©�����®
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
- ..-
, ,
. ii
, ,
, ,
, , ,
, , ii
, ,,,�
•
, �i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
i�i��iaii�--Yii�■i���
ii iiiii iiiiiiiiiii
from baseline
•• �iDYi,ii
i
�fi iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Additional Reach Paidinttirs
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
,
' '•��®��i�®���i���®moi
iiiiiiiiiii iiiii
-
i�iii�Cii■iii���®®�CiiiiiiiiiiiCiiiii
bnaced cans maicate mar [nese will typically not oe ruled in.
7 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: SIIVClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Figures 3a -k - Longitudinal Profile Plots

Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem -Reach 1
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 22+00 to 25+77.37 -THW As -Built 12/2014 -THW MY3 09/2015--)FTHW MY2 09/2016 MS -1P -MS-1R ♦ TOB MY2
641.00
y -0.0014x 643-45
640.00 AA
639.00
c
o - -
i
w 638.00
637.00
636.00
2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550. 2600
Station (ft)
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem -Reach 3 -THW As -built 12/2014 -THW MYS 09/2015 THW MY2 09/2016
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 48+12.42 to 50+56.51 -MS-2R MS -2P ♦ TOB MY2
♦ WS MY2
633.00
I
632.00
I
631.00
--n nrkqAX+6771a
x
c
630.00
v
629.00
OF
628.00
y x+
627.00
4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100
Station (ft)

Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem -Reach 4 -THW As -built 12/2014 -THW MY3 09/2015 --X-THW MY2 09/2016
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 63+70.48 to 65+21.37
MS -3P ♦ TOB MY2
625.00
624.00
A A
623.00
x
0
O
m 622.00
621.00
620.00 -
6350 6370 6390 6410 6430 6450 6470 6490 6510 6530
Station (ft)
UT2 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem -THW As -built 12/2014 -THW MY109/2015 --)<.THW MY2 09/2016
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 13+78.56 to 14+29.80
UT2-1R ♦ TOB MY2
641.00
640.50
640.00
639.50
x
o` 639.00
x
638.50 - -
638.00 -- ---- - --
637.50
637.00
1360.00 1370.00 1380.00 1390.00 1400.00 1410.00 1420.00 1430.00 1440.00 1450.00 1460.00 1470.00
Station (ft)

UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 50+00 to 12+15.05
651.00
650.00
649.00
x
0 648.00
i
647.00
646.00
645.00
1000 1050
—THW As -built 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015, THW MY2 09/2016
—UT3-1R ♦ TOB MY2
1100 1150
Station (ft)
1200 1250
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem —THW As -built 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015 THWMY209/2016
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 14+66.62 to 20+90.79 Extended
to 20+90.79
UT3-2P —UT3-2R ♦ TOB MY2
642.00 -
640.00 -
♦
638.00
♦ —
636.00
c
—_
� - .. ♦ y -0.0165x 4 664.44
w 634.00
w
632.00
630.00 - —
i
628.00
1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Station (ft)

UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem STH W As -built 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 21+29 to 22+32.49;
Extended to Station 22+32.49 TH W MY2 09/2016 ♦ TOB MY2
630.00
629.00
628.00
r 627.00
B ♦_
y 626.00
625.00 -In I
624.00
623.00
2125 2135 2145 2155 2165 2175 2185 2195 2205 2215 2225 2235
Station (ft)
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 24+05.13 to 24+50.74
625.00
624.00
x
`0 623.00
i
622.00
—THWAs-builtl2/2014—THWMY109/2015 -+E—THWMY209/2016 —UT3-3R ♦ TOB MY2
621.00 i i i i i' ii i i i 1
2400 2405 2410 2415. 2420. 2425 2430 2435 2440. 2445 2450. 2455
Station (ft)

UT4 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem —THW As -built 12/2014 —TH W MYl 09/2015 THW MY2 09/2016
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 14+21.25 to 18+30.57 TOB MY2 ♦ WS MY2 UT4-1P
UT4-1R Linear (WS MY2)
63200
631.00
630.00
629.00
=--0.0123X+ 54T38---
628.00
4 3628.00 -
`o
i 627.00
W r
626.00
625.00
624.00
623.00
1400.00 1450.00 1500.00 1550.00 1600.00 1650.00 1700.00. 1750.00 1800.00 1850.00.
Station (ft)
1117 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem �THW As -built 12/2014 —THW MY 109/2015 --�-THW MY 209/2016 . TOB MY2
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 11+46.80to 21+26.71
_UT7-1R 1777-1P —UT7-2R _UT7 S1p1
—UT7 STP2 ■ ROCKVANEMY2 • LOGVANEMY2
619 177
617.00
515.00
•
4:
S 613.00
g - �
fi1100
60900
607.0(]
1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
Station {ft)
4625.66

UTO to UT7
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 10+19.08 to 10+80.78 —THW As -built 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015 —.>(MY2 09/2016 ♦ TOB MY2
615.00
614.50
_ +
614.00
x
o` 613.50
a
613.00
612.50
612.00
1010.00 1020.00 1030.00 1040.00 1050.00 1060.00 1070.00 1080.00 1090.00
Station (ft)

