20140129 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190215

Monitoring Report
Year 4
FINAL
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
A:
NCDEQ-DMS Project Number: 94147
Contract Number: 2029
USA CE Permit Action ID: 2014-00386
DWR Permit: 14-0129
Cabarrus County
Data collection: September/October/November 2018
Draft Submitted: January 2019
Final Submitted: March 2019
13'S
Reach 1 Restoration Area Pre -Construction
Prepared for:
Fnvironmenlai
quali►y
Reach 1 Restoration Area MY4
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 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

Prepared by:
ne:
Louis Berger
Louis Berger
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Project Manager:
Robin Maycock Perez
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
RMaycoc@[e-mail]
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Robin Maycock
Project Manager
Louis Berger
1001 Wade Avenue
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Subject: DRAFT Monitoring Year 4 report for the
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040105— Cabarrus County
DMS Project ID No. 94147
Contract # 002029
Dear Mrs. Maycock:
February 15, 2019
On January 15, 2019, the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) received the DRAFT Monitoring
Year 4 report for the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project site from Louis Berger. The
report establishes the year 4 monitoring conditions at the site. Anticipated mitigation on the site
includes 2,017 linear feet of stream restoration; 1,244 linear feet of stream Enhancement (Level
I); 7,723 linear feet of stream Enhancement (Level II); and 2,378 linear feet of stream Preservation
for a total of 6,411 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs).
DMS, DEQ Stewardship and Louis Berger conducted a site visit on February 7, 2019 to review
conditions on the site. Comments from the site visit are captured in this letter as well as comments
from the DRAFT MY4 report.
General — DMS Property and DEQ Stewardship Comments: In general, the boundary
marking looked to be in pretty good shape. We noted below a few areas in need of upgrades. The
other ongoing area of concern for this project continues to be the issue with neighboring
livestock. As we noted on-site, the best use of our time in the next few months will be to help
promote a positive landowner relationship and transfer to the DEQ Stewardship Program. To help
accomplish this task, DMS property (Jeff Horton) and DEQ Stewardship (Ed Hajnos) are willing
to go back out to meet with the landowners and have a face to face conversation. Louis Berger
should coordinate this when they believe there is a window of opportunity.
1. Just below the bridge at Old Mine Rd. the barbed wire fence was cut to extend field ditching
into the CE. This fence needs to be repaired and the ditch filled in up to the CE boundary.
ncar•icaro_un�
o.osm.n ut rmrWm oueiktl
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Janes Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center f Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

2. We noted some minor evidence of livestock near the bridge. Please keep working to
exclude livestock.
3. The ford crossing looked to need some repair to prevent cattle from entering the
CE. Please maintain the crossing as necessary to exclude cattle from CE. The project
landowners should be informed and understand that all fence and crossing maintenance
will be the landowner's responsibility when Louis Berger closes the project with DMS and
the IRT.
4. The CE boundary near the pond incorporated lightweight chicken wire posts. These have
already shown signs of being knocked over. Please update to a heavier gauge steel, like
the many others observed on the site or use 6" wooden rounds like are used for the fence
posts. All zip ties used to hang signs should be changed to something more
permanent. Photo examples are provided below. Make sure signage is located at all
corners near the pond area to clearly delineate this area of the CE boundary. There appears
to have been some mowing and possibly loss of tree cover during and after the pond
construction.
5. We did not get to the forested side of the stream below the crossing where the property
release is needed. How was this area marked?
6. Please provide an up to date list for all contacts associated with this project to include
landowners and farm managers.
Examples of marking for reference https://photos.app.goo.1/g fdk9lotFWW l OxXAyl
General: In MY4, BHR should have been calculated based on DMS guidance provided to
consultants in 2018 (attached). Please confirm the guidance was utilized and update if necessary.
Please note that BHR is not required for pools. A dash can be utilized for pools (BHR). This
method is not required for previous years; just MY4 (2018) and MY5 (2019).
General: DMS has concerns about the stream mitigation assets on UT 2, UT 3 and UT 5 and
believes that portions these assets could be "at risk" at project closeout due to lack of flow and/ or
silting. Please continue to monitor and report any issues through project closeout. In regards to
silting reaches (i.e. linear wetlands), lengths should be reported for applicable reaches.
Section 1.5.1.3 — Random Vegetation Plots: The report text indicates that the random vegetation
plots are shown in Figure 2. The plots are shown in the CCPV sheets but they do not appear to be
in a standalone figure 2. Please update the report text accordingly. DMS recommends including
a simple map or set of simple maps showing the random plots to go along with Table 14 in the
report appendices.
Section 1.5.2 - Stream Assessment: In the paragraph discussing the UT5 hydrology, please
indicate the pre -construction regulatory determination of the channel status. Was a jurisdictional
determination conducted and approved by the USACE on UT5 as part of the mitigation plan?
Section 1.5.3.2 - Encroachments: Please add discussion of the newly planted pines along the
easement boundary which may reduce the future mowing potential. Please inform the landowner
that trees planted within the conservation easement cannot be cut or harvested.
ACF r -HC 0_ A� 1����1 �{
Deoe� of EaWwn lOMMy
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Janes Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

General — Proposed Conclusions Section: There is a wealth of information in the report text.
DMS recommends a brief Conclusion section before Section 2.0 that summarizes and indicates
that the project site is meeting the Success Criteria as established in the mitigation plan and
reported in Section 1.3.
Section 2 — Methodology: Please add a brief methodology for the random vegetation plot data
collection conducted. Table 14 shows data for both planted stems and total stems. How were
planted and volunteer stems differentiated? Random vegetation plot data is typically just the total
woody stems in the random plot.
Project Components Map: Please thicken the stream lines so it is easier to see which mitigation
activities are associated with each stream/ reach. The project components map should be a simple
1 -page map that shows the mitigation approach for each reach. An example from another project
is provided. Please edit/ update as deemed necessary.
Table 3 — Project Contact Table: Please add the invasive contractor to the table.
Table 4 - Project Information — Please add the thermal regime (warm) to the table.
CCPV Figures — The magenta hatch for encroachment/cow prints should be removed from the
reach figures. The information would be less obstructive and better summarized in Figure 1 using
the hatch or leaders with text. Please review the CCPV figures and Tables 5a -g for completeness
regarding aggradation in UT 2 and UT 3. Please consider changing the light blue text color for
the call outs as it is difficult to see in the figures.
CCPV Figures (Figure 6) - What is the yellow hatched area that covers the crossing? The call
out is covered by the legend and there is no reference in the legend. Please revise accordingly.
Please provide an electronic comment response letter addressing the DMS comments received.
This comment response letter should also be included in the FINAL MY4 revised report after the
report cover. Please send three (3) final hard copies and the final electronic deliverables and
support files (on a CD) directly to my attention at the address below (Western DMS field office).
The final electronic monitoring report with all attachments should be named:
Little Buffalo Creek 94147 MY4 2018.pdf
If you have any questions, please contact me at any time at [phone] or email me at
paul.wiesnerAmcdenr.gov .
Sincerely, f
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
NCDENR — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Mobile
ACF r -HC 0_ A� 1����1 �{
Deoe� of EaWwn lOMMy
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Janes Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976
cc: file

0 Louis Berger
March 7, 2019
Mr. Paul Wiesner
Western Project Management Supervisor
NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: DRAFT Monitoring Year 4 report for the
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040105 — Cabarrus County
DMS Project ID No. 94147
Contract # 002029
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
Louis Berger has reviewed your comments, received on February 15, 2019, for the DRAFT Monitoring Year 4
report for the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project site. We offer the following responses.
• General — DMS Property and DEQ Stewardship Comments: In general, the boundary marking
looked to be in pretty good shape. We noted below a few areas in need of upgrades. The other ongoing
area of concern for this project continues to be the issue with neighboring livestock. As we noted on-
site, the best use of our time in the next few months will be to help promote a positive landowner
relationship and transfer to the DEQ Stewardship Program. To help accomplish this task, DMS
property Qeff Horton) and DEQ Stewardship (Ed Hajnos) are willing to go back out to meet with the
landowners and have a face to face conversation. Louis Berger should coordinate this when they
believe there is a window of opportunity.
1. Just below the bridge at Old Mine Rd. the barbed wire fence was cut to extend field ditching into the
CE. This fence needs to be repaired and the ditch filled in up to the CE boundary.
o Louis Berger is coordinating the repair of the fence to occur in the coming months with our fencing contractor.
The area within the CE boundary will be properly seeded and stabilised.
2. We noted some minor evidence of livestock near the bridge. Please keep working to exclude
livestock.
o Minor evidence of livestock near the bridge is the result of an isolated event occurring from Hurricane Florence
in MY4. This event is discussed in detail in the MY4 report.
3. The ford crossing looked to need some repair to prevent cattle from entering the CE. Please
maintain the crossing as necessary to exclude cattle from CE. The project landowners should be
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400 1 Raleigh I NC 1 27605 1 USA I Tel [phone]

informed and understand that all fence and crossing maintenance will be the landowner's
responsibility when Louis Berger closes the project with DMS and the IRT.
o Louis Berger is coordinating the repair of the cattle crossing with the repair of the fence in the coming months.
Louis Berger is looking to include through the removal in orderfor the landowners to maintain the crossing more
easily afterproject transfer to the DEQ stewardship.
4. The CE boundary near the pond incorporated lightweight chicken wire posts. These have already
shown signs of being knocked over. Please update to a heavier gauge steel, like the many others
observed on the site or use 6" wooden rounds like are used for the fence posts. All zip ties used to
hang signs should be changed to something more permanent. Photo examples are provided below.
Make sure signage is located at all corners near the pond area to clearly delineate this area of the CE
boundary. There appears to have been some mowing and possibly loss of tree cover during and after
the pond construction.
o Locations where lighter weight chicken wire posts were used will be replaced with the heavy-duty steelgauge posts
as used in other locations of the project site. Zp ties will be replaced with bolt anchors. Signs will be added to
the corners of the easement propery around the constructedpond if not already there. Mowing was observed
during the construction of the pond before easement signs were installed in this area. Mowing only occurred to the
formerly maintainedgrass area. Tree coverage does not extend to the edge of the CE boundary in allportions of
this area.
5. We did not get to the forested side of the stream below the crossing where the property release is
needed. How was this area marked?
o Per conversations with Jeff Horton, the area of the easement proper y on the forested side this comment pertains
too currently does not have easement signs installed. Louis Berger millprovide Jethe total quantity of additional
signs required for this segment within the forested area to attach to trees at approximate corners and around
every 100 feet to indicate in a line of site where the easement proper y is approximateylocated. Per Js
direction, this does not need to be the exact location of the easement and is just a warning that the easement is
in this area. At locations of 90 -degree turns in the property due to Berger not obtaining the conservation easement
on both sides of the stream, two signs will be placed at a single tree to indicate which direction the easement
property goes.
6. Please provide an up to date list for all contacts associated with this project to include landowners
and farm managers.
o Louis Berger has updated Table 3 to include all contact information for new landowners and farm managers.
• General: In MY4, BHR should have been calculated based on DMS guidance provided to consultants
in 2018 (attached). Please confirm the guidance was utilized and update if necessary. Please note that
BHR is not required for pools. A dash can be utilized for pools (BHR). This method is not required
for previous years; just MY4 (2018) and MY5 (2019).
o As requested, the DMS guidance provided was uli#i Zed to calculate the BHK for MY4. MY4 appendices
have been updated to have a dash for BHR values for pools.

• General: DMS has concerns about the stream mitigation assets on UT 2, UT 3 and UT 5 and believes
that portions these assets could be "at risk" at project closeout due to lack of flow and/ or silting.
Please continue to monitor and report any issues through project closeout. In regards to silting reaches
(i.e. linear wetlands), lengths should be reported for applicable reaches.
o As discussed with DMS, ongoing monitoring for continuous fow is being conducted for these tributaries. UT
5 is being recognised by Louis Berger as being at risk for lack of flow. UT2 and UT3 have recorded period
Of continuous foto during each monitoringyear thus far. Silting in UT2 and UT3 has also subsided since
major occurrence in MY2. Where silting has occurred in past, defined channels are beginning to form with
evidence of flow. These areas are being monitored with photo documentation during the four seasons through
project closeout, as requested by the IRT during the site visit with them and DMS in MY4.
• Section 1.5.1.3 — Random Vegetation Plots: The report text indicates that the random vegetation
plots are shown in Figure 2. The plots are shown in the CCPV sheets but they do not appear to be in
a standalone figure 2. Please update the report text accordingly. DMS recommends including a simple
map or set of simple maps showing the random plots to go along with Table 14 in the report
appendices.
o Figure 2 is referring to Figure 2a- 2j for the AM CCPV. The report text has been updated according to
refer to the CCPV. Figure 7a -d has been created and placed with Table 14 to show closer views of each
random transect in relation to the vegetation plot.
• Section 1.5.2 - Stream Assessment: In the paragraph discussing the UT5 hydrology, please indicate
the pre -construction regulatory determination of the channel status. Was a jurisdictional determination
conducted and approved by the USACE on UT5 as part of the mitigation plan?
o The following information has been added to the discussion of UT5: 1,ouis Bergerpersonnel completed the
proper jurisdictional determination forms for UT5 in the site selection study. These forms were submitted as
part of the proposal to DMS, as well as included in the final design reports to DMS. At the time of the
assessment, UT5 was scored as an intermittent stream. The USACE provided a complimentary site walk
and assessment with Louis Berger during the design as part of the mitigation plan, however, only the site walk
occurred and there is no final documentation approving the jurisdictional determination of UT5 as an
intermittent stream. "
• Section 1.5.3.2 - Encroachments: Please add discussion of the newly planted pines along the easement
boundary which may reduce the future mowing potential. Please inform the landowner that trees
planted within the conservation easement cannot be cut or harvested
o Discussion added as requested. The landowner will be notified that the trees planted inside the CE boundary
are now restricted by the CE.

• General - Proposed Conclusions Section: There is a wealth of information in the report text. DMS
recommends a brief Conclusion section before Section 2.0 that summarizes and indicates that the
project site is meeting the Success Criteria as established in the mitigation plan and reported in Section
1.3.
o Louis Berger has added Section 1.5.4 to the report to provide a summary that the site is meeting the requirements,
as detailed in Section 1.3 for requirements, as requested.
• Section 2 — Methodology: Please add a brief methodology for the random vegetation plot data
collection conducted. Table 14 shows data for both planted stems and total stems. How were planted
and volunteer stems differentiated? Random vegetation plot data is typically just the total woody stems
in the random plot.
o The methodology has been added as requested to Section 2.4. Louis Berger assumed that the trees identified in
the random transects that were of the same species and in similar si.Ze to thatplanted were planted trees versus
recruits. Table 14 has been revised to show just the total woody stems for each random transect and removed
the designations forplanted or recruit.
• Project Components Map: Please thicken the stream lines so it is easier to see which mitigation
activities are associated with each stream/ reach. The project components map should be a simple 1 -
page map that shows the mitigation approach for each reach. An example from another project is
provided. Please edit/ update as deemed necessary.
o Stream lines have been thickened and the map has been simplified to show the mitigation approach for each
reach more clearly.
• Table 3 — Project Contact Table: Please add the invasive contractor to the table.
o The planting contractor has served as the invasive contractor for this project. Table 3 has been updated to
detail this.
• Table 4 - Project Information — Please add the thermal regime (warm) to the table.
o Thermal regime (warm) has been added to Table 4.
• CCPV Figures — The magenta hatch for encroachment/cow prints should be removed from the
reach figures. The information would be less obstructive and better summarized in Figure 1 using the
hatch or leaders with text. Please review the CCPV figures and Tables 5a -g for completeness regarding
aggradation in UT 2 and UT 3. Please consider changing the light blue text color for the call outs as it
is difficult to see in the figures.
o The magenta hatch for encroachment has been removed and leaders added. Text color for the callouts has been
changed to a darker color. UT2 and UT3 have been revised for aggradation along the areas of linear wetlands.
As no additional aggradation in MY4 was observed in the portion of UT3 impacted by the MY2
encroachment incident, this area is not shown for aggradation on the CCPV forMY4 or within Table 5a -g.
This information has been updated in Tables 5a -g also. UT2 in Table 5a -g in past has been focused on the

portion of El where work was performed, which does not include the portion of aggradation/linear wetland
that is within an area of E2. This has been revised to include this segment of UT2.
• CCPV Figures (Figure 6) - What is the yellow hatched area that covers the crossing? The call out is
covered by the legend and there is no reference in the legend. Please revise accordingly.
o Theyellow hatch is for the area being removed from the easement as part of the proposed easement modification,
pending state finalisation. The plan has been revised to show the call out.
If you have any further questions or comments please contact Robin Maycock Perez at
RMaycockPereznglouisberger.com or 919-866-4428.
Sincerely,
Matthew Holthaus
Civil/Environmental Engineer
CC: Robin Maycock Perez, Louis Berger
Douglas Parker, Louis Berger

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 4 Conditions Assessment....................................................................................
3
1.5.1 Vegetation Assessment.................................................................................................................
3
1.5.1.1 Planted Stems.......................................................................................................................
3
1.5.1.2 Combined Planted/Volunteer Stems....................................................................................4
1.5.1.3 Random Plots........................................................................................................................4
1.5.1.4 Volunteer Species/Volunteer Diversity.................................................................................5
1.5.1.5 Non -plot Assessment............................................................................................................5
1.5.1.61nvasive Species.....................................................................................................................
6
1.5.1.7Additional Tree Planting........................................................................................................6
1.5.2 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................
6
1. 5.3 Site Boundary Assessment............................................................................................................
9
1.5.3.1 Easement Modification.........................................................................................................9
1.5.3.2 Encroachments...................................................................................................................10
2.0 Methodology........................................................................................................................................12
2.1 Geomorphology...............................................................................................................................12
2.2 Longitudinal Profiles......................................................................................................................12
2.3 Cross Sections & Particle Size Distribution.................................................................................12
2.4 Vegetation Monitoring....................................................................................................................12
2.5 Hydrological Monitoring................................................................................................................13
2.6 Photo Points & Visual Assessment................................................................................................13
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................14
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

Appendices
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map & Background Tables
Figure 1 — Project Vicinity Map
Figure Al — Project Components 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-MY4
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 10aa-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 l lba-bf — Monitoring Data: Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 3a -k — Longitudinal Profile Plots
Figure 4a -q — Cross-section Plots
Figure 5a -q — Pebble Count Plots
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 12 — Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Figure 6a -g — Water Level and Rainfall Plots
Table 13 — Continuous Stream Flow Record
Appendix F. Year 4 Supplemental Information
June 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Minutes
Table 14 — Random Vegetation Plot Transects Stem Counts
Figure 7a -7d — Random Vegetation Plot Transects Location Maps
CDROM Copy of Electronic Files
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — 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, cropland 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 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — 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 by the 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 288 stems/acre through Year 4. A 10
percent mortality rate will be accepted in Year 5 resulting in a required survival rate of 260 trees/acre through
Year 5. 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 main stem and seven unnamed tributaries
(UTs). The main stem 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 main stem 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 banks
and riparian forest planting. Preservation was conducted within portions of the stream corridors that have
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