Figures 4a -q - Cross-section Plot Exhibits

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
IMS -1p
Drainage Area aq mi :
2.99
Data:
9/1912016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
48.03
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 42.08
Bankfull Width:
36.53
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
645.28
Flood Prone Width:
158.50
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.52
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.15
WO Ratio:
31.71
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.34
Bank Height Ratio:
0.93
Stream Type
C4
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar
X -Section 1, Pool, Station 23+38.19
As -Built 10/2014 - MY -109/2015 MY2 09/2016
646
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - --
----- -- - - --- - - - - --- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - --
645
644
643
c 642
0
641
d
"'640 - - - - - - - --- -----
----- - - - - --- - - -- ---------- - - - - -- -
639
638
637
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
MS -1R
Drainage Area sq mi):
2.99
Date:
9119/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
t tr
4.94
Bankfull Elevation: 640.21
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
43.25
Bankfull Width:
37.70
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
644.13
Flood Prone Width:
135.20
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.96
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.15
W/D Ratio:
32.87
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.59
Bank Height Ratio:
0.99
639
638
Stream Type
C4
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 2, Riffle, Station 24+91.17 — - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum — - - Floodprone Area XC Top of Rebar —As -built 10/2014 —MY -109/15 --X-- MY2 09/2016
645
644
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - -- --------------------
643
x
642
c
641
m
w fi40
639
638
637
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
MS -2R
Drainage Area sq mi :
2.82
Date:
9/1912016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
9.84
629.66
15.83
629.62
18.77
628.83
20.63
628.10
21.87
628.01
23.88
627.95
24.51
628.34
27.08
629.28
29.151
629.45
31.69
629.93
36.51
630.03
38.89
630.57
41.61
631.04
43.73
631.66
44.34
632.89
Note: Inner Channel reworked to eliminate larger
backwater effect upstream. MY2 and Summary Data
shows new baseline monitoring post re -grading.
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 52.43
Bankfull Width:
38.35
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
636.86
Flood Prone Width:
488.00
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.97
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.37
W/D Ratio:
28.05
Entrenchment Ratio:
12.73
Bank Height Ratio:
0.88
629
628
627
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)
Stream Type
C4
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 3, Riffle, Station 49+08.73 - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar -As-built 10/2014 -MY-109/2015 --XF MY2 09/2016
638
637 - - - - - -- --- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
-- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -
-
636
635
634
633
n
632
M 631
630
629
628
627
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)

Crass Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
MS -2P
Drainage Area sq mi):
2.82
Date:
9/15/2015
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
630.64
0.40
629.85
5.21
629.50
9.76
629.76
12.22
629.18
14.21
628.72
17.27
628.86
18.94
627.72
22.15
627.54
24.89
627.83
27.29
628.56
29.61
628.53
33.76
629.60
40.17
629.69
43.83
630.07
47.03
630.43
47.231
631.27
SUMMARY DATA
F 632
Bankfull Elevation:
629.80
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
33.19
Bankfull Width:
33.35
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
634.33
Flood Prone Width:
368.00
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.26
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.00
W/D Ratio:
33.52
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.03
Bank Height Ratio:
0.91
Stream Type
C4
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 4, Pool, Station 50+08.51 - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area M Top of Rebar -As-built 10/2014 - MY -109/2015 -06- MY2 09/2016
635
_______ ________ _______ ________ ________________ _ " " " _________ ________________
634
633
F 632
631
x
630
W
"""
629
628
627
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
MS -3P
Drainage Area sq mi :
4.01
Date:
9/1912016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
gal
27.56
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 58.25
Bankfull Width:
24.64
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
630.90
Flood Prone Width:
435.00
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.32
Mean Depth at Bankful:
2.36
WO Ratio:
10.42
Entrenchment Ratio:
17.65
Bank Height Ratio:
0.68
Stream Type
C4
Station and description 1 6433.12 MS -3P Looking Upstream
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 5, Pool, Station 64+33.12 _ - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar —As -built 10/2014 —MY -109/2015 --*F MY2 09/2016
632
630
-- - - - - - - - - --
------ - - - - -------- - - - - -------- - - - - -------- - - - - - -
------ - - - - --
------------
—628
c
626
d
m
- - - - - - -------- - - - - -------- - - - - ----- - - - - ----------- - - - - -------- - - - - --
--
624
622
620
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT2-1R
Drainage Area aq mi):
0.3
Data
9119/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
t rr
0.42
Bankfull Elevation: 639.34
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.43
Bankfull Width:
4.31
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
641.40
Flood Prone Width:
40.80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.03
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.80
W/D Ratio:
5.42
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.46
Bank Height Ratio:
1 0.84
638.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance (ft)
Stream Type
I B6
Station and description 1 1391.34 UT2-1 R Looking Upstream
UT2 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - . - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum Floodprone Area. X Top of Rebar
X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 13+91.34
642.5
642.0
641.5
- - - -- - - — - -- - - — - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - —- - - - — --
- - - - --
- - - --
- - - - --
- - - --
641.0
640.5
0
640.0
w
639.5
639.0
638.5
638.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT3-1R
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.097
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
Station Elevation
0.00
648.58
0.86
647.57
2.51
647.11
4.07
646.66
5.41
646.55
6.52
646.55
7.93
647.36
9.30
647.97
9.84
648.76
Width:
at Bankful:
Stream Type I B6
Station and description 1 1166.28 UT3-1 R Looking Upstream
1166.28 UT3-1R Looking Downstream
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem _ - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum — - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar —As -built 10/2014 —MY -109/2015 --OF MY2 09/2016
X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 11+66.28
649.0
X
648.5
------------------------------------ - - - - ---- - - - - ---- - - - - ---- - - - - ---- - - — - --- - - - - - - -
648.0
x
c
647.5
a
647.0
646.5
646.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT3-1P
Drainage Area sq mi :
0.097
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
Station Elevation
0.00
641.50
0.25
640.65
3.94
639.19
4.56
638.71
6.94
638.44
8.95
638.64
10.81
639.51
12.74
640.08
13.04
641.12
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 1 3.14 1
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 1 640.79 1
at Bankfull:
Note: No change in BKF elevation from MY1 to
MY2. Using calculated BKF from MYi and MY2 in IStrearn Type 86
Summary Data for shift after construction from
Baseline
Station and description 1 1534.98 UT3-1P Looking Upstream
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - MY -1&2 Field Observed Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area
X -Section 2, Pool, Station 15+34.98 * Top of Rebar -As-built 10/2014 - MY -1 09/2105
1f- MY2 09/2016
642.0
641.5
641.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
640.5
c 640.0
0
639.5
°1 - - - - -- - -.- .. ------- ------ -------- - -- - -- -- -----.....-
M
639.0
-- - - - - - - - ------- - - - - -- - ------------------- ------------------------
638.5
638.0
637.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance (ft)

Crass Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT3-2R
Drainage Area sq mi):
0.097
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
Station Elevation
0.00
635.18
0.40
634,45
3.51
633.21
5.78
632.52
7.25
632.13
10.32
632.61
12.16
633.01
15.97
634.08
Note: No change in BKF elevation from MY1 to
MY2. Using calculated BKF from MYi and MY2 in
Summary Data for shift after construction from
Baseline
DATA
(Flood Prone Width: 30.20
Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.56
Stream Type B6
Station and description 1 1602.03 UT3-2R Looking Upstream
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - MY -1&2 Field Observed Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area.
X -Section 3, Riffle, Station 18+02.03 * Top of Rebar —As -built 10/2014 — MY -109/2015
—04— MY2 09/2016
638.0
637.0
636.0
635.0
o
i
634.0
v
W
-- - - - - ---- - - - - ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - --
633.0
632.0
631.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT3-3R
Drainage Area sq mi):
0.097
Date:
9119/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
0.00 1
624.86
0.24
623.77
2.51
623.21
3.25
622.95
4.21
622.73
5.00
622.69
6.13
622.76
6.96
623.11
8.40
624.01
9.02
624.07
9.25
624.87
Note: No change in BKF elevation from MY1 to
MY2. Using calculated BKF from MY1 and MY2 in
Summary Data for shift after construction from
Baseline
Bankfull Elevation: 623.77
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.75
Bankfull Width:
8.16
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
625.94
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.08
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.58
W/D Ratio:
14.02
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (ft)
Stream Type
B6
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - MY -1 Field Observed Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area
X -Section 4, Riffle, Station 24+26.03 * Top of Rebar -As-built 10/2014 - MY -1 09/2015
--F MY2 09/2016
626.5
626.0
- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - ---- - - - --
625.5
625.0
x x
c 624.5
0
624.0
u 623.5
623.0
------- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------
622.5
622.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT4-1P
Drainage Area sq mi :
0.4
Date:
9/1912016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
5.41
11.51
20.34
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 23.75
Bankfull Width:
19.45
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
635.71
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.94
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.22
WO Ratio:
15.93
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.99
628
Stream Type
C4
Station and description 1 1559.37 UT4-1P Looking Upstream
UT4 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 1, Pool, Station 15+59.37 – - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum – - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar —As -built 10/2014 —MY -109/2015 —M-- MY2 09/2016
637
636
--- - - - ---------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - --------------
-------- - - - - --
- - --
- - - - -- - - - - --
635
634
K 633
632
e
631
M630
-------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- ------ --
--------- ------ -- --- -
629
628
627
626
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT4-1R
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.4
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
0.00
628.30
0.19
627.66
1.86
627.10
6.23
626.64
8.06
625.79
8.89
625.67
Bankfull Elevation: 627.41
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.42
Bankfull Width:
14.33
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
630.89
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.74
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.73
W/D Ratio:
19.70
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.14
Stream Type
C4
Station and description 1 1727.36 UT4-1 R Looking Upstream
1727.36 UT4-1R Looking Downstream
UT4 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 2, Riffle, Station 17+27.36 - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar -As-built 10/2014 - MY -109/2015 MY2 09/2016
632
631 - - - - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - ---- - - - - - - --------
630
x
629
�
0
w 628
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
627
626
625
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Distance (ft)

Crass Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
U77 -1R
Drainage Area sq mi):
1.91
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
617.24
0.55
616.39
5.01
616.39
7.10
615.97
9.17
614.89
14.34
614.95
19.35
614.69
22.71
614.58
26371
614.69
26.79
615.08
27.47
615.31
28.57
615.71
30.84
616.13
37.51
616.20
37.51
617.35
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
615.87
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
21.15
Bankfull Width:
21.47
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
618.44
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.29
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.98
W/D Ratio:
21.80
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.87
Stream Type
I C4
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 13+45.64 -As-built 10/2014 - MY -1 09/2015 --(-MY2 09/2016
619.0
618.5
618.0
- - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - ----- - - - - ----- - - - - -- - -- - -- --
617.5
617.0
c
616.5
w616.0
W 615.5
--------- --- ------------------------------ --- -------- --------
615.0
614.5
614.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)

Crass Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
U77 -1P
Drainage Area sq mi):
1.91
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
30.22
SUMMARY DATA
X -Section 2, Pool, Station 15+92.61 —As -built 10/2014 — MY -109/2015 --0—MY2 09/2016
Bankfull Elevation:
614.93
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
28.70
Bankfull Width:
23.14
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
617.99
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.53
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.24
W/D Ratio:
18.65
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.67
Stream Type
I C4
Station and description 1 1592.61 UT7-1 P Looking Upstream
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar
X -Section 2, Pool, Station 15+92.61 —As -built 10/2014 — MY -109/2015 --0—MY2 09/2016
619.0
618.0
617.0
616.0
i
v
°1615.0
-----
614.0
613.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
618
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
617
Watershed:
616
x
Little Buffalo Creek
615
0
i
XS ID:
UT7-2R
Drainage Area sq
mi):
1.91
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Distance (ft)
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus,
Greg Russo: Louis
Berger
Station
Elevation
SUMMARY DATA
0.00
614.39
Bankfull Elevation:
613.60
0.24
613.57
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
26.11
2.97
613.45
Bankfull Width:
21.61
6.48
612.56
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
617.69
7.20
612.17
Flood Prone Width:
>100
7.84
611.73
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.04
11.39
611.56
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.21
14.53
611.76
W/D Ratio:
17.89
16.19
612.22
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
20.97
612.42
Bank Height Ratio:
0.93
24.58
613.68
Stream Type
C4
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 3, Riffle, Station 16+46.19 ' ' ' Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar -As-built 10/2014 - MY -109/2015 --�<-MY2 09/201
618
617
616
x
615
0
i
614
v
w 613
612
611
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Distance (ft)