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 II, and a 5:1 ratio for preservation,
the DMS will receive, as of December 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 4 Conditions Assessment
1.5.1 Vegetation Assessment
Five plots (3, 5, 7, 8, and 9) have coverage of goldenrod, dog fennel, and blackberry. In Year 4, to facilitate
a more accurate count, the goldenrod, dog fennel, and blackberry were carefully hand trimmed prior to
counting stems. Rainfall for Year 4 is higher than in prior years. In addition, there was more rainfall during
the growing season (April — September). The additional rainfall would have contributed to more vigorous
growth.
*Gauge NC -SN -6, Richfield, https://www.cocorahs.orizNiewData/StationPrecipSummM.aspx
1.5.1.1 Planted Stems
Planted stem density requirements for Year 4 is 288 stems per acre. When examining planted stems only, in
Year 4 of monitoring, ten vegetation monitoring plots (1-4, 6-9, 11, and 12) are exceeding requirements by
10% (339 to 920 stems/acre), one vegetation monitoring plot (5) is exceeding requirements by less than 10%
(290 stems/acre), no vegetation monitoring plots fail to meet requirements by less than 10% (260
stems/acre), and one vegetation monitoring plot (10) is failing to meet requirements by over 10% (242
stems/acre). Recruitment of native plant seedlings was recorded in seven (1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) of the
twelve vegetation monitoring plots (Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The current average estimate of 540 planted stems
per acre for the site is exceeding the required success criteria of 288 stems per acre.
The reasons for the uplift in previous Year 3 poor performing areas (2, 3, 6, and 11) are varied. The stem
count (339) in vegetation monitoring plot 2 has remained stable and the uplift is due to the change in success
criteria. The uplift in vegetation monitoring plot 3 is most likely from a combination of a more accurate
counting due to hand clearing and the additional rainfall. The uplifts in vegetation monitoring plots 6 and 11
are most likely due to the additional rainfall.
Increased stems/acre counts were noted in vegetation monitoring plots 1, 10, and 12 most likely due to the
additional rainfall. Though, underperforming, vegetation monitoring plot 10 has shown steady improvement
year over year. Increased stems/acre counts were noted for vegetation monitoring plots 7, 8, and 9 most
likely due to a combination of more accurate counting due to hand clearing and the additional rainfall. Two
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final
Rainfall in inches*
Year 0
(2014)
Year 1 Year 2
(2015) (2016)
Year 3
(2017)
Year 4
(2018)
January - March
8.97
5.75
7.86
8.56
14.14
April — June
8.33
6.29
9.37
17.67
12.47
July — September
14.57
7.9
9.23
8.92
26.78
October - December
6.9
25.3
11.43
6.09
20.28
Total
1 38.77
45.24
37.89
1 41.24
73.67
*Gauge NC -SN -6, Richfield, https://www.cocorahs.orizNiewData/StationPrecipSummM.aspx
1.5.1.1 Planted Stems
Planted stem density requirements for Year 4 is 288 stems per acre. When examining planted stems only, in
Year 4 of monitoring, ten vegetation monitoring plots (1-4, 6-9, 11, and 12) are exceeding requirements by
10% (339 to 920 stems/acre), one vegetation monitoring plot (5) is exceeding requirements by less than 10%
(290 stems/acre), no vegetation monitoring plots fail to meet requirements by less than 10% (260
stems/acre), and one vegetation monitoring plot (10) is failing to meet requirements by over 10% (242
stems/acre). Recruitment of native plant seedlings was recorded in seven (1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) of the
twelve vegetation monitoring plots (Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The current average estimate of 540 planted stems
per acre for the site is exceeding the required success criteria of 288 stems per acre.
The reasons for the uplift in previous Year 3 poor performing areas (2, 3, 6, and 11) are varied. The stem
count (339) in vegetation monitoring plot 2 has remained stable and the uplift is due to the change in success
criteria. The uplift in vegetation monitoring plot 3 is most likely from a combination of a more accurate
counting due to hand clearing and the additional rainfall. The uplifts in vegetation monitoring plots 6 and 11
are most likely due to the additional rainfall.
Increased stems/acre counts were noted in vegetation monitoring plots 1, 10, and 12 most likely due to the
additional rainfall. Though, underperforming, vegetation monitoring plot 10 has shown steady improvement
year over year. Increased stems/acre counts were noted for vegetation monitoring plots 7, 8, and 9 most
likely due to a combination of more accurate counting due to hand clearing and the additional rainfall. Two
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

vegetation monitoring plots (4 and 5) showed decreases in stems/acre counts. The decrease in stems/acre
count in vegetation monitoring plot 4 is most likely due to natural seedling mortality after planting in March
2017. The decrease in stems/acre count in vegetation monitoring plot 5 is directly attributable to blackberry
choking out the other vegetation in the plot.
1.5.1.2 Combined Plan ted/Volunteer Stems
When examining combined planted/volunteer stems, in Year 4 of monitoring, eleven vegetation monitoring
plots (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) are exceeding requirements by 10% (387 to 1,694 stems/acre), no
vegetation monitoring plots are exceeding requirements by less than 10% (288 stems/acre), no vegetation
monitoring plots are failing to meet requirements by less than 10% (260 stems/acre), and one vegetation
monitoring plot (10) is failing to meet requirements by over 10% (242 stems/acre). Recruitment of native
plant seedlings was recorded in 7 of 12 vegetation monitoring plots (Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9). The current
average estimate of 863 combined planted/volunteer stems per acre for the site is exceeding the planted stem
success criteria of 288 stems per acre.
1.5.1.3 Random Vegetation Plots
During the June 19, 2018 IRT site visit (meeting minutes included in Appendix F), it was requested that
random vegetation transects be conducted along UT 3 (vegetation monitoring plot 3), Reach 4 (vegetation
monitoring plot 4), UT 2 (vegetation monitoring plot 8), and Reach I (vegetation monitoring plot 11). During
the September 2018 vegetation survey, two randomly placed 10 x 10 meter vegetation plots were surveyed
in those four areas. For the eight random vegetation plots (Table 14), seven are exceeding requirements for
planted stems by 10% (387 to 4695 stems/acre) and one is exceeding requirements by less than 10% (290
stems per acre). Locations of each transect are provided in the MY4 CCPV Plan (Figure 2a -2j). Additionally,
locations are shown in Figure 7a -7d as part of Table 14.
The two random vegetation plots along UT 3 were 290 stems per acre (downstream, opposite bank from
vegetation monitoring plot 3) and 435 stems/acre (upstream from vegetation monitoring plot 3). These
planted stem counts are in line vegetation monitoring plot 3's planted stem count of 387 stems/acre.
The two random vegetation plots along Reach 4 were 387 stems/acre (downstream from vegetation
monitoring plot 4) and 532 stems/acre (upstream from vegetation monitoring plot 4). These planted stem
counts are in line with vegetation monitoring plot 4's planted stem count of 532 stems/acre.
The two random vegetation plots along UT 2 were 436 stems/acre (downstream, opposite bank from
vegetation monitoring plot 8) and 581 stems/acre (downstream, same bank as vegetation monitoring plot 8).
These planted stem counts are lower than vegetation monitoring plot 8's Year 4 planted stem count of 920
stems/acre but are in line with vegetation monitoring plot 8's Year 3 planted stem count of 581 stems/acre.
The difference is most likely due to the hand clearing in vegetation monitoring plot 8 generating a more
accurate count.
The two random vegetation plots along Reach 1 were 2,613 stems/acre (downstream plot 11) and 4,695
stems/acre (upstream of plot 11). These planted stem counts were higher than vegetation monitoring plot
11's planted stem count of 339 stems/acre. The difference is most likely due to deeper and nutrient rich soils
found outside of vegetation monitoring plot 11. The soils in vegetation monitoring plot 11 are known to be
nutrient poor and shallow to bedrock.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

1.5.1.4 Volunteer Species/VolunteerDiversity
Species diversity has steadily increased from Year 0 (14 planted), to Year 1 (18 combined planted/volunteer),
to Year 2 (18 combined planted/volunteer), to Year 3 (22 combined planted/volunteer), to current Year 4
(23 combined planted/volunteer). The increase in two species was due to direct plantings of slippery elm
(Ulmus rubra) and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) in March 2017.
The remaining increase of ten species would be volunteers. In Year 1, three new volunteer species were
noted: red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana). In Year 2, two new volunteer species were noted: boxelder (Acer negundo) and common
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). In the Year 3, five new volunteer species were noted: eastern baccharis
(Baccharis halimifolia), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), smooth
sumac (Rhus glabra), and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). In the current Year 4, one new volunteer species
was noted: inkberry (Ilex glabra).
When comparing planted stems only between Year 3 and Year 4, five vegetation monitoring plots (3, 6, 7,
8, and 10) have seen an increase in species diversity, five vegetation monitoring plots (1, 2, 9, 11, and 12),
have maintained species diversity, and two vegetation monitoring plots (4 and 5) lost species diversity. The
increased planted stem species diversity in vegetation monitoring plots 3, 7, and 8 are most likely due to a
more accurate count resulting from hand clearing. The increased planted stem species diversity in vegetation
monitoring plot 6 is for an unknown reason. The increased planted stem species diversity in vegetation
monitoring plot 10 is probably due to floodwaters flattening herbaceous growth on the lower portion of the
plot, allowing stems to be located during the survey. The decreased planted stem species diversity in
vegetation monitoring plot 4 is most likely due to natural mortality from the planting in March 2017. The
decreased planted species diversity in vegetation monitoring plot 5 is directly related to the blackberry
competition.
When comparing combined planted/volunteer stems between Year 3 and Year 4, three vegetation monitoring
plots (7, 10, and 12) saw an increase in species diversity, three vegetation monitoring plots (1, 3, and 4)
maintained species diversity, and six vegetation monitoring plots (2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11) lost species diversity.
The increased combined planted/volunteer stem count in vegetation monitoring plots 7 and 10 are as above.
The increased combined planted/volunteer stem count in vegetation monitoring plot 12 is most likely due to
the additional rainfall. The decreased combined planted/volunteer stem count in vegetation monitoring plot
5 is as above and for the remaining vegetation monitoring plots is most likely due to site-specific variables
such as shading, competition, soil depth or fertility.
1.5.1.5 Non -plot Assessment
Significant growth was observed in planted American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and black willow
(Salix nigra) trees, likely due to the additional rainfall in 2018. Other planted species were observed to be
healthy and exhibiting significant growth due to the additional rainfall. 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 continuing to grow quickly and
contribute 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),
dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and native grasses.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

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 main stem of Reach 1, approximately 130 feet along the main stem 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. Based on observations during an initial site visit in the early spring of 2018, no additional
seeding was performed in these specific areas in 2018 as coverage has significantly increased to meet
requirements.
Reach 1 has improved greatly through the previous reseedings; however, there is a small bare patch,
approximately 0.02 acres, with no herbaceous cover on the left bank flood plain. This is due to an exceedance
in copper within the soils that is preventing establishment, determined by sediment sampling during Year 4.
Overall herbaceous cover throughout the site has greatly increased.
1.5.1.6 Invasive Species
Past treatment and removal of privet (Ligustrum) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) from riparian areas
has been mostly successful for Reaches 1-5. On April 13, 2018, Louis Berger personnel surveyed all Reaches
for Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) and tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Thirty-eight mature trees
and numerous saplings for both species were noted. The mature trees and saplings were banded with orange
paint. On May 4, 2018, Carolina Silvics conducted an Early Growing Season invasive treatment during
which the identified smaller trees and saplings were cut and treated with herbicides. During June 5-7, 2018,
Strader Fencing cut down the remaining larger mature trees and treated the stumps with herbicides. Between
September 4 through 6, 2018, Carolina Silvics conducted a Late Growing Season invasive treatment. On
November 29, 2018, Carolina Silvics basal bark treated privet on Reach 6, below the cattle crossing. During
site visits by Louis Berger personnel in April, June, September, October, and November, any noted invasive
saplings were removed by hand. Herbicide applications for invasive species will continue during MY5 as
necessary.
1.5.1.7 Additional Tree Planting
During the June 19, 2018 IRT site visit, Kim Browning, USACE, stated that the trees on the left bank of
Reach 4, in entire UT -2, and in entire UT -3 did not exhibit the expected level of vigor (tree height) and
recommended planting those areas with more mature trees of at least four different species. In an August 8,
2018 email, DMS verified that there is no success criteria standard for tree height on Little Buffalo Creek
but recommended planting the areas the IRT noted with at least 4 -foot -high trees as the IRT team will want
to see successful vegetation (tree height) onsite at closeout. As such, between November 27-29, 2018,
Carolina Silvics planted 300 trees (60 trees along Reach 4, 70 trees along UT 2, 120 trees along UT 3, and
50 trees in Reach 1) that were at least 4 -foot -tall and selected for habitat from among twelve recommended
species: silver maple, pin oak, white oak, willow oak, black gum, green ash, box elder, pignut hickory,
shagbark hickory, mockernut hickory, hackberry, and tulip popular.
1.5.2 Stream Assessment
Overall, the site is functioning as anticipated geomorphically. Issues identified in Year 3 monitoring have
almost all been resolved. Additionally, multiple bankfull events occurred in Year 4 with no significant
changes of concern experienced due to the storms. One change in profile alignment was observed in UT 4
because of the extreme events experienced at the site, approximately 26 -feet, in which a downed tree has
created a log sill near the top of the enhancement level 1 reach. This sill has caused the channel to divert into
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

the right flood plain around established willows and re-enter the as -built alignment just downstream. A riffle
is forming in the diversion. This segment is indicated on Figure 4 and is called out as an area of degradation
in Table 5.
The following lists the key/potential problems identified through the project during Year 3 monitoring and
how the issues have been resolved in Year 4:
Beaver dams within Reach 1 - Between March 10-13, 2018, three beavers were trapped and
removed from Reach 1 and the dam breached. The beaver dam area was monitored during
subsequent site visits for return of beavers and any stream impacts. It was subsequently determined
that no beavers were remaining and that the channel was not self -restoring. It was further determined
that restoration of the area would coincide with scheduled fall tree planting. As such, on November
1, 2018, a bobcat excavator was mobilized to the dam site and the dam was carefully removed to
minimize impacts to established vegetation. The stream profile and section was restored to the as -
built characteristics for approximately 20 -feet of channel length upstream from the beaver dam
under the direction of the engineer who conducted the original work. The dam debris was scattered
along the upper floodplain of the stream and seeded with an appropriate vegetation seed mix. Willow
live stakes were installed along the re-established channel banks. During a November 16, 2018 site
visit, the dam restoration area was noted to be stable.
No defined channel for 30 feet portion of UT 2 (wetlands) — During the June 19, 2018 IRT Site
Visit, this stretch of channel in UT 2 was visited and observed to have a functioning and defined
channel at the time. It was noted that photo documentation should be provided year round to show
a defined channel structure during each season. Louis Berger field verified the portion of UT 2 that
was in question in years past during the October/November field visit and determined that the length
of channel in question is approximately 230 feet. A defined channel with flow was still observed for
this section in question during the October/November field visit, however, due to the nature of the
shallow valley slope in this area, additional water is observed in the interior floodplain as has been
observed in years past. The consensus during the IRT Site Visit is that as trees mature in the area,
additional water observed may begin to be taken up by evapotranspiration and the tree roots will
help maintain the defined channel. Water monitoring observations indicated continuous flow of a
period longer than 30 -days during Year 4. Ongoing photo observations and water monitoring will
continue for this area through project closeout.
48 feet of undercutting banks, 4-15 inches deep, along the interior left bank in Reach 3 — This
area was discussed with the IRT during the June 19, 2018 site visit and deemed not a major concern
with the established vegetation and Reach 3's connection to the floodplain. The undercutting has
subsided some in Year 4 due to the multiple bankfull events that have occurred. This is no longer
considered as an area of concern as the trees and vegetation have furthered reinforced the area in
Year 4, and as observed in the October/November site visit, shown resiliency to major flooding
events with no significant alterations.
Scoured banks along the portion of E1 in Reach 4 — This area was discussed with the IRT during
the June 19, 2018 site visit and deemed not a major concern. Additionally, during the
October/November site visit, it was observed that much of this area of scoured banks was actually
within the general wet -season base flow channel. In monitoring years past, the channels were dry or
with next to no water flow as stream assessments were conducted during the dry season of
September. This was changed in Year 4 to observe the channels when they typically have water and
flow within them.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

Lateral point bars within UT 7 forming sinuous low flow channel — As noted last year, the
formation of these lateral point bars within UT 7 provided for a sinuous low flow within the
restoration section and in -stream habitat. No changes were observed in UT 7 from Year 3 to Year 4
monitoring and the tributary is functioning as anticipated.
Piping of rock vane in step pool feature of UT 7 - The potential piping of the step pool features
was monitored in Year 4 and it was determined that the piping is not occurring. The lower three step
pool features were observed to be a riffle now in Year 4 following in -filling that occurred in earlier
monitoring years, however, the upper three step pool features are still providing pool functionalities
and habitat potential. No change has occurred with the step pool features in Year 4; these
observations were made due to monitoring during periods of water flow. No change to the in -filled
step pool features are proposed as the reach is stable and providing transport functionality for the
water and sediment through the head drop.
The following lists the key/potential problems identified through the project during Year 4 monitoring:
Aggradation in Reach 1 Restoration section upstream of the Beaver Dam removal - Due to the
beaver dam, very fine material (gravel and sand) has settled out within the channel and interior flood
bench upstream of the beaver dam. This was caused due to the backflow condition upstream of the
beaver dam during flood events. This is evident in the Year 4 profile survey, MS -1P cross section,
and with field observations. The material is very loose and it is evident that it has just recently settled
out within the area. This aggradation was not removed during the beaver dam removal in Year 4 as
it would cause significant damage to the very well established vegetation within the channel. Due
the visual gradation of this material, it is believed that additional storm events will remove the
majority of this material and allow the channel to rebound to its condition prior to the beaver
establishing the dam. During a November 16, 2018 site visit, the dam restoration area was noted to
be stable. On-going monitoring will be made for this area to observe any changes and determine if
any field maintenance is required. Due to the timing in the monitoring period, it is likely no
earthwork will be performed as the channel is still functioning.
Similar to Year 2 and 3 of monitoring, pebble count surveys were not conducted in the following cross
sections during the 2018 monitoring event: UT2-1R, UT3-1R, UT3-1P, and UT3-2R. This was due to the
channel being consistently lined with vegetation and silt/clay. This is expected to remain consistent for this
intermittent stream as it does not have a large sediment supply of coarser material.
No future channel maintenance is required at this time for Year 5. Any maintenance work identified going
forward will be limited to hand work to the maximum extent possible as heavy equipment can likely cause
more damage than anticipated maintenance needs.
The stream restoration and enhancement areas are relatively stable and will continue to adjust somewhat in
response to storm events. Gauge data throughout the site supports seven different bankfull events during the
Year 4 monitoring period, including Hurricane Florence, which are supported by water monitoring gauges,
observations of wrack debris outside of the top of bank and in the floodplain throughout the site, as well as
photo documentation during the storm events. The in -stream structures are remaining stable and functioning
as designed and have had no change in functionality since Year 3.
As commented by DMS in Year 2 and Year 3 and discussed with the IRT during the June 19, 2018 Site
Visit, UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5 are being monitored to confirm continuous flow for 30 consecutive days within
the intermittent streams. Table 13 provides documentation of the continuous flow periods for all areas, by
gauge monitoring, for each monitoring year. All gauges but Gauge 11, including those in UT 2 and UT 3,
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

indicated a period of continuous flow for 30 days or more during Year 4 of monitoring, as observed in the
water level plots of Figure 6a -6e, and summarized in Table 13. An additional stream gauge has been installed
in UT 3 and an additional groundwater gauge has been installed in UT 2, as recommended by the IRT and
DMS. These will be monitored through Year 5 for continuous flow. It should be noted, during the field
personnel change, some gauges were missed in field downloads in trying to find the gauges during Year 4.
This has resulted in short periods of data missing between July 2018 and September 2018 for Gauges 1, 2,
4, 6, and the site barologger. Additionally, the redeployment of Gauge 3 due to not finding the gauge
(vegetation overgrowth) occurred in September 2018. Multiple efforts to find Gauge 3 with the use of a
metal detector were made, but all were unsuccessful. As a result, the data was lost for this gauge during the
Year 4 monitoring period. Manual compensation for all gauges for the period of July 2018 to November
2018 occurred using data provided by the Concord Regional Airport due to the missing data in the site
barologger. Field personnel managing the site are now fully acclimated to the locations of all gauges and no
additional data gaps should occur through project closeout.
An additional stream gauge was installed within UT 5 in September 2018, however has not shown
continuous flow for 30 days since deployed. The tributary at the gauge was dry and showed no sign of flow
during the October/November site visit, during a season of significant rainfall and flow. It is anticipated that
UT 5 will not be considered at close out for credit generation, however, will continued to be monitored for
flow at this time. It is believed that the stream credit requirements of the project will still be met without UT
5 due to additional work performed throughout the site. Louis Berger personnel completed the proper
jurisdictional determination forms for UT5 in the site selection study. These forms were submitted as part
of the proposal to DMS, as well as included in the final design reports to DMS. At the time of the assessment,
UT5 was scored as an intermittent stream. The USACE provided a complimentary site walk and assessment
with Louis Berger during the design as part of the mitigation plan, however, only the site walk occurred and
there is no final documentation approving the jurisdictional determination of UT5 as an intermittent stream.
Due to the change in monitoring procedures required by DMS this year, UT 3 cross sections indicate unstable
bank height ratios and channel. This, however, is caused by the use of the baseline cross sectional area as
the consistent factor for determining bankfull elevations and channel parameters. The baseline values for
most of UT 3 were determined in dry conditions, immediately following construction in which channel banks
were cut back to leave a small 6 -inch -deep by 1 -foot wide channel throughout UT 3. This small channel was
not sufficient for most of UT 3, specifically where the valley slopes increased to form a B6 type channel.
Through Year 1, most of this constructed channel began to dissipate, and higher bankfull elevations were
evident due to the presence of vegetation. Additionally, with the cattle encroachment in Year 2, this 6 -inch
deep channel was eradicated and a true B6 channel formed with the accretion of sediments. Since this event
in Year 2, however, vegetation vigor within the channel and its banks has increased dramatically, providing
a stable reach with consistent water flow during most of the year. Additionally, no additional accretion has
been observed through Year 4 since the vegetation has established. This segment was discussed with the
IRT at the June 19, 2018 meeting, in which they did not voice concerns with the stability of the channel, but
more so the vegetation vigor and height of trees and the need for monitoring to document consistent flow.
As such, the additional gauge was deployed. No corrective actions for UT 3 are required and on-going
monitoring for consistent flow and photo documentation will be made as requested by the IRT.
1. 5.3 Site Boundary Assessment
1.5.3.1 Easement Modification
In February 2018, DMS requested that the easement boundary at the cattle crossing be modified to remove
a portion of the crossing from the easement due to changes in the installation of the crossing that occurred
during construction. Subsequently, Louis Berger contracted Turner Land Surveying to conduct the
modification. On April 13, 2018, Turner surveyed the area in question. On May 31, 2018, DMS was
presented with three options for modifying the easement: Option 1: five new corners, Option 2: three new
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final