Crass Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT7-STP1
Drainage Area sq mi):
1.91
Data:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
36.40
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
612.87
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
52.44
Bankfull Width:
28.17
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
617.98
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.55
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.86
W/D Ratio:
15.13
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.92
609
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Distance (ft)
Stream Type
Cob
LIT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 4, Step Pool, Station 20+19.70 — - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum-MY2 — - - Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar — MY2 09/2016
619
618
617
_ 616
615
c
°
614
w 613------
W 612
611
610
Tlmi;ql;
609
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
Distance (ft)

Crass Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT7-STP2
Drainage Area sq mi):
1.91
Date:
9/19/2016
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Greg Russo: Louis Berger
gAits
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
610.22
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
34.22
Bankfull Width:
20.56
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
614.86
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.32
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.66
W/D Ratio:
12.35
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.78
611
Stream Type
C4b
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 5, Step Pool, Station 20+77.52 Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum-MY2 Floodprone Area * Top of Rebar -MY2 09/2016
616
615
614
613
c 612
0
611
v
610
609
608
� ! 4
607 -.1 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Distance (ft)

Figures 5a-q - Pebble Count Plots

Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
D16
0.8
D35
Cross -Section: MS -1P
D50
11
D84
Feature: Pool
D95
46
13100
Bedrock
2016
90%
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
2
4%
4%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
4%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
4%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
4%
coarse sand 1.00 8 16%
20%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
20%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
2
4%
24%
fine gravel 5.7 5 10%
34%
fine gravel 8.0 3 6%
40%
medium gravel 11.3 6 12%
52%
medium gravel 16.0 1 2%
54%
coarse gravel 22.3 9 18%
72%
coarse gravel 32.0 6 12%
84%
very coarse gravel 45 5 10%
94%
very coarse gravel 64 2 4%
98%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
98%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
98%
large cobble 180 0 0%
98%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
98%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
98%
small boulder 512 0 0%
98%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
98%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
98%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
1
2%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
'
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.8
D35
5.9
D50
11
D84
32
D95
46
13100
Bedrock
Cumulative Percent
100%
100%
90%
90%
-
80%
70%
a
a
y
o
70%
60%
III
a
50%
'0
60%
40%
q
30%
50%
ao%
10%
'
U
0%
Oy ,
ti a 5^ 3 ,'� 1b bb q0 `yb `$O
�yb �bL b�ti oyx
oobti o�LS JL5
�ti
ry�4 �oogb
Particle Size (mm)
30%
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016
-
zo%
10%
o%
Doti oti ti �o 00
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MYl - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
so%
70%
a
60%
50%
'0
40%
q
30%
20%
10%
'
0%
Oy ,
ti a 5^ 3 ,'� 1b bb q0 `yb `$O
�yb �bL b�ti oyx
oobti o�LS JL5
�ti
ry�4 �oogb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0.18
D35
15.00
Cross -Section: MS -111
22.00
D84
Bedrock
Feature: Riffle
Bedrock
D100
Bedrock
y 70%
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total # Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
6
12%
12%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
12%
fine sand 0.250 3 6%
18%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
18%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
18%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
18%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
18%
fine gravel 5.7 1 2%
20%
fine gravel 8.0 1 2%
22%
medium gravel 11.3 2 4%
25%
medium gravel 16.0 7 14%
39%
coarse gravel 22.3 6 12%
51%
coarse gravel 32.0 7 14%
65%
very coarse gravel 45 5 10%
75%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
75%
Cobble
small cobble
90
1
2%
76%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
76%
large cobble 180 0 0%
76%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
76%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
76%
small boulder 512 0 0%
76%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
76%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
76%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
12
24%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
51
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.18
D35
15.00
D50
22.00
D84
Bedrock
D95
Bedrock
D100
Bedrock
Cumulative Percent
Individual Class Percent
100%
100%
90%
80
y 70%
80%
III
III III,
60%
a
60%
U
50%
50%
40%
40%
U
30%
30%
-
II
20%
I mL
16
10%
10%
0%
oob`L o,,y5 ory5 05 1 ti
A S1 �90 ry5b �b`L 'L ,oya ryoa� �opgb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016
0%
o� ,o 00 00
o
o.
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v
y
70%
a
60%
U
50%
o
40%
30%
20%
I mL
16
10%
0%
oob`L o,,y5 ory5 05 1 ti
A S1 �90 ry5b �b`L 'L ,oya ryoa� �opgb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
3.75
D35
Cross -Section: MS -2P
D50
14.50
D84
28.00
Feature: Pool
38.00
13100
45.00
80%
70%
a.
2016
q70� a