corners, and Option 3: one new corner. On August 15, 2018, DMS selected Option 3. On September 24,
2018, DMS was presented the draft easement modification paperwork. On October 17, 2018, DMS returned
the reviewed paperwork with edits. On October 24, 2018, the final easement modification paperwork was
submitted to Blane Rice, State Property Office. On November 20, 2018, Mr. Rice responded that the
paperwork was complete and that the State Property Office would handle the remaining steps. Mr. Rice
reported the State Property Office's work queue had a two-month backlog. When the State Property Office
has finalized the easement modification, Turner will erect the new corner monument. The area being
removed from the conservation easement at the cattle crossing is depicted in the MY4 CCPV Plan (Figure
2a -2j). There is still no update on the approval from the State Property Office.
1.5.3.2 Encroachments
On April 12, 2018, a meeting was held with Allen Hammill, Marcus Howard, and Kenneth Strader to
evaluate fencing alternatives for the cattle crossing. Subsequently, during June 5-7, 2018, Kenneth Strader
re -enforced the cattle crossing fencing.
During Hurricane Florence (September 14-17, 2018), the cattle crossing fence was damaged by storm debris.
The crossing was temporarily repaired with hog fencing while repair options were evaluated. During the
September 17-21, 2018, vegetation survey, it was noted that five cows had gotten into the easement while
the cattle crossing fence was damaged. On September 20, 2018, Marcus Howard was notified that cows were
in the easement. Mr. Howard was not aware that cows had gotten into the easement and promised to have
them removed immediately. On October 30, 2018, during the engineering survey, the cows were noted to be
still within the fencing and DMS was immediately notified. Mr. Howard was again notified that the cows
had not been removed as promised. As of November 5, 2018, Mr. Howard removed all five cows from the
easement. On November 16, 2018, Louis Berger personnel verified that the cows had been removed from
the easement.
Overall management of encroachment has significantly increased in Year 4; however, this single event
resulted in cows within the easement in all reaches (with the exception of UT 5 and UT 6) upstream of the
cattle crossing. No significant damage was observed due to this event, however, fresh cow pies and trails in
the outer extents of the easement corridor were observed during the engineering monitoring event. Louis
Berger intends to modify the crossing to incorporate a more manageable and cost effective fence with
breakaway barbed wire across the stream. This has been discussed with the landowners and DMS as possible
solution to allow for easier maintenance of the fence for the landowners after significant storm events. This
will be implemented in the first Quarter of Year 5.
In addition to this event, DMS noted during the October/November field -monitoring event that the pond
installed by Larry Hammill may be encroaching into the easement but they were not certain if grade
manipulation had occurred or to what extent it had impacted the easement. Louis Berger evaluated this area
while at the site in during the October/November monitoring event and determined that grading within the
easement for the pond had not occurred, but that mowing may have resulted along a portion of the forested
edge within the easement. In addition to the mowing, it was observed that the landowner has been using a
point along the edge of the easement boundary off Kluttz Road for access. No trees have been planted in this
portion of E2 by Louis Berger, and as such, the encroachment has been limited to the mowing of grasses in
the historically maintained field. Louis Berger has maintained ongoing communications with all landowners
and leaseholders for the property in attempts to stop ongoing encroachment issues and has informed Larry
Hammill of these issues. The mowing event occurred during construction of the pond, prior to Louis Berger
installing easement posts and signs along Larry Hammill's property in June 2018. Areas within the easement
along Larry Hammill's property were visually untouched during the October/November site visit and
assessments, indicating that mowing is no longer occurring within the easement not that the signs have been
installed clearly indicating the easement boundary. Louis Berger will install metal wire along the installed
posts going forward, as well as insure a post is installed along the corner of Kluttz Road to indicated where
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final 10

access roads should not be used by Mr. Hammill to prevent future encroachment in this area. In addition,
Mr. Hammill has installed pine trees along the edge of the conservation easement in the winter of 2018. This
will prevent future mowing encroachment within the conservation easement property by providing a new
forested boundary along the edge of the property. Mr. Hammill will be informed that all pines that were
placed within the conservation easement boundary itself are now protected by the restrictions of the
conservation easement and should not be cut and/or removed.
1. 5.4 Monitoring Year 4 Conditions Assessment Summary
Streams
In summary, the site is performing as intended through MY4 and is meeting the required success criteria
going into MY5 and project closeout. The site has experienced more than two bankfull events through MY4,
as well as experienced bankfull events in each monitoring year. Cross sections, with the exception of isolated
problem areas (such as the beaver dam in Reach 1 during MY4), show stability in channel dimensions
through MY4. Small deviations have occurred since construction of the channel geometry; however, this is
to be expected and is within reason of a stable and successful restoration project. Pattern features have
remained consistent, with only minor changes occurring in short sections of channel reaches. Pattern feature
changes observed have been directly identified as the result of natural occurrences within channels and are
not related to failures in design. Channel profiles, following the events of MY2 with major cattle
encroachment, remain consistent. Areas affected by the MY2 encroachment show increased signs of stability
and improved vegetation coverage despite the encroachment incident. Areas within UT2 and UT3 that have
formed linear wetland features due to aggradation have reformed channel form and profiles to provide water
flow during MY4 and are being monitored through project closeout to show stabilization of channels. Lastly,
bedform diversity and substrate/sediment transport measurements are as designed and indicated overall
stability in the project through MY4.
Vegetation
Through MY4, planted woody species are meeting the density requirements of 288 stems/acre through 92
percent of the site. Additional plantings of larger species have been installed in the winter of 2018 in isolated
areas showing lack of tree height or other deficiencies. A significant rebound in planted woody vigor has
occurred between MY3 and MY4 thanks to the very wet season in MY4. Lastly, the site is continuously
being monitored and treated for invasive species. As of the end of the MY4 monitoring period, the site is
now 100% in compliance with vegetation monitoring requirements.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final 11

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 (USACE 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). Additionally, DMS provided new bank height ratio calculation procedures (un-
published) in 2018 to be implemented in MY4 and MY5, which modifies observations to maintain as -built
bankfull area in determining bank height ratios versus as -built bankfull elevations.
2.1 Geomorphology
Surveys for Year 4 monitoring were conducted by Louis Berger in October/November 2018 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 feet 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 main stem 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, unless noted otherwise in this report. 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 Carolina Vegetation Survey (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 3 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.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final 12

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,
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. In 5
plots (3, 5, 7, 8, and 9), goldenrod, dog fennel, and blackberry were hand cleared from the plot to facilitate
a more accurate count.
The 10 x 10 meter random transect plots were randomly placed in the vicinity of the anchoring vegetation
plot. The random plot was established by running a measuring tape 10 meters in a random direction. With
the first measuring tape laid down, a second measure tap was run out 10 meters, intersecting at a right angle
with the first measuring tape at the 5 meter mark. All living stems over 1 foot in height were counted in the
four 5 x 5 meter quadrants and aggregated for the 10 x 10 meter random plot. The locations of the random
plots were noted but no permanent markings were placed on the ground. The random plot data was manually
entered into a CVS -DMS database excel spreadsheet (retaining all formulas) to obtain stems/acre data
comparable to the established vegetation monitoring plots.
2.5 Hydrological Monitoring
A total of 13 water level gauges are installed on site, including three groundwater monitoring gauges. The
gauges are being monitored biannually to document the 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 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. In September 2018, an
additional groundwater gauge was installed in UT 2 and an additional surface water gauge was installed in
the mid-section of UT 3.
In addition to the event stage monitoring, the gauges are being utilized to monitor base flow for verification
of water flow for a continuous 30 -day period. Gauges are secured in place through PVC structures in channel
pools (Reach 1, Reach 4, UT 4 and UT 7), or in the channel bed (UT 2, UT 3). Elevations are tied to the
gauge structures, in which the thalweg invert elevation immediately downstream of the gauge is also
monitored. Base flow is recorded when the elevation of water recorded by the gauge rises above the
downstream thalweg control elevation.
A surface water gauge was installed in UT 5 during the Year 4 monitoring to monitoring for continuous
flow, but was subsequently removed due to the data not showing continuous flow and the channel appearing
dry during a wet year and season.
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 Current Conditions Plan View (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 as compared to the total planted acreage within the project
site.
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — March 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final 13

3.0 References
NCDEQ: DMS 2018. Bank Height Ratio Guidance — Unpublished
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 2019 — Monitoring Year 4 — Final 14

Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map &
Background Tables

-: ro { ,rr. - I I a • t. ��.r ter} r . r `. ' .� �' - -
Ct` ,_' a�J,'{,./r •J�'-_W
Yadkin River Basin -',,.;'~ F ��- (; ti.•`.Ir<=41 � ��?;�-•w,A�'.•:' f _ ;{`
l; !-1..� ?� }TM1 4\•" a
iL.'� .; '!'ii:_'k�'•M1'� f _ tj$_.vsry?;."''.
_.{ v - .Ilk_..• r,. 'r -
P;
.a* 5 -I 3 r- r , k,' f,.Y, I , I ty' _ I'. ..x. . {" .. ; -.•If' .j.r,_
03-07-12 I+'• ;_, .i}' f 5%`'. =; _ r — f} ?T% ` { 9 M1 k-4 —
?fYrf-*'L'IIJaF
. fid f..r i _.�� f I-'l+4Lr. 15�r, I,ry';I. - �?] �'ir I�4�` Tf`i 'd_• � !-�'}�:_�__v.� _ {�.' '+ f,,. '.� I
rff�' -� t', v�y'S -`��- - � I�� _'S 7 '' 'tel Y �ry ,1�+z�.r .-- .}' k�';°ti'y.`r. .3 S�.�-_ _'k •,;i �:�.�� I
f',, -i''`': ` 'i'.. .k }x:I.Y f'•' ;�I, . c.'x
L�J
'f +{ •''' 1.1 !xi I''.y, ' - �IY6' 1"r�{
, '_
I'I. l
�f F'r•'• i'r I. i..' I ri �, ,•. `c;
Iti [tk3' I'I•.1' { ,_ _ - 4 ' (' __ r�_�.+ nlll �J .t.I.t 'ti.'�Iti'
•...�.�;4?7•tk-'
_
2.
,fes �V' .#> amu', .�' ,�:—•Tx�..
4.
:,,n,.= s'. ` ,,'': °"° 5..:: _`,j}1'..: Reference Site
x* f � l M1 ' f 4 5 r • :.yli :�h�,� �rn �-'•�•,:�;. �r , l k rx.x' � _ � `' �,l ?. 1.:'.' 'r -
:�k
.•{{ .M1{( ?.r `i 445 .t' _ _ l_7 {,� l!I . } h""ii'•-i,f3=>.. -:_, .:.1 ,• /I -f.:�' ''�'` ':y d'1--,ri"':_ ��..-''ry %~: 4.:,r^
4,AtiI�yrf_.s-
-,=
� ., _ ... .�
l`+lF='
x;{ .'�'twf�r-i4_.�.�[4k� } � �4'�s}�t_ .�r�rili � \\� � IM1 I
} } . k �'I 4 's; ;, k ;, x i kfxf11 M1 k • t = II" W=7 `v „' :Old Mine Ro d'
'may M1 I �Jf '.•_ r'.a' _iSi ,�,11. }'_. X54 ?%
'I1'I I' 1 (/ •i- ='• x'x; '' ! r�r+x rr ' I ^
f t�
.f.' _•.
r}kf41Yih f �•.
y I }' {} -It
I ice, I,k'
' J
S
f
I x I k ff-•5y7',-",�'l
•x'�r'y Y'.! �'�5..-zJllf t.' ,-f'i y+ry }.••l^5'.=Ypl'. ll'•
5I �_,�=_p' • S rte- -�. fl_.. i�'x •,� '},.+�f.¢;. :'Y.�ki s"'kk+YJl.
'
J.
�A'' _ I •!' h ' lr', \:.� r . =% -' ;'`' .19rti•�r- .j�"`". �'.I.• !I'} r I
,5 �t4M1 rte,.-}� ;t, {"' } 4 x },. �.� -
,7LAll
�_
rJ I ;5,j'•p
1•�7
�•':7k
L1I 4
INx•:�f;'
x<f�t:
{� - ,5 Project Site-�._' r Gr� ,'•r _ I']t4 f +,
+I`rr6 'I�.� r?yf,`, " , "f? ';s �Ik, I+7 I i 5 II
I ; '; `' x ''?'4,* -"{f1'. I 3. �k"�t h�:.''fn'4F�? !v,. l{ '+ '.' '` '•�e'�-� <a .� t l Si'S'"'�a l�'.' -„ hx
+4 \ - \ �ti�t'-'�54t. l �, r, •�s r ,r lr `r,'' " ...fx..'iay'4'I ':--
,. r
l}
Legend
Project Stream Segments
Reference Reach
✓�_�i�•`•,JyL',
'-- 'rt'.�'rM.r:/.:p/ :t;'^'�1 i_ y fir.. yk'-.
J.hI�w`` k I'� �_'�'''f Y r�-J ! 4"*-,
Il r � 7' I ,— �rr+l�?�.• •~� r� II 4k
- �{' f!'}� �? Ilr t�'x � �:��/�•��,r.l �`_ '���}`} 5 *�I P'� LJ-
�14'
%r.
01,
1z, ,`J! j•""+':.
�f '''fY ��{I �?'k . �' JM1 S + 4- ' �� '�.° ori' ° .•' r.� �x\— �As�, '� r �.:. .::
Source: USGS Topographic Quads: 0 0.5
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
Pro•ect Location Ma
®THE LOUIS BERGERGROUP Figure 1
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605 November 2016

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 Equiv.
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 112.5:1
1148
Reach 2
33+66 to 46+10
1,244
1244 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 112.5:1
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 112.5:1
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 112.5:1
428
Reach 5
66+62 to 74+88
826
826 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 112.5:1
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 Ell
Enhancement Level 11
N/A
Enhancement Level 112.5:1
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 112.5:1
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
There is the potential to
increase stream
miti ation units after
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 112.5:1
74
At risk to not get credit
due to lack of continous
flow.
UT 6
10+00 to 11+51
151
151 EII
Enhancement Level II
N/A
Enhancement Level 11 2.5:1
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 F short of total, this is purely a product of values being rounded to nearest linear foot
Length and Area Summations
E
Wo
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
September 2017
February 2018
Beaver Trapped and Dam Breached
N/A
March 2018
Land Owner Coordination
Meeting/Invasive Vegetation Walk
Through/Soil Sample Collection
N/A
April 2018
Invasive Treatment - Spring
N/A
May 2018
Cattle Crossing and Fence Repairs
N/A
June 2018
IRT Site Visit and Additional
Easement Sign Installation
N/A
June 2018
Invasive Treatment - Fall
N/A
September 2018
Beaver Dam Removal and Repair
N/A
November 2018
Replanting & Reseeding
N/A
November 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Setpember - November 2018
Draft January 2019
Cattle Crossing Fence Repair and
Ammendment
N/A
*February 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
*:Estimated dates for maintenace activities.

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
Planting and Invasive Treatment Contractor
Carolina Sylvics
908 Indian Trail
Edenton, NC 27932
Mellow Marsh
1312 Woody Store Rd.
Siler City, NC 27344
919-742-1200
ArborGen Inc.
2011 Broadbank Court
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Ridgeville, SC 29472
843-851-4129
Superior Trees Inc.
12493 US -90
Lee, FL 32059
850-971-5159
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Louis Berger Group, Inc., Robin Perez (919-866-4428)
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Allen Hammill - landowner(704) 433-4656
Larry Hammill - landowner [phone]
Landowner Contact Information
Phil Cline - landowner [phone]
Farmhand Contact Information
Marcus Howard -farm operator (704)-322-0840
Garrett — Marcus' cow handler [phone]

Table 4 Project Information
Project Name
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
County
Cabarrus County
Project Area acres
12
Project Coordinates latitude and longitude)
135.491041'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
13040105020060
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
Thermal Regime
Warm
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
Morpholoizical Descri tion stream e
C4/F4
C4/E4
C4/174
C4
C4/D4b C4
Design Ros en Stream Type
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4 C4
Evolutionary Trend
Design Approach P1 P2 P3 E etc
R; EIl
EII
R; EIl
EI; 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
0.48%
0.38%
0.51%
0.39%
0.47% 0.43%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Native vegetation community
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture Pasture
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
Reach Summary Information Unnamed 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 t
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 a
N/A
B6
B6/G6
B4c
N/A N/A
F4
Design Ros en Stream Type
No Restoration B6
B6
B4c
lNo Restoration No Restoration C4
Evolutionary Trend
Design Approach P1 P2 P3 E etc
EII
R; EII P
R; EI; EIl
EI; EII
EII EII
R; EI
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacla
Chewacla
Badm/Georgevi Goldston
lie
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 status
Non -hydric
Non- h dric
Non -hydric
Non -hydric
Non -hydric Non -hydric
Non -h dric
Sloe
N/A
2.45%
2.35%
2.17%
N/A N/A
0.96
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
N/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 Informatior
Parameters
Wetland 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 of Hydrology
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hydrologic Im 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 USFWS dated
November 16, 2009
Historic Preservation Act
Y
Y
Letter from NC SHPO dated
February 2, 2010
Coastal Zone Management Ac[ CZMA / Coastal Area Management
N
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Y
Y
FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Restoration Plan Anne ix 9
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
N/A
N/A

Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data

Figures 2a -j - Integrated Current Condition Plan View -
Monitoring Year 4

II
11
x 'y� '
.y . VEGPP+)_•❑T 12
BEGIN UPSTREAM
MAINSTEM REST❑RATI❑N P -L 13
STA. 22+00
:� a. le
END E2 �-GAGE�,j�� �-'� � -
r,
Ile,
BEGIN BEDROCK I
EL: 638.68
V
END BEDROCK Olt',bc
EL: 638.56 AND❑M VEGPLOT UPSTREAM
z�
. —��— CROSS SECTI❑N MS -1P
�►!! I a BEGIN BEDROCK
EL: 6 8.03
Y4 BEAVER DAM REMOVED
END 'BEDROCK J AND CHANNEL REPAIR
EL637.97 EGPL❑T 11
-------------
ANDOM VEGPLOT DOWNSTREAM
PL -12
ROSS SECTION MS -1R
c9
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
rE 1
LIT TLE��
'3s' 221y
ISOLATED EVENT ❑F
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT REACH 1 DURING
MY4, 5 COWS OBSERVED IN
CONSERVATI❑N EASEMENT
AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE.
COWS WERE REMOVED
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
LATER. NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
pw
LEGEND:
— - — THALWEG, RESTORATION
END UPS ,= — - — THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
MAINSTEM REST•0ER
STA. 25+77.37 THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
BEGIN E2
0' 100' 200' AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
SCALE: 1"= 100'
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT - FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
0 ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
00i![= CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
N (>75%) (757-40%) (<40%)
w
w ABSENI
0-
V)
LSI PRESENT
j COMMON
z
�-115AN
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSERVATION FENCE
NONNI
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT - FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
0 ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
00i![= CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
N (>75%) (757-40%) (<40%)
w
w ABSENI
0-
V)
LSI PRESENT
j COMMON
z
�-115AN
/
NONNI
,6,
U)
rt0
Lu
0
U
z
CL Lo
0 N
c @
O Q2o'
Lu m
C)
Lu o
moz
coCt
D
O @
i
w
2
I
U
� v
D I
�o
w Ld
cn
U z 0 Z
000 z
o�(-) �_ n
J Q Q 0-
L<0'(nC� N
Ll z
5 � � O
mwQ L_
w�m� o
o z
<z o
�Q
J w o
7n Z
U W
0 0'
0_
D
U
uA'L MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147

0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
UT -2 STA. 13+78.56
_
END E2
BEGIN REST❑RATI❑N
UT -2 STA. 14+27.35 ' „
END REST❑RATI❑N
BEGIN E2
,
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
R.
i
UT -2 ST
END PRE
BE(
-----CROSS SECTION UT2-1R
I VEGPLOT 8
b -
j -RANDOM VEGPLOT
DOWNSTREAM, ❑PP❑SITE BAN
AND❑M VEGPLOT
DOWNSTREAM, SAME BANK
UT 2
LINEAR WETLAND LIKE FEATURE,
CHANNEL FORMATION IS
F,ArF 13 rnniTTnu iTnir Tn M-1 in
GAGE
LEGEND:
— — — THALWEG, RESTORATION
— — — THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
H POOR HABITAT
ISOLATED EVENT OF
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT REACH 2 AND
UT2 DURING MY4. 5 COWS
OBSERVED IN C❑NSERVATI❑N
EASEMENT AFTER HURRICANE
FLORENCE. COWS WERE
REMOVED APPROXIMATELY 6
WEEKS LATER. NO DAMAGE
OBSERVED, _
r
VEGPLOT 9
PL 10
fir. r dAf
}�'-_ � � � y�. ,-R�w1ri � � �'X"� •`per
UT -2 STA 19+50.70
TLE BUFFALO STA. 42+43
Yt BEGIN
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
0 AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
0 ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
0 CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-407) (<40%)
w
w ABSENT
0_
cn
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY
>10%
offiffilliRmiliql
— EXCEEDS
F*-]VEGPLOT
REQUIREMENTS BY
<10%
VEGPLOT
F*-]
EQU REMENTSIBY
<10%
VEGPLOT — FAILS
F*-]
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
0 AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
0 ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
0 CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-407) (<40%)
w
w ABSENT
0_
cn
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z
UT-1 STA. 10+00.00
BEGIN E2
ISOLATED EVENT ❑F
'`EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT REACH 1 DURING
` MY4. 5 COWS OBSERVED IN
UT 1 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE.
UT -1 STA, 11+10,63 COWS WERE REMOVED
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 32+99
END UT -1 E2 LATER, N❑ DAMAGE OBSERVED,
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
F
,j -
4�
- rPIL 11 i ` LfJT j
i
\ LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 33+04.88
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 33+66.34 E2
BEGIN E2
BEGIN REACH 2
wl
0
0I
Z
0
N
cn
U
Z
CL Lo
0 N
c @
Q2
W m
�C)
Lu o
m�z
CD
5—.2
O @
J �
w
2
I
U
Ld
D v
> I
O �
w Ld
w c
oz�z z
o000 g
J Q Q
L' n C 7 N
O -D z
m ~
m w O
Q L-
W � m O
z
�z O
�Q
J w O
7n z
U) > w
0 0-
o-
D
U
uML MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147
offiffilliRmiliql
IVL44
'10
E,
MEMBERFZZ191
1
UT-1 STA. 10+00.00
BEGIN E2
ISOLATED EVENT ❑F
'`EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT REACH 1 DURING
` MY4. 5 COWS OBSERVED IN
UT 1 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE.
UT -1 STA, 11+10,63 COWS WERE REMOVED
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 32+99
END UT -1 E2 LATER, N❑ DAMAGE OBSERVED,
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
F
,j -
4�
- rPIL 11 i ` LfJT j
i
\ LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 33+04.88
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 33+66.34 E2
BEGIN E2
BEGIN REACH 2
wl
0
0I
Z
0
N
cn
U
Z
CL Lo
0 N
c @
Q2
W m
�C)
Lu o
m�z
CD
5—.2
O @
J �
w
2
I
U
Ld
D v
> I
O �
w Ld
w c
oz�z z
o000 g
J Q Q
L' n C 7 N
O -D z
m ~
m w O
Q L-
W � m O
z
�z O
�Q
J w O
7n z
U) > w
0 0-
o-
D
U
uML MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147

LEGEND:
— — —
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— — —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
—
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
NONE!����
CONSERVATION FENCE
X n
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
A
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
F*-]
EU RTSIQEMENBY <10%
VEGPLOT
EU RETSIQMENBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
Q
CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
f>7571 (757-407) f<4071
V)
w
w ABSEM
0-
U)
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z
®�ONli
NONE!����
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
I.
I
Z
�Q
is 1�
N_
I W
K
i i
ss i t
0
/ BE T-2 STA. _1 + -
" •, o 00,00
r GIN PRESERVATION I
I I — Ln
a
. 1 PL 0 cryo
7 N
�..: >o
a
C7 v
who
; m C z
cnoz
UT -2 STA, 13+78,56 �i 5 .Lori
- --- END E2 I
i / co
BEGIN RESTORATION � � � �� � �
w
UT -2 STA, 13+34,67 z
END PRESERV2 ATION ~
UT -2 STA, 14+27 �. •s
END RESTORATIONS� BEGIN E
i
BEGIN E2 / ��
ROSS SECTION
! UT2-1R
u'.
f} VEGFLOT 8
U U)- - - r LLJ
� >
EGPLOT O
w
DANDOM VOWNSTREAM, ❑PPOSITE BANK w w >- L' w
i w �
UZO�ZO z
�- OQOQ
VEGP
ANDOM LOT < w cl) 0 N
DOWNSTREAM, SAME BANK w o F z
L
UT 2 -m��> o
, 1, L-
INEAR Q
WETLAND LIKE FEATURE, J o Q
GAGE 13 CHANNEL FORMATION IS
GAGE CONTINUING Q z 0
T❑ OCCUR, J w0
ISOLATED EVENT OF
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT U > (If bi
THROUGHOUT
UT2 DURING MY4 C5 2 AND D
C)
COWS C)
OBSERVED IN CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AFTER HURRICANE 0' 100' 200'
FLORENCE. COWS WERE
REMOVED APPROXIMATELY 6 DATE MARCH 2019
WEEKS PROJECT NO,
LATER, NO DAMAGE 94147
OBSERVED, SCALE: 1"= 100' IFIGURE 4 OF 10

ISOLATED EVENT OF
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT REACH 4
DURING MY4. 5 COWS
OBSERVED IN
C❑NSERVATI❑N EASEMENT
AFTER HURRICANE
FLORENCE, COWS WERE
REMOVED APPROXIMATELY 6
WEEKS LATER, NO DAMAGE
OBSERVED,_- --�`—
�. BEGIN 8EDRO,
624.94
END BED CK'
EL: 624.30 -,
UT -4 STA, 18+30,57
LITTLE BUFFALO STA, 56+93
I END 0T-4 El___
w VEGPL❑TZANDOM
D
m
VEGPLOT
VEGPL❑T UPSTREAM
ANDOM VEGPLOT
DOWNSTREAM
y '
UT 4
s ,CROSS; SECTION UT4-1R
-GAGE 4
ISOLATED EVENT OF EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT LITTLE BUFFALO $TA, 46+10
THROUGHOUT REACH 3 DURING MY4, 5 COWS END REAC' 2
OBSERVED IN C❑NSERVATI❑N EASEMENT AFTER BEGIN REArCH 3
HURRICANE FLORENCE, COWS WERE REMOVED
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS LATER, NO DAMAGE
OBSERVED. =
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK PL 8
ow-
MY2 CHANNEL REPAIR ¢ __ �'�. • �`
VEGPLOT 6 \�
MY2 CHANNEL REPAIR -
BEGIN DOWNSTREAM
MAINSTEM RESTORATION
t . +,� • \ STA 48+t�.4� ,:
END 'E2
' i R❑SS SEE�A1�"Fl�-2R . F - '�
all
-ROSS SECTION �lf�t
UT4-1P '-CROSS SECTION MS -2P ayf"
BAROL❑GGE ,� > '
:t V
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
END DOWNSTREAM
MAINSTEM RESTORATION
STA. 50+
BEGIN E2
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
]CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
U)
w
w ABSENI
0_
N
w PRESENT
COMMON
z,t4 xg No m m M4 K, 4,
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
m1limm
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
ISOLATED EVENT OF
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X * *
THROUGHOUT UT4 DURING MY4.
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
5 COWS OBSERVED IN
BEDROCK
7%
C❑NSERVATI❑N EASEMENT
UT -4 STA, 14+21,25
CONTROL POINT
AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE.
END E2
_
COWS WERE REMOVED
BEGIN E1
POOR HABITAT
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
LATER. NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
�
VEGPLOT
w
EQU REMENTSIBY <10%
Al�k .� ...Jv
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
END DOWNSTREAM
MAINSTEM RESTORATION
STA. 50+
BEGIN E2
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
]CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
U)
w
w ABSENI
0_
N
w PRESENT
COMMON
z,t4 xg No m m M4 K, 4,
LEGEND:
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— - —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
m1limm
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X * *
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
7%
ROOTWADS
I&
CONTROL POINT
LEGEND:
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— - —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X * *
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
7%
ROOTWADS
I&
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY <10%
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
wl
0
cn
6
U
Z
CL Lo
0 N
c @
� Q o
W @
�U
W o
CD
coot
D z
o
J of
W
2
I
U
LJ0
D > I
�0 �
o w Ld
ww�cnLd
o-
0z�z z
000
0F=0F g
J< Q n
< w U)0 N
wOwF7 z
=) �-w o
mwQ
w0 -mL` o
o z
:20 Z o
�Q
J w o
z
> W
D (If
o-
D
U
uA'L MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147

LEGEND:
i'" = f l
s.'. :,E' �.' i ISOLATED EVENT OF
— — —
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— — —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
mmmiqlqlqlqlql
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
VEGPLOT — FAILS
F*_1 REQUIREMENTS BY
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X X x
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
>10%
ROOTWADS
0
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
o
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
UT -3 STA. 20+21.97
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
• � N
PROPOSED EASEMENT
MODIFICATI❑N
- PROPERTY
REMOVAL PENDING STATE
FINALIZATI❑N
BEGIN E2
LATER. NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
�I
VEGPLOT — FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
i'" = f l
s.'. :,E' �.' i ISOLATED EVENT OF
mm
w
1 / EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
mmmiqlqlqlqlql
PZFZAA
Q
VEGPLOT — FAILS
F*_1 REQUIREMENTS BY
THROUGHOUT UT3 DURING MY4.
j 5 COWS OBSERVED IN
immommioll
OEM,.
>10%
,,
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
'� AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE,
o
PHOTO LOCATION
UT -3 STA. 20+21.97
COWS WERE REMOVED
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
END El .
'I" / APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
BEGIN E2
LATER. NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
�I
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
UT 3 1` UT -3 STA.
21+29
�;
0 ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
` } BEGIN RESTORATION
UT -3 STA.21+55
Z
LATERAL POINT BARS
R
END REST❑RATI❑N1 I
o
0 CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
1��� MY2 CHANNEL REPAIR
VEGETATION COVERAGE
�.
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
CONCRETE REMOVAL SECTI❑N ,
N (>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
STA,65+21,37
w
w ABSENT
o_
w PRESENT
j COMMON
z
END E1 AREA
CONCRETE REMOVAL SECTI❑N
UT -3 STA. 24+05STA. 63+70.48
END E2 / BEGIN 7AREAR❑�.�C. CTI❑N MS
BEGIN REST❑RATION' F
`r PL
BUFFALO CR CROSS SECTION UT3-3 SAGE 10 %'� " '► _�-
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.74+87.83 UT -3 STA. 24+50 /
END E2 END RESTORATION '
UT -6 STA. 11+51.33 BEGIN E2
LITTLE BUFFALO STA,74+06 -�
. END E2 ,� .�.�, /�r ,� .�• \ K
Y • �� BEGIN BEDROCK
VEGPLOT 2
SND BEDROCK EL: 621.83
621.84
BEGIN BEDROCK r.
EL: 620.91
47
6
U
z
U
C
Lo
CD
0,
N
\� a'2
Lu m
0
w o
co z
C/) CD
D
O @
i
W
H
c
EL: 621.18 BEGIN BEDROCK'
'I w1w._r'- `iii" n EL: 621.38
PL UT -3 SfA,24+74.90
LITTLE BUFFALO STA,66+62
f ���• � � � • / r � END UT -3 E2 .
'+ �', m UT -5 STA. 11+84.46 .
GAGE 11 \LITTLE BUFFALO STA,71+04
;SAT 1 -b LE
\A 7 fir. Ip
I j '
� ISOLATED EVENT OF EASEMENT
\ ! UT -5 'EGSTA, 10+00,00 ENCROACHMENT THROUGHOUT REACH
BIN E2 4 AND REACH 5 DURING MY4. 5
COWS OBSERVED IN CONSERVATION
UT 6 EASEMENT AFTER HURRICANE
FLORENCE, COWS WERE REMOVED
V�JT-6 STA, 10+00,00 UT 5 ' APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS LATER,
p :r._.. ,.;rj,' • NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
_ BEGIN E2 'I*._
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.75+19.23
BEGIN 'RESERVATI❑N
0
0' 100' 200'
D AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
SCALE: 1"= 100'
I
U
LLJ
D I
0
W Lj
W
C
0z�z z
000
0�0�- g
1< Q n
<0'cn0 N
0 Z
~ 0, -> O
M w Q
w 0: mM o
o z
-Q
0 Z o
J w o
z
U) > w
0 0-
D
U
MARCNo. 9414 ,
6 OF 10
mm
►�_•.
mmmiqlqlqlqlql
PZFZAA
immommioll
OEM,.
END E1 AREA
CONCRETE REMOVAL SECTI❑N
UT -3 STA. 24+05STA. 63+70.48
END E2 / BEGIN 7AREAR❑�.�C. CTI❑N MS
BEGIN REST❑RATION' F
`r PL
BUFFALO CR CROSS SECTION UT3-3 SAGE 10 %'� " '► _�-
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.74+87.83 UT -3 STA. 24+50 /
END E2 END RESTORATION '
UT -6 STA. 11+51.33 BEGIN E2
LITTLE BUFFALO STA,74+06 -�
. END E2 ,� .�.�, /�r ,� .�• \ K
Y • �� BEGIN BEDROCK
VEGPLOT 2
SND BEDROCK EL: 621.83
621.84
BEGIN BEDROCK r.
EL: 620.91
47
6
U
z
U
C
Lo
CD
0,
N
\� a'2
Lu m
0
w o
co z
C/) CD
D
O @
i
W
H
c
EL: 621.18 BEGIN BEDROCK'
'I w1w._r'- `iii" n EL: 621.38
PL UT -3 SfA,24+74.90
LITTLE BUFFALO STA,66+62
f ���• � � � • / r � END UT -3 E2 .
'+ �', m UT -5 STA. 11+84.46 .
GAGE 11 \LITTLE BUFFALO STA,71+04
;SAT 1 -b LE
\A 7 fir. Ip
I j '
� ISOLATED EVENT OF EASEMENT
\ ! UT -5 'EGSTA, 10+00,00 ENCROACHMENT THROUGHOUT REACH
BIN E2 4 AND REACH 5 DURING MY4. 5
COWS OBSERVED IN CONSERVATION
UT 6 EASEMENT AFTER HURRICANE
FLORENCE, COWS WERE REMOVED
V�JT-6 STA, 10+00,00 UT 5 ' APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS LATER,
p :r._.. ,.;rj,' • NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
_ BEGIN E2 'I*._
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.75+19.23
BEGIN 'RESERVATI❑N
0
0' 100' 200'
D AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
SCALE: 1"= 100'
I
U
LLJ
D I
0
W Lj
W
C
0z�z z
000
0�0�- g
1< Q n
<0'cn0 N
0 Z
~ 0, -> O
M w Q
w 0: mM o
o z
-Q
0 Z o
J w o
z
U) > w
0 0-
D
U
MARCNo. 9414 ,
6 OF 10

0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
LEGEND:
— — — THALWEG, RESTORATION
— THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
F*_1VEGPLOT — FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
1*7 VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
[ BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
C LATERAL POINT BARS
CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
w
w NT
ABSE
0-
(n
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
X X *
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
'7A
ROOTWADS
A
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
F*_1VEGPLOT — FAILS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
1*7 VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
[ BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
C LATERAL POINT BARS
CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
w
w NT
ABSE
0-
(n
w PRESENT
COMMON
Z
' UT -3 STA. 10+00
{ t BEGIN REST❑RATI❑N.. t
UT -3 STA, 12+15,05
BEGIN E2 AREA
LINEAR WETLAND LIKE FEATURE,
CHANNEL IS STILL EVIDENT
BUT OFTEN FLOODED.
- \GAGE 6
ROSS SECTI❑N UT3-1R
GAGE
_ 1 �
PL 5
UT 3
ISOLATED EVENT OF
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT UT3 DURING MY4,
5 COWS OBSERVED IN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE,
COWS WERE REMOVED
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
LATER. NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
UT -3 STA, 14+66,62 ---R
BEND E7
EGIN E1 AND❑M VEGPLOT
UPSTREAM, SAME BANK
BEGIN BEDROCK— �CRIJSS SECTI❑N UT3-1P
EL: 639.42
END BEDROCK ---
EL: 638.34
3r,, / VEGPLOT 3
UT -3 STA. 16+60 Z
END El
'r
i.
BEGIN RESTORATION L
UT -3 STA, 16+79—�
E
BEGIN E1
R I
BEGIN BEDROCK (.?ay
EL: 633.29 1--�►
END BEDROGK- —t -
EL: 632.40 � GAGE 121 t� J I
� R❑SSECTI❑N UT3-2R
AND❑M VEGPLOT
/ ( DOWNSTREAM, ❑PP❑SITE BANK
wl
0
0I
Z
0
N
cn
o
6
U
z
Lo
� N
c @
O
ac)
2
Lu m
C)
Luho
CD
coCt
D��
O @
J
w
I
U
0
D 0
> I
�0 w
wo w Ld
w�cn
w
0z�z z
000
0F=0F g
J< Q 0
< w U)0 N
wOwF7 z
5~�� o
M wQ
w0:�mo
o z
-Q
0 Z o
J w o
7n Z
U > w
o (If
o-
D
U
uML MARCH 2019
PROJECT NC 94147
=111112=0114
L
, L*%Nq
NONE!
&sw m K, q
����
' UT -3 STA. 10+00
{ t BEGIN REST❑RATI❑N.. t
UT -3 STA, 12+15,05
BEGIN E2 AREA
LINEAR WETLAND LIKE FEATURE,
CHANNEL IS STILL EVIDENT
BUT OFTEN FLOODED.
- \GAGE 6
ROSS SECTI❑N UT3-1R
GAGE
_ 1 �
PL 5
UT 3
ISOLATED EVENT OF
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
THROUGHOUT UT3 DURING MY4,
5 COWS OBSERVED IN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AFTER HURRICANE FLORENCE,
COWS WERE REMOVED
APPROXIMATELY 6 WEEKS
LATER. NO DAMAGE OBSERVED,
UT -3 STA, 14+66,62 ---R
BEND E7
EGIN E1 AND❑M VEGPLOT
UPSTREAM, SAME BANK
BEGIN BEDROCK— �CRIJSS SECTI❑N UT3-1P
EL: 639.42
END BEDROCK ---
EL: 638.34
3r,, / VEGPLOT 3
UT -3 STA. 16+60 Z
END El
'r
i.
BEGIN RESTORATION L
UT -3 STA, 16+79—�
E
BEGIN E1
R I
BEGIN BEDROCK (.?ay
EL: 633.29 1--�►
END BEDROGK- —t -
EL: 632.40 � GAGE 121 t� J I
� R❑SSECTI❑N UT3-2R
AND❑M VEGPLOT
/ ( DOWNSTREAM, ❑PP❑SITE BANK
wl
0
0I
Z
0
N
cn
o
6
U
z
Lo
� N
c @
O
ac)
2
Lu m
C)
Luho
CD
coCt
D��
O @
J
w
I
U
0
D 0
> I
�0 w
wo w Ld
w�cn
w
0z�z z
000
0F=0F g
J< Q 0
< w U)0 N
wOwF7 z
5~�� o
M wQ
w0:�mo
o z
-Q
0 Z o
J w o
7n Z
U > w
o (If
o-
D
U
uML MARCH 2019
PROJECT NC 94147

LEGEND:
— - — THALWEG, RESTORATION
— THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
* * * CONSERVATION FENCE
a CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
A CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
H POOR HABITAT
n REU RBDQEMENTS Y >10%
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
REU RETSIQMENBY <10%
REU RETSIQMENBY >10%
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
0 AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
0 ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
C LATERAL POINT BARS
CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
U) (»s%) (75%-407) (<40%)
w
0 ABSENT NO FILL
Ld
0_
N LLLLLLLL
w PRESENT LLLLLLLL
�\
COMMON
Z
b '
div-. '� •n 4r- 3�
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
/_1: I:inw"Ifill Is] =aIm Q It] rnWe] :iI:N]I•Rel: I3'd W, to] I lei
\ \.
� .: 'its`.. .• � � •. � -
.
l � •;t
t •�
• !. f
• r � Y - •, .. � . _ •., - �•, til
aw ,
5
EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
r PL3.� -
�� '7 +: •� �~tom'` � - - - -- _ _ _-�- --� �� �' � .
-` xr SLE Bll�F.ALOi ~
END, -PR 315-4
�.��d�•.�4`Y ` rte.-?�f. `� '1r'•"� -� ' � � ffi� � '�,•. :e;r`•,�.
-T •7::;- -tel ♦�^:./' A: '
CI
Z
0
N
cn
G
U
z
U
C
a
0 N
Q o
Lug,@
U
(D�t
W o
CO z
coot
5—.2)
O @
J �
w
M❑DIFI
v
REM❑
Ld
>
\,� O �
w
LLj
Ln
0z�z
000
z
J< Q
<� (n 0
0 _
N
Z
U)
O
M LLJ Q
w
U
0
Z
O
Q z
J w O
n
Z
O >
Ld
Ld
0
0-
U
MARCNo. 94147
g OF 10

I
'F.vri ^fry :x - �• �i1+, •v �" Q
,• 't f yi- -,1 '"A.
i'
•�. V .�•�h' 1 rl
4i�`0 �j,, .�Q'f-I� ••A' �• I y14. .L ,• � . Z
14
- fit •' - r+ - �' '�'a � }- _.� i � � �, � / rte.. -'-'rr'� -
z`:` LEGEND:
' — — — THALWEG, RESTORATION o
:�:...Za, �� .:�r • ,'Y — — —THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I U)
�.
CRO SECTION UT7 1 - - - � THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II o
THALWEG, PRESERVATION '
' EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT
77--,7, THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT �� o
+ GAGE
VEGPLOT 1 ' - ` AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK Z
8 a,
a CONSERVATION EASEMENT
y
CONSERVATION FENCE
_40"CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
UT7 ' m c
GIN UT -7 E1 BEDROCK (, .2
w Q
UT -8 REST❑RATI❑N
STA 10+00 (D ' v
STA 11+46,80 ROOTWADS w � o
END UT -7 E1 m z
BEGIN UT -7 REST❑RATI❑Np CONTROL POINT U) o Z
5
STREAM GAGE
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT w
Sl A +19.08 Y, o _--CROSS SECTION UT7-1P
_ +
END UT -8 RESTORATION
,
H POOR HABITAT
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
millillpwA
ur8 I ..
,g,/
J
VEGPLOT — FAILS
_
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
I
J _
_ VEGPLOT — FAILS
U)LLJ
>_
;j
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
W
3
PHOTO LOCATION
w
Ld
CROSS SECTIO R❑SS SECTI❑N
I UT7-2R
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
1' n
>
UT7-STP1
o o
0
z
]
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
o Q"Q
0 -
CROSS SECTIO"'
Q�cn0
]ENCROACH M ENT/COW PRINTS
�o_DF7
z
O
0
_5
n
LATERAL POINT BARS
m m o
0 CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
Q
0
0
VEGETATION COVERAGE
oz
::j
z
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
U) E
Ld
_
07
�
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
w
w ABSENT
o_
w PRESENT
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015 j COMMON
Z
D
U
DATE MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147
FIGURE 9 OF 10
millillpwA
,g,/
D
U
DATE MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147
FIGURE 9 OF 10

no
LEGEND:
U
0 0
— — —
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— — —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
-
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
z
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
* *
CONSERVATION FENCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
n
BEDROCK
ROOTWADS
0
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
H
VISUAL MORPHIC ASSESSMENT
POOR HABITAT
wmmL`
o
0z
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
— EXCEEDS
F*_1VEGPLOT
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
F*_1
EQU REMENTSIBY <10%
o
VEGPLOT
F*_1
EQU REMENTSIBY >10%
U
PHOTO LOCATION
BANK SCOUR/ERODING
AGGRADATION/DEGRADATION
0
ENCROACHMENT/COW PRINTS
LATERAL POINT BARS
0
CHANNEL REPAIR AREA
VEGETATION COVERAGE
PRESENT POOR ABSENT
(>75%) (75%-40%) (<40%)
N
w
0 ABSENT
LLJ
0-
U)
w PRESENT
j COMMON
Z
19
l Y. ✓ i. • 4 .� y
_ITTLE BUFFALO STA. 104+96.09
END PRESERVATION CROSS SECTIO -w----------CROSS SECTION
UT7-STP1 UT7-2R
CROSS SECTIO;
,3 UT7-STP2
t �
'4
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.99+4i
UT -7 CTA 21+26 71
END UT 7 REST❑RATI❑N
t
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
UT 7
(L 0
7 N
c:@
C7 m .�
Q 2
wa,@
U
cot
w 3: o
m - z
CD
5—.2
o
J Ir
w
La�.
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 91+88,65'
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
wl
0
U)
0
6
0
U
z
U
0 0
I
pzrz
I
D >
0 0'
ox"
on
m
0z�z
000
19
l Y. ✓ i. • 4 .� y
_ITTLE BUFFALO STA. 104+96.09
END PRESERVATION CROSS SECTIO -w----------CROSS SECTION
UT7-STP1 UT7-2R
CROSS SECTIO;
,3 UT7-STP2
t �
'4
LITTLE BUFFALO STA.99+4i
UT -7 CTA 21+26 71
END UT 7 REST❑RATI❑N
t
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
UT 7
(L 0
7 N
c:@
C7 m .�
Q 2
wa,@
U
cot
w 3: o
m - z
CD
5—.2
o
J Ir
w
La�.
LITTLE BUFFALO STA. 91+88,65'
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
0' 100' 200'
SCALE: 1 "= 100'
wl
0
U)
0
6
0
U
z
uA'L MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147
U
0 0
I
I
D >
0 0'
Lo
LJ w nLj
m
0z�z
000
z
0 � U �_
J Q Q
< Q' (U) 0
n
�0_DF7
N
z
0
mwQ
wmmL`
o
0z
o
z
0
�Q
J w o
7n
Z
U) >
w
(If
o
0'
U
uA'L MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147