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
2
4%
4%
fine sand 0.250 2 4%
8%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
8%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
8%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2%
9%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
4
8%
17%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
17%
fine gravel 8.0 6 11%
28%
medium gravel 11.3 6 11 %
40%
medium gravel 16.0 9 17% 1
57%
coarse gravel 22.3 9 17%
74%
coarse gravel 32.0 8 15%
89%
very coarse gravel 45 6 11%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
53
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
3.75
D35
10.00
D50
14.50
D84
28.00
D95
38.00
13100
45.00
Cumulative Percent
tool
100%
07
90%
1 11
90%
80%
80%
70%
a.
q70� a
III
50%
b
ao%
�
per. 60%
a�
50%
0%
O�bry o�•y� ory5 ��
~ ry � �'^ 9 ��'!� `b titi"� �ti b5 bR 9� �ry6 1�o ryyb �bti 'L >ary� ry�� ogb
Particle Size (mm)
40%
■ As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016
30%
20%
----
0%
1
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY I - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
U
70%
a.
60%
c-
50%
b
ao%
�
�o
30%
20%
l0%
0%
O�bry o�•y� ory5 ��
~ ry � �'^ 9 ��'!� `b titi"� �ti b5 bR 9� �ry6 1�o ryyb �bti 'L >ary� ry�� ogb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
1
D35
Cross -Section: MS -2R
D50
13.5
D84
23
Feature: Riffle
38.5
13100
64
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
4
8%
8%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
8%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
8%
medium sand 0.50 2 4%
12%
coarse sand 1.00 2 4%
16%
very coarse sand 2.0 2 4%
20%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
22%
fine gravel 5.7 2 4%
26%
fine gravel 8.0 5 10%
36%
medium gravel 11.3 4 8%
44%
medium gravel 16.0 8 16%
60%
coarse gravel 22.3 12 24%
84%
coarse gravel 32.0 3 6%
90%
very coarse gravel 45 4 8%
98%
very coarse gravel 64 1 2%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count 1
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
1
D35
7.8
D50
13.5
D84
23
D95
38.5
13100
64
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Z j 40%
30%
20i
10% - ----
0%
0o p4.. ti do 00 00
> >o
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
U
y 70%
a
60
v
50%
40%
b
30%
20%
10%
0%
oob'L g1ti5 oti5 05
ti ti a �� � ��^� �b ryry^� ,y'L a5 �` 9° �'L� �qo tihb ��ti y�'L loyD• ry�4 �oogb
Particle Size (mm)
■As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
7.2
D35
Cross -Section: MS -3P
D50
19.5
D84
Bedrock
Feature: Pool
Bedrock
■
Bedrock
U
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
1
2%
2%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
2%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
2%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
2%
coarse sand 1.00 2 4%
6%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
6%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
6%
fine gravel 5.7 1 2%
8%
fine gravel 8.0 6 11%
19%
medium gravel 11.3 3 6%
25%
medium gravel 16.0 9 17%
42%
coarse gravel 22.3 7 13%
55%
coarse gravel 32.0 2 4%
58%
very coarse gravel 45 5 9%
68%
very coarse gravel 64 3 6%
74%
Cobble
small cobble
90
3
6%
79%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
79%
large cobble 180 0 0%
79%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
79%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
79%
small boulder 512 0 0%
79%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
79%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
79%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
11
21%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
53
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
7.2
D35
15
D50
19.5
D84
Bedrock
D95
Bedrock
13100
Bedrock
Cumulative Percent
l00%
I
90% -
80% —
v 70%
V
N
V
60%
50% — —
a
40% -- — —
U
30% -
20% --
10% -
0%
Doti o>�o
�o 00 1
�
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
so%
U
y 70
a
60%
U
So%
�
b 40%
b
30%
20%
lo% t L L
o%
oob'L O,yS ory5 05
'� ti p �!� g �,�'h .`y ry,L"s �ti tk5 bb Ao �ti9 ,40 ti56 �bti 51'1r 1pryA ry�A4 �oOgb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0
D35
Cross -Section: UT2-1R
D50
0
D84
0
Feature: Riffle
0
D100
Visually silt/clay/organic
No Sample
90%
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
50
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
100%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
100%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
100%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 22.3 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
1
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0
D35
0
D50
0
D84
0
D95
0
D100
0
Cumulative Percent
100%
120%
100%
90%
p� 80%
60%
40%
80
20%
t
0%
L L L
0 70%
1b ,L,y'S �ti th (: ` qp <ti ti40 �5b ,Sb�' btiti ,e "p
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016
60%
50%
�j 40%
—
30%
20%
10%
-----
0%
O01 p1 1 �O l�0
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MYl - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
120%
100%
p� 80%
60%
40%
20%
t
0%
L L L
1b ,L,y'S �ti th (: ` qp <ti ti40 �5b ,Sb�' btiti ,e "p
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
D16
Cross -Section: UT3-1R
D35
0.00
D50
Feature: Riffle
D84
0.00
Damaged by cows
visually silt/clay/organic
0.00
2016
0.00
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
20
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
100%
medium sand 0.50 0 0% 1
100%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
100%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 22.3 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
20
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.00
D35
0.00
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
D95
0.00
D100
0.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
s0%
U
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
l0
Particle Size (nun)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016

Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
D16
Cross -Section: UT3-1P
D35
0.00
D50
Feature: Pool
D84
0.00
Damaged by cows
visually silt/clay/organic
0.00
2016
0.00
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
50
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
100%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
100%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
100%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 22.3 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.00
D35
0.00
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
D95
0.00
D100
0.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
s0%
70%
0' 60%
50%
0 a0%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
o©� oy ti do goo
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2105 MYl - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016

Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
D16
Cross -Section: UT3-2R
D35
0.00
D50
Feature: Riffle
D84
0.00
Damaged by cows
visually silt/clay/organic
0.00
2016
0.00
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
50
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
100%
medium sand 0.50 0 0% 1
100%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
100%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 22.3 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.00
D35
0.00
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
D95
0.00
D100
0.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70
a
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
0� o> > >0 00
o �
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0.00
D35
Cross -Section: UT3-3R
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
Feature: Riffle
0.00
D100
Visually Silt/Clay/Organics, no sample
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
50
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
100%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
100%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
100%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 22.3 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.00
D35
0.00
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
D95
0.00
D100
0.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
a 60%
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
O�1 01 1 10 1�
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0.38
D35
Cross -Section: UT4-1P
D50
10.00
D84
39.00
Feature: Pool
70.00
13100
175.00
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
4
8%
8%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
8%
fine sand 0.250 0 1 0%
8%
medium sand 0.50 6 12%
20%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
20%
very coarse sand 2.0 6 12%
32%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
32%
fine gravel 5.7 3 6%
38%
fine gravel 8.0 3 6%
44%
medium gravel 11.3 5 10%
54%
medium gravel 16.0 4 8%
62%
coarse gravel 22.3 7 14%
76%
coarse gravel 32.0 2 4%
80%
very coarse gravel 45 1 2%
82%
very coarse gravel 64 6 12%
94%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
94%
medium cobble 128 1 2%
96%
large cobble 180 2 4%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.38
D35
5.00
D50
10.00
D84
39.00
D95
70.00
13100
175.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
i
90%
80%
70%
p 60%
d 50%
a0%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 10
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
3.70
D35
Cross -Section: UT44R
D50
10.00
D84
26.00
Feature: Riffle
51.00
D100
90.00
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
4
8%
8%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
8%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
8%
medium sand 0.50 7 14%
j 22%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
22%
very coarse sand 2.0 2 4%
26%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
3
6%
32%
fine gravel 5.7 2 4%
36%
fine gravel 8.0 6 12%
48%
medium gravel 11.3 2 4%
52%
medium gravel 16.0 7 14%
66%
coarse gravel 22.3 4 8%
74%
coarse gravel 32.0 8 16%
90%
very coarse gravel 45 2 4%
94%
very coarse gravel 64 1 2%
96%
Cobble
small cobble
90
2
4%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
1 40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
1
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
3.70
D35
5.50
D50
10.00
D84
26.00
D95
51.00
D100
90.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
a0%
�I
60%
ro 50% Li
� i I
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% l l l
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY l - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
18%
16%
14%
v
12%
U
t0%
n
a%
6%
4% —
2%
0%
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY] - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0.00
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-1R
D50
18.00
D84
33.00
Feature: Riffle
44.00
D100
128.00
a 20%
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
13
25%
25%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
25%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
25%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
25%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
25%
very coarse sand 2.0 2 4%
29%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
29%
fine gravel 5.7 1 2%
31%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
31%
medium gravel 11.3 3 6%
37%
medium gravel 16.0 5 10%
47%
coarse gravel 22.3 8 16%
63%
coarse gravel 32.0 10 20%
82%
very coarse gravel 45 7 14%
96%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
96%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
96%
medium cobble 128 2 4%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
51
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.00
D35
11.00
D50
18.00
D84
33.00
D95
44.00
D100
128.00
Individual Class Percent
30%
25%
a
a 20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
oti5 05
1 '1. ,�� 4 ,�"� �C ,y'L ph ba q0 ,�,y� ��o �yb �bti y1ti
"p
Dobry o�,y5
ryryM 'e, b��b
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0.00
D35
Cross -Section: UT74P
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
Feature: Pool
0.00
D100
Visually dry Silt/Clay, no sample
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
50
100%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
100%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
100%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
100%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
100%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 22.3 0 0%
100%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
0.00
D35
0.00
D50
0.00
D84
0.00
D95
0.00
D100
0.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70% -----
c
60%
>
50%
40%
20%
0%
oo� o� � do 00 00
ti �o
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 -MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
6.70
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-2R
D50
20.00
D84
43.00
Feature: Riffle
80.00
13100
128.00
U
y 0.35
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
0%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
0%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
0%
coarse sand 1.00 2 4%
4%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2%
6%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
2 1
4%
10%
fine gravel 5.7 1 2%
12%
fine gravel 8.0 5 10%
22%
medium gravel 11.3 4 8%
29%
medium gravel 16.0 8 16%
45%
coarse gravel 22.3 4 8%
53%
coarse gravel 32.0 8 16%
69%
very coarse gravel 45 9 18%
86%
very coarse gravel 64 3 6%
92%
Cobble
small cobble
90
2
4%
96%
medium cobble 128 2 4%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
51
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
6.70
D35
14.00
D50
20.00
D84
43.00
D95
80.00
13100
128.00
Individual Class Percent
Cumulative Percent
0.5
100%
0.4
U
y 0.35
a
0.3
U 0.25
cC
• b 0.2
90%
�
b
0.15
14,
80%
-
0.1
0.05
0 il I
Ij all a W In 10111di .,L56
111y �Ip '1C
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016
70%
w
60%
—
50%
40%
U
30%
20%
10%
o%
o°
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 912016
Individual Class Percent
0.5
0.45
0.4
U
y 0.35
a
0.3
U 0.25
cC
• b 0.2
�
b
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 il I
Ij all a W In 10111di .,L56
111y �Ip '1C
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
11.00
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-STP1
D50
49.00
D84
Feature: Step Pool
D95
257.00
D100
512.00
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
0%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
0%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
0%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
0%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2%
2%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
4%
fine gravel 5.7 1 2%
6%
fine gravel 8.0 1 2%
8%
medium gravel 11.3 5 10%
18%
medium gravel 16.0 4 8%
26%
coarse gravel 22.3 2 4%
30%
coarse gravel 32.0 4 8%
38%
very coarse gravel 45 5 10%
48%
very coarse gravel 64 4 8%
56%
Cobble
small cobble
90
9
18%
74%
medium cobble 128 5 10%
84%
large cobble 180 3 6%
90%
very large cobble 256 2 4%
94%
Boulder
small boulder
362
2
4%
98%
small boulder 512 1 2%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
1
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
11.00
D35
28.00
D50
49.00
D84
128.00
D95
257.00
D100
512.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90% -
80
70%
a 60%
s0% - -
a0% -
20%
10% .
I�
0%
OHO
1
Particle Size (mm)
MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
20%
18%
16%
a
la%
12%
10%
�
a
8%
b
6%
a%
2%
o%
oob'1. o,�yh oti5 p5
1 ti tk 5^ 4 �`"> >b ,yti'7 'S'L p5 bD' q0 1,ti� ��O ryyb �bti b�ti 1Q,yD. ��6
�oo�b
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY2 - 9/2016

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
10.00
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-STP2
D50
30.00
D84
Feature: Step Pool
D95
57.00
D100
64.00
80%------
-7o%
2016
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
0%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
0%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
0%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
0%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
0%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
2%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
2%
fine gravel 8.0 3 7%
10%
medium gravel 11.3 4 10%
19%
medium gravel 16.0 3 7%
26%
coarse gravel 22.3 3 7%
33%
coarse gravel 32.0 9 21%
55%
very coarse gravel 45 10 24%
79%
very coarse gravel 64 9 21%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
42
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
10.00
D35
24.00
D50
30.00
D84
49.00
D95
57.00
D100
64.00
Cumulative Percent
1001
25%
a 20%
U
90%
—
--
80%------
-7o%
ti 35%
y60%
b lo%
b
U40%
5%
30
20%
10%
0%
oob'L o♦.yh oti5 05 ♦ 'L a 5� ♦♦^i \b ry,�^� '7ti a5 ba l0 `� ♦90 ,fib �bti♦ti ♦otia ryonw doo�b
Particle Size (mm)
0%
00 p
Particle Size (mm)
MY2 - 9/2016
Individual Class Percent
25%
a 20%
U
a
ti 35%
U
b lo%
b
5%
0%
oob'L o♦.yh oti5 05 ♦ 'L a 5� ♦♦^i \b ry,�^� '7ti a5 ba l0 `� ♦90 ,fib �bti♦ti ♦otia ryonw doo�b
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY2 - 9/2016