Tables 5a-g - Visual Stream Morphology Assessment

Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 381
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
Foota a
Intended
Vecietation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
1
114
70%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
5
6
83%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
3
100%
3. Meander Pool
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
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
100%
3. 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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
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
3
3
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
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%
3. 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 EEP monitoring guidance document)
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
Cateciory
Channel
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Se ments
Amount of
Unstable
Foota a
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vecietation
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
3
3
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Visual point scour along small portion of bank within bankfull
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.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%

Reach ID UT2
Assessed Length 279
1: The assessed length of UT2 for visual morphology has been limited to the portion of Enhancement Level I in the reach in past years. Assessed length has been increased to monitor a section of Enhancement Level II along the
lower ends of UT2, measured in field at approximately 230 feet of stream, for a defined stream with flow. As of Year 4, a defined channel is present with flow. Seasonal photos and monitoring will be made through closeout.
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
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed'
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
1
230
18%
2. Degradation - No visual degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
1
1
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
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%
1: The assessed length of UT2 for visual morphology has been limited to the portion of Enhancement Level I in the reach in past years. Assessed length has been increased to monitor a section of Enhancement Level II along the
lower ends of UT2, measured in field at approximately 230 feet of stream, for a defined stream with flow. As of Year 4, a defined channel is present with flow. Seasonal photos and monitoring will be made through closeout.

Reach ID UT 3
Assessed Length 898
1: Linear wetland feature accounted in aggradation reach segment at the top of UT3. A defined channel is clear and has been evident since construction, but is often flooded due to wetland like structure.
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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seciments
Foota a
Intended
Vecietation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - No visual aggradation
1
218
76%
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
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%
1: Linear wetland feature accounted in aggradation reach segment at the top of UT3. A defined channel is clear and has been evident since construction, but is often flooded due to wetland like structure.

Reach ID UT 4
Assessed Length 410
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Se ments
Amount of
Unstable
Foota a
% 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
1
26
94%
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
F100%1
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.
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
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
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se menu
Foota a
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Lateral Point Bars have formed, but as expected due to
the overwide channel design. Reach is in stable condition, so point bars
0
0 100%
were omitted from this section.
2. Degradation - degradation in last curve pool before step pool system -
occurred in MY 2, not included on MY4 CCPV and table, segement has
0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains as -built substrate
11
11
100%
75%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
3
4
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length appropriate?
4
4
100%
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)?
4
4
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
o
0 100 /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
0
0 100%
0 0
100%
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
Totals
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%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. -DMS
Identified piping in one rock vane in step pool feature
9
9
100%
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
9
9
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
4
9
44%
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 Acreage 7.29
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material - area does not meet threshold
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
3.73
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
1
0.42
7.7%
1
7.29
Color
Total
0
0.42
7.7%
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.
0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
0.42
7.7%
Easement Acreage 7.29
Reach 2
Planted Acreage 2.85
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
1000 SF
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Calor
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
3.73
Pattern and
Pattern and
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
1
7.29
100.0%
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Reach 2
Planted Acreage 2.85
Easement Acreage 3.73
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polvaons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Po l ons
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
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
3.73
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
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 Acreage 3.73
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Po l ons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
3.73
100.0%

Reach 3
Planted Acreage 2.65
Easement Acreage 3.83
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
Color
1
3.10
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
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%
Calor
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 Acreage 3.83
Reach 4
Planted Acreage 2.26
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material - area does not meet threshold
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Calor
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
Color
1
3.10
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
1
3.83
100.0%
0
0.00
0.0%
Calor
Color
Reach 4
Planted Acreage 2.26
Easement Acreage 3.1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material - area does not meet threshold
0.1 acres
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
3.10
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
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 Acreage 3.1
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
3.10
100.0%

Reach 5
Planted Acreage 2.05
Easement Acreage 2.74
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach. Crossing fence blown
out duringhurricane, tem orariall repaired.
none
Pattern and
Calor
3
2.74
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
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 Acreage 2.74
UT 2
Planted Acreage 1.25
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Ve etation Cateciory
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in reach. Crossing fence blown
out duringhurricane, tem orariall repaired.
none
Pattern and
Calor
3
2.74
100.0
UT 2
Planted Acreage 1.25
Easement Acreage 2.65
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateciory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Po l ons
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
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
2.65
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
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 Acreage 2.65
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Po l ons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
2.65
100.0%

UT 3
Planted Acreaqe 3.21
Easement Acreage 4.11
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vecietation Cateqory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polyclons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. - area does not meet threshold
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
2.01
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%
1
4.11
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
3.21
100.0%
Easement Acreage 4.11
UT 4
Planted Acreaqe 1.43
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polyclons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Top of bank area bare where sheet flow washed seeding into channel
1000 SF
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
2.01
Pattern and
Pattern and
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
1
4.11
100.0%
Calor
0
0.00
0.0%
UT 4
Planted Acreaqe 1.43
Easement Acreage 2.01
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polvaons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Top of bank area bare where sheet flow washed seeding into channel
0.1 acres
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
2.01
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
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 Acreage 2.01
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Isolated event following hurricane with 5 cattle in easement and observed in trib.
none
Pattern and
Color
1
2.01
100.0%

UT 7
Planted Acreage 2.63
Easement Acreage 6.07
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Pattern and
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
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
0.0%
0
0.00
0.0%
Calor
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 Acreage 6.07
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
1000 SF
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Calor

I� -�-•; � r i i
_.. _ r.

Veg Plot 3
j6
A -f
15
Veg Plot 4

N
Ar
00
= s• �1� .:a��

77
7 -
JI; z

F/_tel
~
_ j(
r _ � .-'rS�_•.
; � 1� F`

��� '�•.4� * �,�C^ , .. � / `;��' •meq
,S -k' •��" 'red?. L��D � � �� -`; � r :iY � i �./..
- �, may. •� � _ - - - '���Ij
^�� � E.i W p. . Y;AFT,'. �." � T .��•. 1�' ;��
x ,. - -`:r, •ivy l :: t ,r��-�,�y'f: � � •�
� rte••• i ;�s`- � ' ..1 .
�' x

IV
��: orf" - � .�' �� • a
iN

`
Pm
d Hill
J.&
IL
`

vk
�:.� . �'��, � �F�,,, �ems, '�..':.',.r . ly•
r1� `�}� � '�' :',fes -�.: � �.r,� r r_;i•,!: ..
y.. i '.T''"r�l-. ..•; - -�:F 'moi. _ �'. ;'
etc.•? � i', ��' , _-= i- � .

qF.

Cross Section UT3-1R Downstream
Cross Section UT3-1R Upstream

��"r '.J :ii !� - � �'• Fre_.:.
31, 2018 86 5 6?OD A
Gol
Jr ±•r rr.
'•C� .�
F

Cross Section UT3-3R Downstream
Cross Section UT3-3R Upstream

�-,_} .,: }} yy; -. y . „� .. .- ^ •t:;"1 ax; � {;3Gt ,'�41. $' fit' 't
�C ., ��.a � ••���. -C. W'� f tel. ►. .��•}
•q' � �.:.. 'fid AL����^�, r ,•��
j- ^+tea .... �r 'rK.,'� :� 1i - _ •--- ''�
•x �' 6�w ti
gni �- •'i � - 4 _ 1.
Sp_
i
a
1 Y.
+-,� r ••\. 1�1r" ,�~ —j .� ��^ 'ice -
� � �� ` S,. ...K� , . • gra .3dc�,r',•

V Ah.
t
ki
rr
Ti
op 2NL,
qvb
17
ILI

..... .....
Fir
;A �2
..... .....
Fir

; '74. �, •
Am
; '74. �, •

rr �— —
f 7r
l -^�-',fie �"• _�.R •� � � � . ." '.7
`
, ti; . �
4
, � •. may,
i
qq
�
l
aair e
-.QQ:38 A
. �,n e �Qld Hill
fo _
r.
- r�

Cross Section UT7-STP1 Downstream
ALAI
Cross Section UT7-STP1 Upstream

dO
p ..rte-• "x T'•
�'-
r.:
. k.
rR
��-y

■ •4 tr' i _
:- Jow
_ �y� � '•ii Jay 1 _ Y!�
r 1i.
�r•F! 1 �
VO

of
,00
1w,
odw
PO
r e7 W
Z:,r I AV

Photo Location 3-B - Downstream
, P -A
4t
`� �. � �.h t w /tile � ! I ... y':,ani
Photo Location 4-A— Upstream

/�.�.y
•�/y>�
\�\.�
f
r-�
�
y�
^`
• �-
\� \.�
<.. �\ �� �
���
>]\�
- & �•�� � : . . �
�^�
q�-. -
S y«

'r t Y
a'Xyl/
y �4 --'•'i�'i �!G �! � y•. � d� �'K ate. ;� y
• ,� ._ _'�~ • ."- �. 'fes 7 1 .�� �•-:: ^•3 �r
�•.Si h�i.+lr '1 �� f•��T� .

jr
N.
. »2
LAE&
Photo Location 6-B — Mainstern Upstream
Photo Location 6-C — UT3 Upstream

" , x'•,iT
ve
IN"
zz,
Ir
MS

Photo Location 7-C — Mainstem Upstream
Photo Location 7-D — UT4 Upstream
"Of
t. 'N-
T V-iL�
V. 1. Iii A
I..
Photo Location 7-C — Mainstem Upstream
Photo Location 7-D — UT4 Upstream

tv
VI
AK,
J7,
osw *1
4
. . . . . . .....
4!,1,

;�•
{A '�'d'
,Rid
_ .. ,r
y
- ' 'n -
Y�`.' �'�`• !' :moi.MNI
,--..
i1
e
t �::�R� •�� �
. ~"^"---111
• . � - '
r /�!
` -
_

AWy, til
7,
74 7.
W -1Y4 w
4 Ap
& P'OLWA 4
,
W
Photo Location 10-B
—
Mainstem
Upstream

'f * ���, sue. �� • �i��•
.- .fir-._ _ r:�� - ;,►�r 1�. `yam
~si
y.IL_Ar
WWI
AWA
fk
_�.� .•E'er .�� .:
- �:•. s

Y {' ►if Pj i -ow IF
• y � . .3=��, `- :R tet• ,- :.�
31
riff +L ►._ 1., -'

I -
•�. _ r � � ,,:•��.- ,. � , 1. = wx' ,,
f •: •:.�,�� � •- 5}':�-5-. ��� �'. +;�.;' ��;.� -�� {it I
y-��� � '� _ �'j �, vim.- i �•i ,�'i ��,t�.l�.
r � � � .-Y s '
Via. "'�� -.S ' • ►� "�-i � .?s -
~r
�•y�,_�
�
- A
,
.. .r. .a
�
_ ,
� •r � �
t
f�
__
�
-mak•
wA
�
:�� �
G'
wk sr
S
��

�.
.: �"t,';�.-r:. L'_�: ` 4 .f '%b:�. ,. Via. u+ � �• � �. �

Photo Appendix D: Problem Areas
,e r
+ti ��..' .i '.'S7I .'iY'i �y�. �.' •��� } ,���.�+yam
_ s
Bare spot (Copper Toxicity) in floodplain in Reach 1
,� of l + ` �'..•d"r.T .:�uv' .�. •� t'�q,��,��;a :.0 .r9�:
Reach 1 before beaver dam clearing work taken in June 2018

�• r
Y 3 _
i
,K a ,
i jr

Beaver dam removal from Reach 1 (during project)
Beaver dam removal from Reach 1 (after removal)

1*1 IWW -
30, 2018 at 7:32:16 AN
Gold Hil

,490- -
. •rte' � , ..
W
it
All
Cow tracks in Reach 3
�1
Cow tracks in Reach 5

0
4r .f
f'
4
1
Cow tracks in Reach 5
Cow tracks in Reach 5

.l► >.
�.. _ �:. •- F. •: �.�--.. ti"r--
�•
4i':..,. F :�.'t �' -.� •`•rte - . a • � � :■
few
_ - :.r�� r� •_} 4�+�'.S� s►!• � ill .�����-L..L.. _.��.
[ r �At
•• _ i` 4 �ryry�yy�,fT,� viIL
n �
t Ire+
E
�- -..
tz
4W

7
AOW

Photo Appendix E: Significant Flow Events
l
At
_.yam,
PO
r - _ • 4 - A . �.. �' �Y.
Significant Flow in Reach 1, herbaceous vegetation bent over in floodplain
Photo taken in September 2018
4 -
Significant Flow in outskirts of Reach 1, vegetation bent over in floodplain
Photo taken in September 2018

w
Wrack line indicating high water levels
Photo take in September 2018
a
Dropped Debris from Hurricane in Reach 2

. '�-'J � g�r'.a` •, Fid' .Y C� - � ° ' -
. � K ftp: � x',` _ � _,_ ,� • t : -•�,., _ .. _
.rrF' •�': -r. � �- r ��- - ,. _' t ,fes �
.�-.. �_�
�'7ti�' �
■}
�irY- .i>�" =tit.
.. r "
_
.._ .ray
;,-,� 4 y: - J1.. • 1�,;.I.��� '
'
go L•-
�F
jaw
. '�-'J � g�r'.a` •, Fid' .Y C� - � ° ' -
. � K ftp: � x',` _ � _,_ ,� • t : -•�,., _ .. _
.rrF' •�': -r. � �- r ��- - ,. _' t ,fes �

Evidence of Significant flow event on Reach 2 bank
Overflowing in Reach 3

7 . •s — ' �• c rim., • +w• �+ I`i �. r f' Y
�L.�1 �: Y- •� ; :,'1 �� 1111'; � /�J,�� '�-,- V-7VwUAW14
•� f r .

" -If nA -00-21 AM
W► -V. t 9
Gold Hill
77
7
pe

}'
r

ft
,W
w
Bent
• floodplain of
.� •�..'.'•
a
-
kC
V�' W,y - -
-
- _- n •x Fes- i
71
:..'.Fi-_
.�•r'
iL��.
-
.. .. �" T ate:

Bent vegetation into easement fence from hurricane
Flooding over old mine road at UT7

Flooding at UT7 during Hurricane
�' -�•.. � ��'� +,�:r �. ' ` � gam`"
Wrack line at cattle crossing from Hurricane

Appendix C - Vegetation Plot Data

Plot
MY4 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
92%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
N
11
Y
12
Y

Report Prepared By Gregory A. Russo
Date Prepared 12/26/2018 9:32
database name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
C:\Users\grrusso\Desktop
computer name
MTN-GRUSSO7
file size
62984192
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Proj, planted
Proj, total stems
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
PROJECT SUMMARY ---------
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stE
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are e
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for E
94147
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project
Louis Berger is restoring the Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Site in Cabarrus County, North Carolin<
Yadkin -Pee Dee
48265.23781
12
12

Type=Tre Sbrub,llyeatake Color for Oenahy
T•P[ d memsby10%
= oal —bl% but by len than 30%
ta, by -than SO%
t—il—bll by more than 10%

Appendix D - Stream Measurement &
Geomorphology Data

Table0.
CreekLittle Buffalo ) Seqment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 1 (2,305 feet)
�eee®eeeee®eeeee®ee®��eee
�mmm���m©m®mmmommm®®®®ma
�mm0®mmmma®mmmma®mm®mmmma
�mmmm��®m©m®mmmommmmmmmmo
�mmmmmmmm©mm®mmmmmm®®®®ma
�mmmmmmmmo®m®®mommmmmmmmo
�mmmm��®©mmmmmommmmmmmmo
- •mmmm®��®mo®mmmmo®®®����mo
�mmmmmmmmo®m®®mo©©©mmmmmo
-.•�mmmmmm®m©mmmmmo®®®®®®®mo
-..�mmmmmm®mmmmmmm00000000mo
�mmmmmmmmmom®mmmmmm®®mmmm
....' �mmmmmmmmm�mmmmomm�o�mmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmmmm®mmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®mmmm
• �mmmmmmmmmmmm®mom®mmmmmmm
--•�mmm�mmmmmmmmmm0000mmmmmo
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm000mmmmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�m�mm��mm
-•�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm®®mmm®mmm
• ����������m�m®moo
mmm
���®��
• mmmm
�
Table 10aLittle Buffalo . - 0: -
�mm0®mmmma®mmmma®mm®mmmma
�mmmmmmmmo®m®®mo©©©mmmmmo
�mmmmmmmm©mmmmmommmmmmmmo
•. •�mmmm��mmo®mmmmommmmmmmmo
-- • mmmm®mm®mo®mmmmo®®®®®®®mo
--•�mmm�mmmmmmmmmm0000mmmmmo
• ����������m�m®moo
mmm
���®��

Oa. Baseline Stream Data Summary
BuffaloLittle --...men eac (951 feet)
�mmm®�mmma®�mmma®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmo
�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (1,475 feet)
�mm0®mmmma®mm®ma®mm®�mmma
•.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm©

0.
BuffaloLittle --...men eac (831 feet)
�mmm®�mmma®�mmma®mm®�mmma
�mm0®�mmma®�mmma®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmo®mmmmo®®®®mmmm©
�mmmm�mmmommmmmommmmmmmm©
-..�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
•.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmm©
®mmommm�KW.M
����
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (1,127 feet)
�mm0®�mmma®�mmma®mm®�mmma
�mmmmmmmmo®mmmmo®®®®mmmm©
�mmmm�mmmommmmmommmmmmmm©
•.�mmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmm©
®mmommm�KW.M
����

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
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
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / diap (mm) 0.04 0.69 2.33 10.3 21.3 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8
bedrock
Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.915.0-9.9 / >10
0 0 100 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
100 0 0 0
Shaded tens 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 crass-sedions 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 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 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%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 17 20 41 22 0 01 10.2 20.4 59.2 0
0 10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / diap (mm) 0.06 0.9 12.5 94.2 159 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8
bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 /2.0-4.915.0-9.9 / >10
0 5 95 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
98 2 0 0 EL
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 - 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 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 prole
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 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 lmgitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at rifles 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
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 40.9
0
28.8 11.7Jbedr.o(
40.9 28.8 11.7 18.6 0
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 24.8
21 28.61
21.9 10.2 20.4 59.2 0
0 10.2
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm) 0.04
0.74 2.75 drock 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8
bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 /2.0-4.915.0-9.9 / >10
�L_�t
0 0 100 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
100 0 0 0
Shaded tens 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 = maz 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 crass -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 ei 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 readen/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 prole and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at rimes 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: 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% /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 <1.511.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.915.0-9.9 / >10
0 90 10 0 0
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
90 10 0 0
Shaded tens indicate that these will typically not be filled In.
1 = Rlffie, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/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 all 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 Austed 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 adent 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 subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough preconstrutlon distribution of these parameters, leaving the readen/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 prole and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at rimes 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 dislributio 1-mge 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
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 100 0 0 0 0 83.71 3.2 5.5 7.6 0
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 10.2 20.4 59.2 0 0 10.2
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
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / diap (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
0 10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / diap (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock 0.24 2.96
2Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.915.0-9.9 / >10
0 50 30 20 0
2Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 / 2.04.915.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 /1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
80 18 2 0
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.4911.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded tens indicate that these will typically net 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 - AssigrIbin 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 crass-sedions as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are looslay built around the Reagan classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarsar 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 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: UT4 (831 feet)
Parameter Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G% /S%
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 / dip / diap (mm) 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock 0.24 2.96
6.85 26.8
bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 / 2.04.915.0-9.9 / >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 - 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 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 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 net be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the readen/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 subsar les 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 lmgitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond these 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% 40.7 18.9 15.6 15.1 9.7
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 0 10.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / di" (mm) 0.04 0.78 3.3 14.3 75.1 0.24 2.96 6.85 26.8 bedrock
2Entrenchment Class <1.511.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.915.0-9.9 / >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 - 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 = 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 longnudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classificalion 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 readenconsumer 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 subcamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer wdh 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 profte 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 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Seqment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 1 (2,305 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1R I Cross Section 2 (Pool) -1 P
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY+ Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
640.21
640.21
640.21
640.21
641.24
640.24
640.24
640.24
640.24
640.730
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.21
36.55
37.70
38.49
35.95
35.77
36.90
36.53
37.81
48.400
Floodprone Width (ft)
>80
125.20
135.20
>100
>100
>80
127.00
158.50
>100
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.23
1.16
1.15
1.23
1.20
1.11
0.97
1.15
1.14
0.820
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.79
1.78
1.96
2.26
2.36
2.48
2.03
2.52
2.25
2.270
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
43.15
42.32
43.25
47.22
43.15
39.80
35.60
42.08
43.05
39.800
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
28.73
31.56
32.87
31.37
29.95
32.15
38.17
31.71
33.21
58.860
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
3.43
3.59
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
3.44
4.34
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Rati02
1.00
0.97
1.09
0.42
0.45
0.73
0.88
0.94
0.76
-
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2
77.79
86.15
88.38
92.57
85.02
85.42
81.10
88.9
93.80
61.430
d50 (mm)
15.90
21.00
22.00
81.73
17.35
5.00
16.00
11.00
32.00
1 4.61
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
I Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) I
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Seament/Reach: Mainstem Reach 4 (969 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Pool) -3P
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: Mainstem Reach 3 (1,083 feet)
MY2
MY3
MY4
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -2R
624.26
Cross Section 2 (Pool) -2P
624.26
NOTE: XS 2R and 2P reshaped as part of MY2 to remove backwater and overflow conditions
upstream.
As observed in the method of determining bank height ratio, modifications to the channel in
year 2 at XS 2R has created high bank height ratios. This is not a valid characterization of
stability at this section with holding by holding the as -built baseline bankfull elevation in
determining cross-section characterizations. The channel in this section of restoration is a
tiered system and is providing proper floodplain connection to allow waters out of the channel.
The work was performed due to backwater conditions caused by this riffle, which was a
greater sign of instability.
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum) usedl 630.92 630.92 630.92 630.92 631.08 630.92 629.80 629.80 629.80 629.80 630.14 629.80
Bankfull Width ft 38.31 41.03 38.35 37.41 40.07 39.59 26.70 33.35 37.91 43.99
Floodprone Width ft >90 419.00 488.00 >100 >100 >90 350.00 368.00 99.57 >100
Bankfull Mean Depth ft 1.26 1.25 1.37 1.38 1.20 1.11 1.59 1.00 0.92 1.00
Bankfull Max Depth ft 1.90 2.18 2.97 2.94 3.02 2.44 2.20 2.26 2.26 2.50
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 48.23 51.15 52.43 51.64 48.23 43.79 42.50 33.19 34.92 43.79
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 30.43 32.91 28.05 27.10 33.29 35.79 16.77 33.52 41.16 44.19
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 1 10.21 12.73 >2.2 >2.2 1 >2.2 13.11 11.03 2.63 >2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 0.94 1.06 1.38 1.44 0.42 0.69 0.72 0.84 0.82 -
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2 116.34 104.46 103.94 106.00 92.88 89.91 77.86 68.32 69.90 64.3
d50 mm 31.00 29.00 13.5 49.22 49.54 6.70 9.00 14.50 42.83 33.50
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
I Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) I
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Seament/Reach: Mainstem Reach 4 (969 feet)
MY5 I MY+
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
Cross Section 1 (Pool) -3P
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
Record elevation (datum) used
624.26
624.26
624.26
624.26
624.66
Bankfull Width ft
29.35
25.94
24.64
22.88
31.28
Floodprone Width ft
>65
438.00
435.00
>100
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.87 1
2.38
2.36
2.22
1.76
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.12
3.38
3.32
3.24
3.32
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
54.90
61.79
58.25
50.77
54.90
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.69
10.89
10.42
10.32
17.82
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
16.89
17.65
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Rati02
0.70
0.66
0.73
0.72
-
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2
106.25
112.61
110.74
99.73
92.04
d50 (mm)
3.40
13.00
19.50
41.75
30.68
MY5 I MY+
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.

I Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) I
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Seqment/Reach: UT 2 (951 feet)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1 R
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
639.34
639.34
639.34
639.34
639.07
Bankfull Width ft
3.52
6.23
4.31
3.59
3.04
Floodprone Width ft
8.34
31.10
40.80
10.96
6.79
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.52
0.42
0.80
0.90
0.60
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.72
0.96
1.03
1.2
0.85
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1.82
2.65
3.43
3.22
1.82
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.82
14.65
5.42
4.00
5.08
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.37
5.00
9.46
>2.2
2.20
Bankfull Bank Height Rati02
1.01
0.86
1.20
1.18
1.39
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2
20.73
21.69
20.37
20.83
18.02
d50 (mm)
5.00
silt/clav
silt/clav
1 5.36
silt/clay
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank
height surveyed.
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 bankfull.
MY3 field survey bankfull indicates a change in bankfull from baseline elevation. This is expected due to the cattle damage in the channel during MY2. The stream appears more stable in MY3 than in past. Baseline bankful for previous years still used as per North Carolina DMS protocols, but MY3 bankfull elevations are shown on
the Cross Section plot exhibits.
MY4 monitoring protocols by DMS requires baseline cross section area remain constant for determining other ratios. This leads to misleading results for UT3, as baseline values were calculated immediately after construction, and based on a small 6 -inch deep channel that only slope indications were available to determine
bankfull after cutting entrenched banks back. MY1 cross-sectional area is more realistic for baseline data. The reach is stable, which is not indicated based on MY4 cross sectional values.
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: UT3 (1,475 feet)
- Cross Sections)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1 R
Cross Section 2 (Riffle) -2R
Cross Section 3 (Riffle) -3R
Cross Section 4 (Pool) -1 P
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 647.14 647.14 647.14 647.14 647.16 632.79 633.69 633.69 633.69 633.21 622.92 623.77 623.77 623.77 623.14 638.72 639.22 639.22 639.22
639.19
Bankfull Width ft 3.50 5.20 5.42 4.66 4.79 5.91 11.93 8.65 13.46 7.40 3.73 7.17 8.16 7.29 3.58 4.06 8.51 6.87 9.21
5.55
Floodprone Width ft 24.45 29.60 27.50 11.22 11.03 13.14 31.20 30.20 15.96 13.67 6.35 >100 >100 90.60 5.62 8.28 20.40 15.30 9.41
11.67
Bankfull Mean Depth ft 0.53 0.30 5.42 0.29 0.38 0.29 0.99 1.19 0.54 0.23 0.20 0.48 0.58 0.55 0.21 0.25 0.58 0.46 0.22
0.18
Bankfull Max Depth ft 0.82 0.78 0.60 0.64 0.67 0.61 1.62 1.56 1.05 0.48 0.31 1.05 1.08 1.05 0.34 0.46 1.19 0.79 0.51
0.46
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 1.84 1.55 1.80 1.36 1.84 1.69 11.79 10.31 7.29 1.69 0.75 3.41 4.75 4.02 0.75 1.01 4.90 3.14 2.03
1.01
Bankfull Width/De th Ratio 6.66 17.47 16.31 16.01 12.47 20.67 12.06 7.25 24.84 32.40 18.61 15.08 14.02 13.21 17.09 16.32 8.51 15.06 41.78
30.50
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 6.99 5.70 5.07 >2.2 2.30 2.22 2.62 3.49 1.19 1.85 1.70 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 1.57 2.04 2.40 2.23 1.02
2.10
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2 0.74 1.04 0.69 0.90 1.33 0.57 0.35 0.54 0.82 2.29 0.71 0.99 1.03 1.17 2.56 0.54 0.46 0.64 0.53
-
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ft2 13.50 13.86 15.62 14.11 13.77 26.63 32.12 30.79 26.15 24.96 15.64 14.90 15.72 13.13 13.96 27.61 28.88 24.81 23.54
22.36
d50 (mm) silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay 4.50 0.19 silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay 0.11 silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay 0.50 d I silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay
silt/clay
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank
height surveyed.
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 bankfull.
MY3 field survey bankfull indicates a change in bankfull from baseline elevation. This is expected due to the cattle damage in the channel during MY2. The stream appears more stable in MY3 than in past. Baseline bankful for previous years still used as per North Carolina DMS protocols, but MY3 bankfull elevations are shown on
the Cross Section plot exhibits.
MY4 monitoring protocols by DMS requires baseline cross section area remain constant for determining other ratios. This leads to misleading results for UT3, as baseline values were calculated immediately after construction, and based on a small 6 -inch deep channel that only slope indications were available to determine
bankfull after cutting entrenched banks back. MY1 cross-sectional area is more realistic for baseline data. The reach is stable, which is not indicated based on MY4 cross sectional values.

Table 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) Segment/Reach: UT 4 (831 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) -1R I Cross Section 2 (Pool) -1 P
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
627.88
629.84
629.84
629.84
629.84
630.43
Bankfull Width ft
13.32
13.94
14.33
11.55
13.07
20.38
17.20
19.45
18.10
21.08
Floodprone Width ft
>50
>100
>100
35.53
>100
>100
>100
>100
77.83
>100
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.91
0.89
0.73
0.84
0.93
1.34
1.35
1.22
1.32
1.30
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.71
1.65
1.74
1.76
1.93
2.71
2.53
2.94
2.64
3.18
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
12.13
12.35
10.42
9.70
12.13
27.37
23.29
23.75
23.94
27.37
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.63
15.73
19.70
13.75
14.08
15.18
12.71
15.93
18.10
16.24
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2
0.60
0.99
1.16
0.80
0.47
0.63
0.85
1.07
0.95
-
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ft2
29.20
32.81
31.19
29.13
25.00
54.73
53.60
54.93
53.03
43.311-
d50 (mm)
8.90
6.90
10.00
11.30
20.55
7.00
0.18
1 10.00 1
41.10
3.43
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.
Table 11 a. 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
616.44
613.60
613.60 613.60 613.60 613.43
614.93
614.93 614.93 614.93 615.03
612.87
612.87
613.07
610.22
610.22
610.25
Bankfull Width ft
20.71
21.76
21.47
21.15
21.45
18.58
21.20 21.61 18.23 17.61
27.10
29.90
23.14 22.65 22.46
28.17
26.53
30.22
20.56
22.82
21.98
Floodprone Width ft
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>80
>100 >100 >100 >100
>80
>100
>100 >100 >100
>100
>100
>100
>100
38.67
55.00
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.96 1
0.75
0.98
0.86
0.93
1 1.17
1.02 1 1.21 1.15 1.23
1 0.96
0.81
1.24 1.11 1.16
1.86
1.70 1
1.74
1.66
1.37
1.56
Bankfull Max De th ft
1.17
0.92
1.29
1.31
1.74
1.69
1.82 2.04 1.78 1.67
1.29
1.25
1.53 1.61 1 1.73
2.55
2.32
2.68
2.32
2.04
2.62
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.93
16.42
21.15
18.21
19.93
21.68
21.71 26.11 21.00 21.68
25.98
24.19
28.70 25.11 25.98
52.44
44.98
52.44
34.22
31.17
34.22
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
21.52
28.86
21.80
24.56
23.09
15.92
20.70 17.89 15.83 14.30
28.27
36.96
18.65 20.43 19.42
15.13
15.65
17.42
12.35
16.71
14.12
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
>2.2
>2.2 >2.2 >2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
1.69
2.50
Bankfull Bank Height Rati02
0.78
0.84
0.96
1.24
1.02
0.92
1.25 1.12 0.97 1.13
0.67
1.23
0.80 1.03 -
0.92
0.92 1
-
1 0.78
0.50
-
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft')
66.61
65.98
73.43
67.07
50.19
52.17
56.85 61.51 55.95 58.95
76.83
80.07
90.25 81.55 76.23
149.86
133.36
139.31
200.48
197.13
197.08
El
d50 mm
23.00
11.00
18.00
36.00
12.87
0.50
0.50 20.00 27.84 30.29
1 1 silt/clay
silt/cla
silt/clay silt/clay silt/clay
49.00
39.22 1
45.00
1 30.00
41.10
1 36.33
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements are based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development for MY1 - MY3. Beginning in MY4, DMS guidance altered the monitoring criteria to maintain baseline cross sectional area as the fixed ratio for comparison.
2 = Bankfull Bank Height Ratio for MY1 - MY 3is determined by maintaining the baseline bankfull max depth static while using the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed. Beginning MY4, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio is determined by a changing bankfull elevation and max dept based on baseline cross sectional area and the monitoring year lowest bank height surveyed.

,n--r p -,y nm oe n,iea m.
1 = The tlisldbudons for
t
h
e
se
'
.
.
.
.
"
can inclutle Information from bo1M1 the cross-section measurements and (M1e longitutllnal proille.
2 = Proportion of reach axhibiting banks [Fat are eroding bases on the visual survey hom visual assessment table
3 = R" , Run, Pool, Gild., Step; SIX/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dlp =max pave, disp = max subpave
0. = of valualnaedad only'd the n axpaeds 3
I lilillallo III nit ring Data - Stream
Litd, Bx 1407) - OSegment/Reach:
Reach Da S - ary
Mainstem Reach ImZ. feet)
• ®®®®�o�����o®®®®moo®®®®moo®®®®�o������
Riffle LChannel
Thal,eg length (ft1%
of Reach With Enoding B-k
,n--r p -,y nm oe n,iea m.
1 = The tlisldbudons for
t
h
e
se
'
.
.
.
.
"
can inclutle Information from bo1M1 the cross-section measurements and (M1e longitutllnal proille.
2 = Proportion of reach axhibiting banks [Fat are eroding bases on the visual survey hom visual assessment table
3 = R" , Run, Pool, Gild., Step; SIX/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dlp =max pave, disp = max subpave
0. = of valualnaedad only'd the n axpaeds 3

Shaded cells India that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dismbutions far these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2= Propodion of reach exhlblting banks Mal are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Gllde, Step; SIIUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dlp =max pave, disp = max a,bp
4. = Of valuelneeded only it the n exceeds 3
Exhi bit Table 11b. Mon Ho ring Data -Stream
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach:
Reach Data Summary
Mainstem Reach 3 (1,083 feet)
BahkUl Width (ft)
Entmn,h,,ntR,t,®®
MON
1069.W
107539
1073,51
101
101
OM13
0.005
0.007
O.N21
i��■
_:
��®oma®�����®��®���®�������
Shaded cells India that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dismbutions far these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2= Propodion of reach exhlblting banks Mal are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Gllde, Step; SIIUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dlp =max pave, disp = max a,bp
4. = Of valuelneeded only it the n exceeds 3

se m ryPmany nm ne mien in.
1 = The aislabullons mr mese pg I,—rs can i —di Inrolmaiion M1nm i u, the ,,,y f—
measurements antl the Ion8lWtllnal pro01e.
] = Prop.Ru of reach exbl Sth banks IM1a[ are d,G basetl on me visual survey from visual assessment Wble
3=Offl Run,Pool,Gid,,Iy if Step;SIIVCIay,Sana,Grovel, Cobble, Boultlel, Betlrock; dip =mex pave, tlisp=mex subpave
0. = Of valuelneetletl only if IM1e n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Mon Ro ring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 2 (951 feet)
Flmdpm,e Width
Ent—hrrixid Rat,
OM
0.02090.0"
se m ryPmany nm ne mien in.
1 = The aislabullons mr mese pg I,—rs can i —di Inrolmaiion M1nm i u, the ,,,y f—
measurements antl the Ion8lWtllnal pro01e.
] = Prop.Ru of reach exbl Sth banks IM1a[ are d,G basetl on me visual survey from visual assessment Wble
3=Offl Run,Pool,Gid,,Iy if Step;SIIVCIay,Sana,Grovel, Cobble, Boultlel, Betlrock; dip =mex pave, tlisp=mex subpave
0. = Of valuelneetletl only if IM1e n exceeds 3

SM1aded cells India -t will typically not be filled I.
1= The dismbutions for these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and th, longitudinal profile.
2 = Propodion of reach e h biting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIIUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip =max pave, disp = max a,b­
4. Of­
bp4.=Ofvel needed only it the n exceeds3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (1,475 feet)
Flmdpm,e Width
148917
NA �NO VISUAL FLOW BUT SATURATED)
0.018
..
0.018
SM1aded cells India -t will typically not be filled I.
1= The dismbutions for these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and th, longitudinal profile.
2 = Propodion of reach e h biting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIIUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip =max pave, disp = max a,b­
4. Of­
bp4.=Ofvel needed only it the n exceeds3

SM1aded cells India -t will typically not be filled I.
1= The dismbutions for these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and th, longitudinal profile.
2 = Propodion of reach e h biting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIIUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip =max pave, disp = max a,bp
4. = Of veluelneeded only it the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring
Little Buffalo Creek
Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
(94147) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (831 feet)
Bahkfd Width (ft)
Flmdpm,e Width
Entm,,h,,ntR,t,®®
837.13
M6.12
0,81
OZ1
0.015
0.013
SM1aded cells India -t will typically not be filled I.
1= The dismbutions for these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and th, longitudinal profile.
2 = Propodion of reach e h biting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIIUClay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip =max pave, disp = max a,bp
4. = Of veluelneeded only it the n exceeds 3

SM1aded cells India -t will typically not be filled in.
1= The dismbutions for these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and th, longitudinal profile.
2 = Propodion of reach e h biting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIII/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip =max pave, disp = max a,bp
4. = Of veluelneeded only it the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Mon Ho ring Data -Stream Reach
Little Buffalo Creek (94147) - Segment/Reach:
Data Summary
LIT 7 (1,127 feet)
BahkUl Width (ft)
®®
i•
������iiiii�iiiii�������
123
0.0079
SM1aded cells India -t will typically not be filled in.
1= The dismbutions for these parameters can include Information from both the cross-section measurements and th, longitudinal profile.
2 = Propodion of reach e h biting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; SIII/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip =max pave, disp = max a,bp
4. = Of veluelneeded only it the n exceeds 3

Figures 3a -k - Longitudinal Profile Plots

UT8 to UT7 —THW As -built 12/2014 —THW MY109/2015 —THW MY2 09/2016
Longitudinal Profile, As -built Stationing 10+19.08 to 10+80.78 —THW MY3 09/2017 --X—THW MY4 11/2018 ♦ TOB MY4
♦ WS MY4
615.5
615
614.5
614
c
0
w 613.5
W
613
612.5
612
1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090
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:
MS -1 P
Drainage Area (sq mi):
2.99
Date:
11/1/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
640.89
0.26
640.77
1.64
640.46
6.48
640.18
8.28
639.95
10.18
639.84
11.66
639.50
13.53
639.24
15.04
638.73
16.61
bib.69
18.24
638.80
20.37
638.93
22.40
638.90
23.62
639.66
27.92
640.19
34.47
640.03
36.50
640.35
46.06
640.39
50.00
640.87
50.05
640.58
SUMMARY DATA
- - - Floodprone Area
MY -109/2015
MY 4 WS
Bankfull Elevation:
640.73
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
39.80
Bankfull Width:
48.40
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
643.00
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.27
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.82
W/D Ratio:
58.86
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type I C4
Little Buffalo
X -Section 1, F
643.5
643.0
642.5
642.0
641.5
641.0
c 640.5
0 640.0
v 639.5
W
639.0
638.5
638.0
637.5
637.0
Station and description 1 23+38.19 MS -1 P Looking Upstream
23+38.19 MS -1 P Looking Downstream
Creek Mainstem - - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
ool, Station 23+38.19
As -Built 10/2014
MY3 09/2017
- - - Floodprone Area
MY -109/2015
MY 4 WS
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
--0- MY4 11/2018
IF
Iff
OEi
0 5 10 15 20
25 30 35
Distance (ft)
40 45 50 55

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
MS -1 R
Drainage Area (sq mi):
2.99
Date:
11/1/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
640.41
0.98
640.05
3.13
639.60
4.86
639.34
7.07
639.10
10.01
638.95
11.36
638.74
13.30
638.01
14.80
637.88
17.29
637.89
18.37
638.01
19.65
b3d.13
20.12
22.30
639.02
24.21
639.63
27.57
639.36
31.02
639.45
34.56
639.49
36.41
640.24
36.481
640.65
SUMMARY DATA
- - - MY 4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
Bankfull Elevation:
641.24
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
43.15
Bankfull Width:
35.95
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
643.60
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.36
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.20
W/D Ratio:
29.95
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.45
Stream Type I C4
Station and description 1 24+91.17 MS -1R Looking Upstream
24+91.17 MS -1 R Looking Downstream
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - MY 4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
- - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 2, Riffle, Station 24+91.17
As -built 10/2014
MY -109/15 MY2 09/2016
MY3 09/2017
--M- MY4 11/2018 MY4 WS
644.0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
643.0
642.0
=
641.0
-------------
------
--- - - - - --
---- -
- - - ------ - - - - ----- - - - - --
---- - - - - ------ - - - - --
c
X
> 640.0
v
W
639.0
638.0
637.0
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:
10/31/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
632.21
0.15
631.46
1.59
630.82
3.94
630.50
7.49
630.45
8.93
630.16
14.71
630.32
16.94
629.76
18.28
629.51
19.03
628.45
20.59
628.19
22.43
628.13
23.92
628.06
24.99
628.40
26.15
629.34
29.38
629.91
32.63
630.09
35.81
630.10
36.96
630.60
38.95
630.72
41.99
631.23
43.91
632.05
44.05
632.78
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
631.08
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
48.23
Bankfull Width:
40.07
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
634.10
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.02
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.20
W/D Ratio:
33.29
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.42
Stream Type C4
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 3, Riffle, Station 49+08.73
635
634
$ 632
c
631
m
°1 630
W
629
628
627
Station and description 1 4908.73 MS -2R Looking Upstream
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area
As -built 10/2014 MY -109/2015
MY3 09/2017 MY4 WS
4908.73 MS -2R Looking Downstream
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
---A- MY4 10/2018
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 -2P
Drainage Area (sq mi):
2.82
Date:
10/31/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
630.56
0.00
629.95
1.86
629.76
7.23
629.70
10.46
629.67
13.61
628.85
15.45
628.73
17.48
627.74
19.63
627.65
21.75
627.64
24.33
627.84
26.25
628.03
27.01
628.47
29.38
628.93
31.98
629.68
35.33
630.00
39.49
629.89
44.04
630.31
46.04
630.59
46.38
631.23
SUMMARY DATA
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
Bankfull Elevation:
630.14
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
43.79
Bankfull Width:
43.99
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
632.64
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.50
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.00
W/D Ratio:
44.19
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
-
Stream Type aC4
Station and description 1 5008.51 MS -2P Looking Upstream
5008.51 MS -2P Looking Downstream
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 4, Pool, Station 50+08.51
As -built 10/2014 MY -109/2015 MY2 09/2016
633
MY3 09/2017 MY 4 WS ---A- MY4 10/2018
- - - -
633 - - -- - - -
- --- - - - --------------- -- - - ------------- - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
632
632
631
x
631
- - - -
630 - - -- - - -
- - - - - - - - - --------- - ---- ---- - - -
- - - - - - - - - ---------- -- - - ----- -
v 630
W
629
629
628
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:
10/30/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
625.53
0.48
624.72
1.63
624.28
3.03
623.49
4.81
623.35
7.81
623.46
12.18
621.58
14.25
621.40
17.39
621.34
19.94
621.63
21.18
622.30
21.97
622.98
24.61
623.37
27.30
623.80
29.64
624.08
34.011
625.20
34.151
625.96
SUMMARY DATA
_ - - MY 4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
As -built 10/2014
Bankfull Elevation:
624.66
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
54.90
Bankfull Width:
31.28
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
627.98
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.32
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.76
W/D Ratio:
17.82
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
-------------- - - - - -- ---
Stream Type I C4
Station and description 1 6433.12 MS -3P Looking Upstream
6433.12 MS -3P Looking Downstream
Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 5, Pool, Station 64+33.12
_ - - MY 4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
As -built 10/2014
- - - Floodprone Area
MY -109/2015
X Top of Rebar
- - MY2 09/2016
MY3 09/2017
MY4 WS
--0- MY4 10/2018
629
628
- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
--
-------------- - - - - -- ---
627
626
0625
------- -- - -
- - - - - ------ - - - - ----
-- - - - - ------- - - - - ------
- - - - - -- - --
624
a
W
623
622
621
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 (sq mi):
0.3
Date:
10/29/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
641.90
0.29
641.03
1.50
640.14
3.26
639.45
4.26
638.22
5.15
638.27
5.55
638.39
6.36
638.49
6.83
639.56
8.10
640.38
8.731
640.74
9.181
641.66
SUMMARY DATA
- - - MY 4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
Bankfull Elevation:
639.07
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.82
Bankfull Width:
3.04
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
639.92
Flood Prone Width:
6.79
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.85
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.60
W/D Ratio:
5.08
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.20
Bank Height Ratio:
1.39
Stream Type I 136c
Station and description 1 1391.34 UT2-1 R Looking Upstream
1391.34 UT2-1 R Looking Downstream
UT2 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - MY 4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
- - - Floodprone Area
X Top of Rebar
X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 13+91.34
As -built 10/2014
MY -109/2015
MY2 09/2016
MY3 09/2017
MY4 WS
MY4 10/2018
643.0
642.0 X
641.0
V
°640.0
- - - - - -
--- -- ------ --------
--------
-------
-- - - - --
- - - - -- -
v
- -----------
u, - -
- - - -
-- - - = -
- ----------
- -
- -
- - -
-
-- ------
- - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
639.0
638.0
637.0
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:
10/31/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
648.33
0.28
647.64
1.62
647.57
3.12
646.76
4.76
646.49
5.75
646.88
6.59
646.84
7.58
647.38
8.42
648.50
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
647.16
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.84
Bankfull Width:
4.79
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
647.83
Flood Prone Width:
11.03
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.67
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.38
W/D Ratio:
12.47
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.30
Bank Height Ratio:
1.33
Stream Type B6
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 11+66.28
649.0
648.5
648.0
c
647.5
m
_v
647.0
646.5
646.0
Station and description 1 1166.28 UT3-1 R Looking Upstream
- - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area
As -built 10/2014 MY -1 09/2015
MY3 09/2017 --0- MY4 10/2018
1166.28 UT3-1 R Looking Downstream
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
MY4 WS
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:
10/30/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
641.50
0.19
640.72
1.47
640.05
2.53
639.54
3.40
639.48
4.85
639.12
6.30
639.15
7.02
638.73
7.84
638.98
9.48
638.91
639.81
12.52
640.17
12.75
641.126
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
639.19
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.01
Bankfull Width:
5.55
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
639.65
Flood Prone Width:
11.67
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.46
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.18
W/D Ratio:
30.50
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.10
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type I B6
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 2, Pool, Station 15+34.98
642.0
641.5
641.0
640.5
c 640.0
0
639.5
v
u' 639.0
638.5
638.0
637.5
Station and description 1 1534.98 UT3-1P Looking Upstream
- - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area
As -built 10/2014 MY -109/2105
MY3 09/2017 --0- MY4 10/2018
1534.98 UT3-1 P Looking Downstream
-71
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
MY4 WS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT3-2R
Drainage Area sq mi):
0.097
Date:
10/31/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
635.22
0.58
634.51
1.26
634.13
2.26
633.86
4.07
633.11
5.43
633.17
6.80
632.99
7.71
632.73
8.38
632.81
10.77
633.028
12.73
633.823
14.02
633.916
15.65
634.288
16.59
634.799
17.72
635.181
19.46
635.942
22.16
637.017
SUMMARY DATA
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
Bankfull Elevation:
633.21
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.69
Bankfull Width:
7.40
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
633.69
Flood Prone Width:
13.67
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.48
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.23
W/D Ratio:
32.40
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.85
Bank Height Ratio:
2.29
Stream Type I B6
Station and description 1 1802.03 UT3-2R Looking Upstream
1802.03 UT3-2R Looking Downstream
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
- - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 3, Riffle, Station 18+02.03
As -built 10/2014
MY -109/2015 MY2 09/2016
636.5
- MY3 09/201
--4+- MY4 10/2018 MY4 WS
636.0
635.5
635.0
$
634.5
c
41 634.0
`°
ai 633.5
------ ----
-- - - - - ---- - - - - -----------
---------
- - - - - -- - -- -- --------
W
633.0
632.5
632.0
631.5
0 2
4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 2
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:
10/30/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
624.78
0.12
623.89
0.49
623.67
1.71
623.19
3.09
622.92
3.99
622.87
5.52
622.80
5.66
622.88
7.29
623.93
8.03
624.11
8.431
624.82
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
623.14
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
0.75
Bankfull Width:
3.58
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
623.48
Flood Prone Width:
5.62
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.34
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.21
W/D Ratio:
17.09
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.57
Bank Height Ratio:
2.56
Stream Type B6
UT3 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 4, Riffle, Station 24+26.03
625.0
624.5
624.0
c
623.5
M
a
623.0
622.5
622.0
Station and description 1 2426.03 UT3-3R Looking Upstream
- - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area
As -built 10/2014 MY -1 09/2015
MY3 09/2017 MY4 10/2018
2426.03 UT3-3R Looking Downstream
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
MY4 WS
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:
10/30/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
630.99
0.63
630.21
1.39
630.05
4.02
629.82
6.09
629.64
7.91
627.97
8.96
627.56
11.03
627.25
13.02
627.70
14.80
629.35
16.07
629.68
20.31
630.27
21.88
630.47
21.97
631.21
SUMMARY DATA
X -Section 1, Pool, Station 15+59.37 As -built 10/2014 MY -1 09/2015 MY2 09/2016
Bankfull Elevation:
630.43
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
27.37
Bankfull Width:
21.08
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
633.61
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.18
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.30
W/D Ratio:
16.24
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
-
Stream Type 74
Station and description 1 1559.37 UT4-1P Looking Upstream
1559.37 UT4-1 P Looking Downstream
UT4 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem - - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 1, Pool, Station 15+59.37 As -built 10/2014 MY -1 09/2015 MY2 09/2016
634.0 MY3 09/2017 MY4 WS --0+- MY4 10/2018
--- --- IN- - - - --- IN - - - - - IN - ---- -- IN ---- -- IN ---- -- ON ---- - - IN NN ------- ---- -- NN -----NN
- - - - --
- - - - --
633.0
632.0
631.0
0 630.0
- ---- -- ---- -- ---- -- ----- ----- ---- -- ---- -- ---- -- NN NN -
ami 629.0
W
628.0
627.0
626.0
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:
10/30/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
628.26
0.37
627.96
1.86
627.41
3.42
627.77
4.88
627.10
6.30
626.93
7.90
626.06
9.24
625.98
10.20
625.95
11.19
626.89
12.30
627.15
14.32
628.25
14.86
628.50
15.25
628.86
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
627.88
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
12.13
Bankfull Width:
13.07
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
629.81
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.93
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.93
W/D Ratio:
14.08
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.47
Strea C4
UT4 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 2, Riffle, Station 17+27.36
631.0
630.0
629.0
c
628.0
d
627.0
626.0
625.0
Station and description 1 1727.36 UT4-1 R Looking Upstream
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
As -built 10/2014
MY3 09/2017
- - Floodprone Area
MY -1 09/2015
MY 4 WS
1727.36 UT4-1 R Looking Downstream
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
---A- MY4 10/2018
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:
UT7-1R
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.91
Date:
11/2/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
617.23
0.18
616.71
2.41
616.87
3.91
617.06
7.90
616.22
12.44
616.03
14.35
615.69
16.26
615.56
18.95
615.05
21.53
614.93
23.47
614.70
24.62
614.74
25.79
614.86
26.40
615.35
27.29
615.85
28.40
616.48
30.64
616.68
32.31
616.55
34.7
616.64
37.48
617.13
37.52
616.75
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
616.44
19.93
Bankfull Width:
21.45
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
618.18
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.74
Mean Depth at Bankful:
0.93
W/D Ratio:
23.09
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.02
Stream Type C4
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 1, Riffle, Station 13+45.64
618.5
618.0
617.5
$ 617.0
0
616.5
:1
616.0
a
uj 615.5
615.0
614.5
614.0
0
Station and description I 1345.64 UT7-1 R Looking Upstream
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
As -built 10/2014
MY3 09/2017
- - - Floodprone Area
MY -1 09/2015
--0+- MY4 11/2018
1345.64 UT7-1 R Looking Downstream
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
MY4 WS
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:
UT7-1P
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.91
Date:
11/2/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
615.98
0.13
615.66
4.14
615.19
5.27
615.13
8.33
614.99
9.81
614.40
10.64
614.28
12.82
613.65
14.77
613.53
17.14
613.30
20.85
613.43
24.45
613.50
27.19
614.23
27.70
614.55
30.04
615.06
31.19
615.30
32.23
615.62
34.39
615.47
38.13
615.46
42.38
615.74
42.49
616.30
SUMMARY DATA
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
Bankfull Elevation:
615.03
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
25.98
Bankfull Width:
22.46
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
616.76
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.73
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.16
W/D Ratio:
19.42
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
-
Stream Type I C4
Station and description 1592.61 UT7-1P Looking Upstream
1592.61 UT7-1 P Looking Downstream
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
- - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 2, Pool, Station 15+92.61
As -built 10/2014
MY -109/2015 MY2 09/2016
MY 3 09/2017
-04- MY4 11/2018 MY4 WS
617.0
616.5
616.0
615.5
_
c
615.0
°1
614.5
W
-
614.0
613.5
613.0
0 5
10 15
20 25 30 35 40 45
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT7-2R
Drainage Area sq mi):
1.91
Date:
11/2/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
614.42
0.16
613.89
1.78
613.82
2.87
613.80
4.58
613.33
7.23
611.76
9.57
611.76
11.43
611.78
12.52
611.84
15.60
612.10
17.79
612.44
20.60
612.49
22.09
613.65
23.50
613.84
26.81
614.04
26.831
614.66
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
613.43
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
21.68
Bankfull Width:
17.61
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
615.10
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.67
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.23
W/D Ratio:
14.30
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.13
Stream Type I C4
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 3, Riffle, Station 16+46.19
615.5
615.0
614.5
+; 614.0
c 613.5
> 613.0
W
W 612.5
612.0
611.5
611.0
Station and description 1 1846.19 UT7-2R Looking Upstream
- - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum
As -built 10/2014
MY3 09/2017
- - Floodprone Area
MY -109/2015
--0- MY4 11/2018
1846.19 UT7-2R Looking Downstream
X Top of Rebar
MY2 09/2016
MY4 WS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT7-STP1
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.91
Date:
11/2/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
614.77
0.76
614.01
6.05
613.87
10.07
613.45
15.25
612.69
18.88
611.47
21.65
610.83
27.06
610.48
30.83
610.39
32.55
610.43
35.38
610.67
38.45
611.68
40.76
612.74
43.36
613.16
51.85
613.73
56.601
614.04
56.971
614.87
SUMMARY DATA
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
Bankfull Elevation:
613.07
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
52.44
Bankfull Width:
30.22
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
615.75
Flood Prone Width:
>100
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.68
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.74
W/D Ratio:
17.42
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
-
Stream Type I C4b
Station and description 1 2019.70 UT7-STP1 Looking Upstream
2019.70 UT7-STP1 Looking Downstream
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
- - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar
X -Section 4, Step Pool, Station 20+19.70
MY2 09/2016 MY3 09/2017 --0+- MY4 11/2018
MY4 WS
617.0
-T
616.0
- -
- - - - - - -
- - -
- -
-
- -
NN NN NN NN - -
- -
-
- -
- -
- - -
- -
NN NN
NN NN NN NN
- -
- -
-
- -
- -
-
- - - -- -- - -
- - - - - -
--
615.0
614.0
0
4-
>
'
613.0
v
W
612.0
611.0
610.0
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)

Cross Section Plot Exhibit
River Basin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River
Watershed:
Little Buffalo Creek
XS ID:
UT7-STP2
Drainage Area sq mi):
1.91
Date:
11/2/2018
Field Crew:
Matthew Holthaus, Alston Willard: Louis Berger
Station
Elevation
0.00
612.70
0.26
612.35
5.10
611.68
10.65
610.66
15.38
609.89
18.21
608.84
20.56
608.14
21.87
607.82
22.87
607.63
26.80
608.02
29.08
608.24
32.49
608.99
35.39
610.37
38.64
611.06
44.88
612.17
53.061
613.42
53.061
613.93
SUMMARY DATA
X -Section 5, Step Pool, Station 20+77.52 - - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar MY2 09/2016 MY3 09/2017 --0+- MY4 11/2018 MY4 W
Bankfull Elevation:
610.25
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
34.22
Bankfull Width:
21.98
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
612.87
Flood Prone Width:
55.00
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.62
Mean Depth at Bankful:
1.56
W/D Ratio:
14.12
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.50
Bank Height Ratio:
-
Stream Type B4
Station and description 1 2077.52 UT7-STP2 Looking Upstream
2077.52 UT7-STP2 Looking Downstream
UT7 to Little Buffalo Creek Mainstem
X -Section 5, Step Pool, Station 20+77.52 - - - MY4 Bankfull Monitoring Datum - - - Floodprone Area X Top of Rebar MY2 09/2016 MY3 09/2017 --0+- MY4 11/2018 MY4 W
615.0
614.0
613.0
- -- -- - - - -
-- -- - - -- -- -- - --- -- -- --- -
- - -
--- -- -- --- - -- -- --
---
-- -- -- -
- - - -
612.0
c
611.0
a,
--------- -- ---- - - - - - -
- - -- -- ----
- - -
- -- -- - - - -
610.0
W
609.0
608.0
607.0
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
2.29
D35
Cross -Section: MS -1P
D50
4.61
D84
Feature: Pool
D95
21.25
D100
90.00
90
2018
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 3 6%
6%
very coarse sand 2.0 3 6%
12%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
14
28%
40%
fine gravel 5.7 14 28%
68%
fine gravel 8.0 6 12%
80%
medium gravel 11.3 4 8%
88%
medium gravel 16.0 1 2%
90%
coarse gravel 22.3 3 6%
96%
coarse gravel 32.0 0 0%
96%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
96%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
j 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%
1 100%
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
2.29
D35
3.64
D50
4.61
D84
9.65
D95
21.25
D100
90.00
:;,;
■11111111■IIIIIIII■Illlll�l�i�%�
r;�iiiiiiiiii;;;;iii��lllllll
100%
:,,,
■11111111■IIIIIIII■111111
90
��1� 11,III■IIIIIIII■11111111■11111111
80%
■11111111■IIIIIIII■1111,�II�/%1
�IIIII■IIIIIIII■11111111■11111111
a
70
■11111111■11111111■111��II�II/���11111■11111111■11111111■11111111
60
b
50%
40
';
30%
�_ � ;
■11111111■IIIIIIII■1111��II�1111111111■IIIIIIII■11111111■11111111
10
il Al S d J L.
of jili.Lu
LL U.,
oti5 oh ti a 5� ��M �b ryry� �ti a5 b°` qo x,16 ,moo �yb �bti b�ti
"p
o�ti o~ryb
'olb
boogb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018
■11111111■11111111■�/
IIII��/II,1111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
■11111111■IIIIIIII�II�I�ilil�11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
■11111111■_IIIIIIII■I!�1�IIII/11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,,
■11111111■■III,II��IIIIIII.I11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
■1111:,,;_:■-�!!,�1111111■11111111■IIIIIIII■11111111■11111111
,,,
Individual Class Percent
100%
90
80%
a
70
60
b
50%
40
30%
20%
10
il Al S d J L.
of jili.Lu
LL U.,
oti5 oh ti a 5� ��M �b ryry� �ti a5 b°` qo x,16 ,moo �yb �bti b�ti
"p
o�ti o~ryb
'olb
boogb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
8.00
D35
Cross -Section: MS -1R
D50
El
D84
90.00
Feature: Riffle
Bedrock
13100
Bedrock
2018
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
0
0%
0%
fine gravel 5.7 8 8%
8%
fine gravel 8.0 8 8%
16%
medium gravel 11.3 23 23%
39%
medium gravel 16.0 8 8%
47%
coarse gravel 22.3 14 14%
61%
coarse gravel 32.0 12 12%
73%
very coarse gravel 45 9 9%
1 82%
very coarse gravel 64 1 1%
83%
Cobble
small cobble
90
1
1%
84%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
84%
large cobble 180 0 0%
1 84%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
84%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
84%
small boulder 512 0 0%
84%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
84%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
84%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
16
16%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
8.00
D35
10.73
D50
17.35
D84
90.00
D95
Bedrock
13100
Bedrock
:;,;
■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111■IIIIIDi�lnll
100%
90%
,.
■11111111■11111111■11111111■Illlloi�_■■■�°°�!;iill/111111111
80%
,,,
■11111111■11111111■11111111■1��111i1�■��IIIII:/III!ii�■11111111
a
y 60%
U
■11111111■11111111■11111111■/iiIIIIIII�11111111�1�illlll■11111111
50%
0
40%
,,,
30%
.�
20%
■1111■■11111111■11111111�!NIIIII!��■■■11111..11111111■11111111
,,,
10%
o%
. . . . . . . .
o�ti o,�,yh oyh
oh 1 'L P h1 4 1�� .�b 'Lti^� n'L bh b�` 90 1,ti4 140 ,tihb n�b'L h>'L �by0. �Qp4 �oo�b
Particle Size (mm)
■1111■■11111111■111111111/Illllill■11111111■11111111■IIIIIIII
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 0/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018
■1111■■11111111■1111!%111111111■11111111■11111111■IIIIIIII
,,,
,,,
■1111■■1111111111.4,/IIIIIIII■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,
■11111111!:::::::=�e�
(IIIIIIII■11111111■11111111■11111111
■1111������1111111■III%',�1111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
t,
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
y 70%
a
y 60%
U
50%
0
40%
30%
.�
20%
10%
o%
. . . . . . . .
o�ti o,�,yh oyh
oh 1 'L P h1 4 1�� .�b 'Lti^� n'L bh b�` 90 1,ti4 140 ,tihb n�b'L h>'L �by0. �Qp4 �oo�b
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 0/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
5.88
D35
Cross -Section: MS -2P
D50
33.50
D84
81.68
Feature: Pool
179.35
13100
Bedrock
2018
,
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 8 8%
8%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
8%
very coarse sand 2.0 3 3%
11%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
2
2%
13%
fine gravel 5.7 3 3%
16%
fine gravel 8.0 2 2%
18%
medium gravel 11.3 10 10%
28%
medium gravel 16.0 1 1 1%
29%
coarse gravel 22.3 6 6%
35%
coarse gravel 32.0 14 14%
49%
very coarse gravel 45 13 13%
61%
very coarse gravel 64 14 14%
75%
Cobble
small cobble
90
13
13%
88%
medium cobble 128 3 3%
91%
large cobble 180 4 4%
95%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
95%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
95%
small boulder 512 0 0%
95%
medium boulder 1024 1 1%
96%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
96%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
4
4%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
101
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
5.88
D35
22.54
D50
33.50
D84
81.68
D95
179.35
13100
Bedrock
:;,;
■11111111■11111111■11111111■Iiuiiii■:::���ii�:iiiiiiii�lllllll
.,,
�,
■11111111■11111111■11111111■/illll.�l■11111111■11111111■11111111
80%
v
,
■11111111■11111111■Illlllll�i.!llll�lll■11111111■11111111■11111111
U
y 70%
a
_,,,
',,
■11111111■11111111■IIIIIIIII/11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
60%
U
50%
■11111111■11111111■Illll�i's%111,1111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
� ao%
30%
,
20%
10%
■11111111■11111111■Il�i�illllllllllll■11111111■11111111■11111111
oob'L o,�h otih o5
~ ti D, h^ "� , b ,L,," ti bh l4. 90 1'�, ,-0 "0 "" h1, 1e "p4 ��qb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018
■1111��11�::�C��II�iM111!IIIIIIIIII■11111111■11111111■11111111
',
■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�
�����I��11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
',
�—���� �iiiii��� jjlllll■11111111■11111111■11111111
■Illlili!�'►
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
v
U
y 70%
a
60%
U
50%
� ao%
30%
20%
10%
0%
oob'L o,�h otih o5
~ ti D, h^ "� , b ,L,," ti bh l4. 90 1'�, ,-0 "0 "" h1, 1e "p4 ��qb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MYl - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
24.27
D35
Cross -Section: MS -2R
D50
49.54
D84
87.34
Feature: Riffle
163.53
13100
Bedrock
2018
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
0
0%
0%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
0%
fine gravel 8.0 2 2%
2%
medium gravel 11.3 2 2%
4%
medium gravel 16.0 3 3%
7%
coarse gravel 22.3 6 6%
13%
coarse gravel 32.0 14 14%
27%
very coarse gravel 45 17 17%
44%
very coarse gravel 64 23 23%
68%
Cobble
small cobble
90
18
18%
86%
medium cobble 128 7 7%
93%
large cobble 180 3 3%
96%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
96%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
96%
small boulder 512 0 0%
96%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
96%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
96%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
4
4%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
99
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
24.27
D35
37.85
D50
49.54
D84
87.34
D95
163.53
13100
Bedrock
:;.; ■11111111■IIIIIIY■11111111■Illlll�r::111111::iiim��11111111
:,,, ■11111111■1111111■1111111■�Illl�,i■11111111■11111111■11111111
. ,., ■11111111■11111111■11111111■fir ■11111111■11111111■11111111
= ,,,, ■11111111■1111111■11111111� ■11111111■11111111■11111111
- ,,, ■11111111■1111111■111111111 ■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,,, ■11111111■1111111■IIIIIYI� ■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,, ■11111111■1111111■III �� , ■11111111■11111111■11111111
,., ■11111111■IW�I�11_. I/llllllll■11111111■11111111■11111111
,.,■11111111�111!���11�,////lllllll■11111111■11111111■11111111
,., ■11111111■�IIIII�rC_��;�11111111■11111111■11111111■IWIY
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
s0%
U
70%
a,
N
60%
cd
50%
40%
30%
20%
l0%
11 IL aL 0. 1.&
o%
oob'L o tis Otis oS
ti ti a �� ,,�^, �b �ry� �ti a5 'k 0, �4 '4, "0 �bti heti Ona ryop� �oo�b
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2019