Appendix E - Hydrologic Data

1) As stage relationships nave not peen calculated for the ugs event, it is assumed that an event that has surpassed the identined banKtuii stage on site also
passed the Qgs event
Little. Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger —January 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Draft
Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Date of
Observation
Date of
Occurrence Method
Greater than
Qgs = Q2*0.66
stage?'
Greater than
Qbkf Stage?
Notes
2/27/2016
11/9/2015 Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
2/27/2016
12/22/20151 Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
2/27/2016
Surface Water Transducer
12/30/2015 Rack Lines
Yes
Yes
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations.
See Photo Appendix.
9/19/2016
5/20/2016 Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
1) As stage relationships nave not peen calculated for the ugs event, it is assumed that an event that has surpassed the identined banKtuii stage on site also
passed the Qgs event
Little. Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger —January 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Draft

Figures 6a -e - Water Level and Rainfall Plots

2.500
2.000
1.500
v
r 1.000
a
0.500
0.000
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 2 UT2 Upper
2.5
Loggers ran out of memory 2
in July until September field
visit and monitoring.
1 1.5 r
c
1 41�
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
, I I• I �� 10.5
Gage 1 Mainstem Upstream Restoration Site
3.000
2.5
_0.500
Logger damaged between downloads on Loggers ran out of memory
2.500
_
9/19/15 and 2/27/16. Data was not in July until September field
2
retrivable from logger. New logger installed visit and monitoring.
v 2.000
in well on 2/27/16.
w
t
1.5 m
L
U
v 1.500
�..
C_
v
�
— — — — — — — —
1 c
'ro
3: 1.000
I
�
0.500
0.000
l
Al
0.5
0
v1 I11. Ul N VI IA l0 lO tp l0 t0 lO l� b tD t0 b O b
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
0 0r 0 oyo
N M \ N \ \ \ \ \ N \ N N
01 O O N ati N irf ct N t0 n W �
' Date
Rainfall (IN) Gage 1_Upper Mainstem Restoration — — Bankfull Depth
2.500
2.000
1.500
v
r 1.000
a
0.500
0.000
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 2 UT2 Upper
2.5
Loggers ran out of memory 2
in July until September field
visit and monitoring.
1 1.5 r
c
1 41�
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project— Project #94147 — Louis Berger — January 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Draft
r�
, I I• I �� 10.5
_0.500
1
l il.i I I I.. �.
i
�..
LI I
I
-1.000 —
ul vt
0 0
N N
.
vl N of v1 l0 lO
0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N \ \
_
tp l0 i0 lO tD tp ip tp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ \ \ \ \ N N
0
1p ip lD
0 0 0
\ \ \
O O
N ."�
01 O
O O1
M \ N N \ N
O N N e -I
N •-I a N N � N •-I
N T V N t0 n
Date
� \ N
W �
Rainfall (IN)
Gage 2_UT2 Upper — — Bankfull Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project— Project #94147 — Louis Berger — January 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Draft

Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
3.000 Gage 3 UT2 Lower 2.5
Bankfull depth unidentified at Gage 3
2.500 during MY -2 due to dry conditions and
vegetation. Will be collected in MY -3. Loggers ran out of memory 2
2.000
in July until September field
–� —
w visit and monitoring.
L 1.5 r
y 1.500
m
1.000
0.5
0.500
0.000 .. a ,�.. — �.. — „ . , , , ,. 0
N N N N N N iD tp l0 lO tD l0 i0 � tp l0 � tp t0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
-2N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
O O O O1 O1 01 00 n r` W r` n r` b b lD N N a
N \ \ \ N \ \ N N a N b N W \ \
01 O O ."� N N N til C VI t0 n W 01
' Date
Rainfall (IN) —Gage 3_UT2 Lower
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 4 UT4
3.000
Loggers ran out of memory
2.5
Gage reset on 2/25/16
in July until September field
2.500
-------------7-–
� I
�
visit and monitoring.
z
2.000
^. 1.500
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — —
w
1.5 w
s
r 1.000
a
u
�
v
0.500
—
v
1 �
0.000
- -
-
-0.500
—
—
0.5
-1.000
-1.500 I–i I
N N
0 0 0
I I I I I I. �.. Id
N N lD lD l0 lD l0 tD lD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I
lD tD .D lD l0 lD
0 0 0 0 0 0
p
Date
Rainfall (IN)
Gage 4_UT4 — — Bankfull Depth -Before Well Installation
— — — Bankfull Depth -After Well Installation
*Bankfull line represents depth from bankfull to gage. This depth changed when gages were reset.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project– Project #94147 – Louis Berger – January 2017 – Monitoring Year 2 – Draft

1200.
1.000
Tl 0.800
v
w
t
w 0.600
0
`w
0.400
0.200
0.000
N
N
O
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 6 UT3 Upper
vt vt vl N v1 lO tp
N
0 0 H 0 0
N �N N N N 0 N N
O O Ol m Ol W n
~ M \ N N \ N
O O N N N e -I
N N N N
Rainfall (IN) -
r 2.s
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.5 r
Gage lost between downloads (not 1 _
found in field). Replaced and
redeployed 9/14/2016.
0.5
0
O O O O O O O O O O O
\ \ \ \ \ \ N N \ N \
n W r` n t` b t0 l0 ut N V
N m V vt iD n W Ot
Date
Gage 6_UT3 Upper - - Bankfull Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project- Project #94147 - Louis Berger - January 2017 - Monitoring Year 2 - Draft
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring -
MY2
Gage 5 Mainstem Concrete Removal
5.000
l 25
4.500
—
4.000
—;
Loggers ran out of memory
2
in July until September field
3.500
v
visit and monitoring.
tt;. 3.000
1.5 r
J
w 2.500
-
—
c_
0
m
2.000
-
-
-
- - - - -
Gage reset
1
1.500
on 2/25/16
1.000
0.5
0.500
0.000
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o
0
0 0 0 0 0
O O
O Ol O1 01 00 n n W r` n n
Date
� b � vl N
V
Rainfall (IN)
Gage 5_Mainstem Concrete Removal - - Bankfull Depth -Before Well Installation - - - Bankfull Depth -After Well Installation
*Bankfull line
represents depth from bankfull to gage. This depth changed when gages were reset.
1200.
1.000
Tl 0.800
v
w
t
w 0.600
0
`w
0.400
0.200
0.000
N
N
O
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 6 UT3 Upper
vt vt vl N v1 lO tp
N
0 0 H 0 0
N �N N N N 0 N N
O O Ol m Ol W n
~ M \ N N \ N
O O N N N e -I
N N N N
Rainfall (IN) -
r 2.s
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.5 r
Gage lost between downloads (not 1 _
found in field). Replaced and
redeployed 9/14/2016.
0.5
0
O O O O O O O O O O O
\ \ \ \ \ \ N N \ N \
n W r` n t` b t0 l0 ut N V
N m V vt iD n W Ot
Date
Gage 6_UT3 Upper - - Bankfull Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project- Project #94147 - Louis Berger - January 2017 - Monitoring Year 2 - Draft

Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 8 UT7 Upper
4.000
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring -
MY2
2.5
Gage 7 UT3 Lower
3.000
2.5
2.500
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — —
v 3.000-
_
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Loggers ran out of memory
v
Loggers ran out of memory
2
2.000
in July until September field
2.500Gage
—
in July until September field
r
—
reset
1.5
visit and monitoring.
v 1.500
r
on 2/25/16
J.
—
a 2.000
1.s r
0 1.000
—i
r
m 1.500
— — — — — ——
—
--
—
1
v
0.500
-
1
3
1.000
0.000
-
—
0.5
-0.500
0.5
0.500
-1.000 l l. —:._
N N N
O O O
N N N
. I I I i I I I L L. LI
N N N iD tp iD ip tp ip ip
O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N
I I I I
1p 1p lD l0 tD tp
O O O O O O
N N N N N N
0
\ \ \
O O
N
\ \
01 O O
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ N \ \ N N N
�"� N N N til V VI
' Date
\ \ \ \ \
N W \ \
t0 n W 01
o
N N M
01 O O
Rainfall (IN) Gage 71LIT3 Lower — — Bankfull Depth
� N N � \ N
t0 n W Ot
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Gage 8 UT7 Upper
4.000
2.5
3.500
2
v 3.000-
_
_ _ _
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Loggers ran out of memory
v
in July until September field
2.500Gage
—
visit and monitoring.
r
reset
1.5
0
on 2/25/16
J.
a 2.000
r
m 1.500
— — — — — ——
—
--
—
1
1.000
0.5
0.500
—
0.000
N N N
N
0 0 0
L.. hI
N N N l0 lD tD l0 l0 lD lD
N N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
— L_
tD tD tp 1p tD 1p
N 0 N 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
o
N N M
01 O O
\ N N \ N N •-I \, N c -I
N .-i N N N M d' N
Date
� N N � \ N
t0 n W Ot
Rainfall (IN)
Gage 8_Upper UT7 — — Bankfull Depth -Before Well Installation
— — Bankfull Depth -After Well Installation
*Bankfull line represents
depth from bankfull to gage. This depth changed when gages were reset.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project— Project #94147 — Louis Berger — January 2017 — Monitoring Year 2 — Draft

650.5 j
650.4
650.3
650.2
650.1
0 650.0
> 649.9
z 649.8 -
v 649.7
w 649.6
c 649.5
649.4
v 649.3
M 649.2
v 649.1
m 649.0
648.9
648.8
648.7
648.6
648.5 N
0 0
N
O O
T O
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Groundwater to Surface Water Comparison, UT 3 Upper
e lost between download
found in field). Replace
Redeployed 9/14/2016.
. li I. 11�1 I 1.
11,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N �
O m m T W r n W
N N
Date
Rainfall (IN) -Gage 6_UT3Upper
2.5
2
1.5 t
c
0.5
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\ N N N N
r r n l0 iD l0 vt to 7
Z ~ p W ~
O vl i0 r W Ol
Groundwater Gage 9 - - Bankfull Depth
623.1
622.9
622.7
622.5
✓1 � to Vl �I1 N 1p lD lD 1p
O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N \ \ \ N
N M N \ N
m O O \ N N N N M
r Date
Rainfall (IN) - Gage 7UT3 Lower
O O O O O O O O O
V \ lO N W
Groundwater Gage 10 - - Bankfull Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project- Project #94147 - Louis Berger - January 2017 - Monitoring Year 2 - Draft
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY2
Groundwater to Surface Water Comparison, UT 3 Lower
626.5
2.5
626.3 - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
626.1
-
625.9
-
Gage 7 ran out of memory in
625.7
2
0 62s.5
July until September
a 625.3
Z 625.1
visit and monitoring.
v 624.9
1.5 t
w 624.7
_
-
c_
c 624.5
° 624.3
i 624.1
1 F
w623.9
:._,:;, t.K+m-•.,,,, `y. k
-
`°
`m 623.7
V1 11 11 61
m 623.5
-Vill
-
623.3
-
- I 0.5
623.1
622.9
622.7
622.5
✓1 � to Vl �I1 N 1p lD lD 1p
O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N \ \ \ N
N M N \ N
m O O \ N N N N M
r Date
Rainfall (IN) - Gage 7UT3 Lower
O O O O O O O O O
V \ lO N W
Groundwater Gage 10 - - Bankfull Depth
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project- Project #94147 - Louis Berger - January 2017 - Monitoring Year 2 - Draft