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
2.16
D35
Cross -Section: MS -3P
D50
30.68
D84
142.56
Feature: Pool
Bedrock
D100
Bedrock
U
2018
. ,.,
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 1 1%
1%
medium sand 0.50 2 2%
3%
coarse sand 1.00 12 12%
15%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 1%
16%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
2
2%
18%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
18%
fine gravel 8.0 1 1%
19%
medium gravel 11.3 3 3%
22%
medium gravel 16.0 6 6%
28%
coarse gravel 22.3 13 13%
41%
coarse gravel 32.0 11 11%
51%
very coarse gravel 45 13 13%
64%
very coarse gravel 64 9 9%
73%
Cobble
small cobble
90
8
8%
81%
medium cobble 128 2 2%
83%
large cobble 180 3 3%
86%
very large cobble 256 0 1 0%
86%
Boulder
small boulder
362
1
1%
87%
small boulder 512 0 0%
87%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
87%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
87%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
13
13%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
101
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
2.16
D35
19.56
D50
30.68
D84
142.56
D95
Bedrock
D100
Bedrock
Individual Class Percent
■11111111■11111111■1
■1111��I��"��111111..�;,,=
90%
:,.,
■11111111■11111111■
■/..����!�.��i��/II■11111111
U
70%
a
. ,.,
■11111111■11111111■
60%
U
so%
�
b 40%
f4f,11I%l!��111
■1111111■11111111
b
30%
■11111111■11111111
JIII■111
■11111111■11111111
10%_1
161 im
,.
0%
oob'L o1'Lh
�'Lh Oh ♦ ti b h^ 4 >>"� tib `titi'� 'S`L bh bb y0 ,,14 ,g0 fhb ,�b`L h>'L `oya 'b��4 p�oQb
Particle Size (mm)
,.
■11111111■illlllll.r■�Illlll/mllll■111
■11111111■11111111
■11111111.i�lllll■IIIIe1�1//lllllll■111
■11111111■11111111
,,,
,.,
■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�.��IIII
IIIIIIIII■111
■11111111■11111111
,,,
■Illl�ill■Il.:�ii�:/�IIIA�■11111111■1111■■11111111■11111111
■1111!�!':!��!!d�1
::�illll■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
s0%
U
70%
a
60%
U
so%
�
b 40%
b
30%
20%
10%_1
161 im
0%
oob'L o1'Lh
�'Lh Oh ♦ ti b h^ 4 >>"� tib `titi'� 'S`L bh bb y0 ,,14 ,g0 fhb ,�b`L h>'L `oya 'b��4 p�oQb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2019

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
Silt/Clay
D35
Cross -Section: UT2-1R
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
Feature: Riffle
Silt/Clay
D100
Silt/Clay
silt/clay/organic
2018
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
Silt/Clay
D35
Silt/Clay
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
D95
Silt/Clay
D100
Silt/Clay
.,,, ■11111111■11111111■11111111■11�illll■11111111■111111�I��1111111
:,., ■11111111■11111111■1111111��/1111111■11111111■11111.!�11111111
,,, ■11111111■11111111■11�IIII,111111111■11111111�1��IIIII■11111111
= ■11111111■11111111■11.dill►:�1111111■Illlllllrllllllll■11111111
''' ■11111111■■�Illln�- �!
,,, _....���Ila�l■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,., ■11111111■IIIIIIII__;.�IIIII■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,, ■11111111■11111,11■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,. ■1111!!!l������Ipl/llllllll■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,., ■111111111111111■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,, ■Illlllllrllllllll■11111111■11111111■IIIIWI■1111111■11111111
Individual Class Percent
120%
100%
a
s0%
ro
60%
40%
20%
0%
15"
�,ry
oozy O,ryS
ryL�bti
'e "p
Particle Size (mm)
■ M -Built 3/2015 ■ MY1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016
■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 10/2019

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
Silt/Clay
D35
Cross -Section: UT3-1R
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
Feature: Riffle
Silt/Clay
D100
Silt/Clay
silt/clay/organic
2018
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%
1 100%
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%
1 100%
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
Silt/Clay
D35
Silt/Clay
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
D95
Silt/Clay
D100
Silt/Clay
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
U
i -
U
60%
° s0%
j 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Doti o> > do
Particle Size (mm)
As-Bui113/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016 MY3 - 9/2017 MY4 - 10/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
Silt/Clay
D35
Cross -Section: UT3-1P
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
Feature: Pool
Silt/Clay
D100
Silt/Clay
silt/clay/organic
2018
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% 1
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
Silt/Clay
D35
Silt/Clay
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
D95
Silt/Clay
D100
Silt/Clay
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
a 60%
so%
a
:s 40%
U
30%
20%
10%
o%
o• �
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2105 MYl - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016 MY3 - 9/2017 MY4 - 10/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
Silt/Clay
D35
Cross -Section: UT3-2R
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
Feature: Riffle
Silt/Clay
D 100
Silt/Clay
silt/clay/organic
2018
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% 1
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
Silt/Clay
D35
Silt/Clay
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
Silt/Clay
D95
Silt/Clay
D 100
Silt/Clay
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
s0%
70%
0' 60%
A 50%
� ao%
U
30%
20%
10%
0%
O�1 �l 1 ti0 �O
1
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016 MY3 - 9/2017 MY4 - 10/201

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
Silt/Clay
D35
Cross -Section: UT3-3R
D50
0.50
D84
5.65
Feature: Riffle
9.45
D100
16.00
80%
2018
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
13
17%
17%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
4
5%
22%
fine sand 0.250 12 16%
38%
medium sand 0.50 9 12%
1 50%
coarse sand 1.00 7 9%
59%
very coarse sand 2.0 7 9%
68%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
6
8%
76%
fine gravel 5.7 6 8%
84%
fine gravel 8.0 6 8%
92%
medium gravel 11.3 5 7%
99%
medium gravel 16.0 1 1%
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
76
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
Silt/Clay
D35
0.23
D50
0.50
D84
5.65
D95
9.45
D100
16.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
00
70%
a. 60%
50%
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
oti oti do 00
o �
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY] - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016 -MY3 - 9/2017 -MY4 - 10/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
0.40
D35
Cross -Section: UT4-1P
D50
3.43
D84
22.30
Feature: Pool
60.83
D100
180.00
2018
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 13 26%
26%
coarse sand 1.00 6 12%
38%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2%
40%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
7
14%
54%
fine gravel 5.7 5 10%
64%
fine gravel 8.0 2 4%
68%
medium gravel 11.3 5 10%
78%
medium gravel 16.0 1 2%
80%
coarse gravel 22.3 2 4%
84%
coarse gravel 32.0 2 4%
88%
very coarse gravel 45 1 2%
90%
very coarse gravel 64 3 6%
96%
Cobble
small cobble
90
1
2%
98%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
98%
large cobble 180 1 2%
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
0.40
D35
0.88
D50
3.43
D84
22.30
D95
60.83
D100
180.00
' 1111M■■I11111M■■111111M, i' ;�. M1111M■M-n",;;��■
■11111111m■■111111m■■111111rMii11M■E111111�■■111111
■11111111■11111111■1111 rl■11111■11111111■11111111
,., ■11111111■11111111■ �I■11111111■11111111■11111111
:.,., ■11111111■11111111■ idA
■11111111■ �■11111111■■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
�/1111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,,, ■111111111! w�lla/11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111
,., ■111111��J:=�n�l■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111■11111111

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
8.37
D35
Cross -Section: UT4-1R
D50
20.55
D84
44.81
Feature: Riffle
82.60
D100
128.00
/�IIIII■■1111111
2018
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 0 0%
2%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
2%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
3
5%
7%
fine gravel 5.7 2 4%
11%
fine gravel 8.0 2 4%
14%
medium gravel 11.3 10 18%
32%
medium gravel 16.0 4 7%
39%
coarse gravel 22.3 9 16%
54%
coarse gravel 32.0 9 16%
70%
very coarse gravel 45 8 14%
84%
very coarse gravel 64 4 7%
91%
Cobble
small cobble
90
3
5%
96%
medium cobble 128 2 4%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 1 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
■ MY4 - 10/2018
57
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
8.37
D35
13.59
D50
20.55
D84
44.81
D95
82.60
D100
128.00
:;.;
■■1111111■■■nl■■1111111■�!,';�ii�■1111111
20%
:,,,
■■1111111■■■1111■■1111111■�
/�IIIII■■1111111
18%
■■1111111■■■nl■■IIIIIIII�,/./111111■■1111111
16%
U
y
14%
,,,
a
ro
12%
■■1111111■■■11■■1111111///1111111■■1111111
v
,,.,
8%
■■1111111■■■1111■■IIIV
//� IIIIIIII■■1111111
6%
. ,. ,
2%
0%
,,,,
■■1111111■■■1111
■■1111111■■■1111
�,Lh ��
♦ 'L a �'^ 4 ♦♦'7 ♦b ,tiy� �'L p`' bD` 90 ♦,y4 ♦�O tib
�'b'L 5♦'L
� /1111111■■1111111
��■1111111■■1111111
o�bry o♦'yh
♦�yb ti�6 a��qb
,,,
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017
■ MY4 - 10/2018
,. ,
■■1111111■r!!!!
��
II!�■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111�_iii►:�
11�!il■■1111111■■1111111
■■n11:ii.�n�_,ii11111■■1111111■■1111111
,.,
Individual Class Percent
20%
18%
16%
U
y
14%
a
ro
12%
v
10%
8%
q
6%
4%
2%
0%
�,Lh ��
♦ 'L a �'^ 4 ♦♦'7 ♦b ,tiy� �'L p`' bD` 90 ♦,y4 ♦�O tib
�'b'L 5♦'L
o�bry o♦'yh
♦�yb ti�6 a��qb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017
■ MY4 - 10/2018

Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
D16
4.68
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-1R
D50
12.87
D84
34.60
Feature: Riffle
83.50
DIN
180.00
■■1111111■■11111111111111■�,�11'llll■■1111111
2017
a 20%
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 6 6%
6%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
6%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 1%
7%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
5
5%
12%
fine gravel 5.7 10 10%
22%
fine gravel 8.0 3 3%
25%
medium gravel 11.3 21 21%
46%
medium gravel 16.0 12 12%
58%
coarse gravel 22.3 18 18%
76%
coarse gravel 32.0 7 7%
83%
very coarse gravel 45 5 5%
88%
very coarse gravel 64 4 4%
92%
Cobble
small cobble
90
4
4%
96%
medium cobble 128 2 2%
98%
large cobble 180 2 2%
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%
Pekdroc
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
4.68
D35
9.57
D50
12.87
D84
34.60
D95
83.50
DIN
180.00
,,.,
■■1111111■■11111111111111■■l►�:�1111111
30%
25%
:,,,
■■1111111■■11111111111111■�,�11'llll■■1111111
a 20%
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■/II11111■■1111111
U
15%
,.,
=
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIII�I/l/111111■■1111111
b
,,.,
410%
■■1111111■■1111111■■�IIIIII�/�����IIIII■■�IIIIII
5%
0%
+ti htiti
ti�ryd 'ti�6 boo�6
- ,.,
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018
■■1111111■■1111111■■111111�/���11111111■■1111111
,,.,
■■1111111■■1111111���!!!�!�'/I/IIIIIII■■1111111
,.,
'
■■IIICiii�ii'•_"ei�■111,!,il��lllllll■■1111111
■■Illllll��;;;;;;;�:lllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111i���ir�.11111��1111111■■1111111■■1■
,.,
Individual Class Percent
30%
25%
a 20%
U
15%
b
410%
5%
0%
+ti htiti
ti�ryd 'ti�6 boo�6
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY 1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
Silt/Clay
D35
Cross -Section: UT74P
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
9.98
Feature: Pool
24.73
13100
45.00
2018
--
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
26
52%
52%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
52%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
1 52%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
52%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
52%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2%
54%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
5
10%
64%
fine gravel 5.7 3 6%
70%
fine gravel 8.0 4 8%
78%
medium gravel 11.3 5 10%
88%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
88%
coarse gravel 22.3 3 6%
94%
coarse gravel 32.0 2 4%
98%
very coarse gravel 45 1 2%
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
1
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
Silt/Clay
D35
Silt/Clay
D50
Silt/Clay
D84
9.98
D95
24.73
13100
45.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
-
---
80%
--
70%
w 60%
—
P.
> 50%
40%
-
---
20%
-
---
10%
--
0
00l �'1 1 ,�O 100 000
Particle Size (mm)
As -Built 3/2015 MY 1 - 9/2015 MY2 - 9/2016 NM - 9/2017 MY4 - 11/2018
100-
90%
80%
V
y 70%
a
60%
U 50%
� ao%
30%
20%
10%
0%
o0b� o�,y5 0,1,5 05 ti ti h^ 6 1,'1
tib 41 ^ti ah 'k q0 1,1,6 160 tie "p6 60ogb
Particle Size (mm)
■ As -Built 3/2015 ■ MY1 - 9/2015 ■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018
Individual Class Percent

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
10.06
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-2R
D50
30.29
D84
82.20
Feature: Riffle
142.86
D100
180.00
2018
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% 1
0%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
0%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
0%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
5
5%
5%
fine gravel 5.7 5 5%
10%
fine gravel 8.0 1 1 %
11%
medium gravel 11.3 8 8%
19%
medium gravel 16.0 6 6%
25%
coarse gravel 22.3 11 11%
36%
coarse gravel 32.0 17 17%
53%
very coarse gravel 45 13 13%
66%
very coarse gravel 64 11 11%
77%
Cobble
small cobble
90
10
10%
87%
medium cobble 128 6 6%
93%
large cobble 180 7 7%
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
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
10.06
D35
21.72
D50
30.29
D84
82.20
D95
142.86
D100
180.00
,,,,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■
Brims■■1111111
,,,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■���/,'�■■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■,/���■■■1111111
,,,,
■■1111111■■1111111�_r_!!!!!;;i%�/ll■■■1111111
,.,
-
■■111����
�::iiiiii�■IIIIIIIIII�1111111■■1111111
,,.,
,.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIII�II//IIIIIIII■■1111111
,.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111,/I■IIIIW■■1111111
,.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■111!%��■111■■■1111111
■■111!:IIS::::.�:,■:;illlll■■Illlm■■IIWII
,,,

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
26.61
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-STP1
D50
45.00
D84
Feature: Step Pool
D95
162.67
D100
256.00
G
2018
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% 1
0%
coarse sand 1.00 0 0%
0%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
0%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
0%
fine gravel 5.7 1 1%
1%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
1%
medium gravel 11.3 4 4%
5%
medium gravel 16.0 1 1%
6%
coarse gravel 22.3 6 6%
12%
coarse gravel 32.0 9 9% 1
21%
very coarse gravel 45 29 29%
50%
very coarse gravel 64 19 19%
69%
Cobble
small cobble
90
17
17%
86%
medium cobble 128 5 5%
91%
large cobble 180 6 6%
97%
very large cobble 256 3 3%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 1 2048 1 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
26.61
D35
38.28
D50
45.00
D84
86.94
D95
162.67
D100
256.00
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
—70%
60%
a
50%
40%
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0°1 oy , ti0 �o0 000
Particle Size (mm)
MY2 - 9/2016 MY3 - 9/2017 MY4 - 11/2018
Individual Class Percent
35%
30%
G
25%
a
Z 20%
v
b
15%
C.
10%
5%
0%
4"5�ti 10rya ryoD�
�oogb
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY2 - 9/2016 ■ MY3 - 9/2017 ■ MY4 - 11/2018

Summary Data
Project Name: Little Buffalo Creek
22.30
D35
Cross -Section: UT7-STP2
D50
36.33
D84
Feature: Step Pool
D95
86.75
D100
180.00
15%
. 10%
2018
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�►�IIIII■■1111111
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
0%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
0%
Sand
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
0
0%
0%
fine gravel 5.7 2 2%
2%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
2%
medium gravel 11.3 3 3%
5%
medium gravel 16.0 2 2%
7%
coarse gravel 22.3 9 9%
16%
coarse gravel 32.0 26 26%
42%
very coarse gravel 45 24 24%
66%
very coarse gravel 64 22 22%
88%
Cobble
small cobble
90
8
8%
96%
medium cobble 128 3 3%
99%
large cobble 180 1 1%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 1 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%
Bedrockbedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Summary Data
D16
22.30
D35
29.39
D50
36.33
D84
60.55
D95
86.75
D100
180.00
Individual Class Percent
,'
■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111!n�■�������
40%
i~
35%
v
U
p 30%
25%
U
.'
■1111111■1111111■■1111111■■Illlill■■1111111
15%
. 10%
5%
- ,,
■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1%'Alll■■1111111
0%
,,
■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�►�IIIII■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■%111111■■1111111
-.'
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■II►lllllll■■1111111
■■1111111■1111111■■1111111■I/,��111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■1111111■■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■■1111111
',
■■1111111■■1111111■.1�1������1111111■■1111111
__ ,�■1111111■■1111111
,
Individual Class Percent
45%
40%
i~
35%
v
U
p 30%
25%
U
20%
b
15%
. 10%
5%
0%
'e, ry�p9 b�qb
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2-9/2016 ■MY3-9/2017 ■MY4-11/2018

Appendix E - Hydrologic Data

Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphologically Significant Flow Events
Greater than
Date of
Date of
Qgs = Q2'0.66
Greater than
Observation
Occurrence
Method
stage?'
Qbkf Stage?
Notes
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
2/27/2016
11/9/2015
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
2/27/2016
12/22/20151
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
Surface Water Transducer
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations.
2/27/2016
12/30/2015
Rack Lines
Yes
Yes
See Photo Appendix.
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
9/19/2016
5/20/2016
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Surface Water Transducer
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
3/2/2017
1/23/2017
Rack Lines
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
9/18/2017
5/5/2017
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
9/18/2017
5/25/2017
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
9/18/2017
6/5/2017
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
ater eve gages at multiple stations recorded
12/15/2018
4/24/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recor e
12/15/2018
8/5/20181
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Photos/Surface Water
Hurricane Florence, photos taken during the storm
9/6/2018
9/16/2018
Transducer
Yes
Yes
by land owners
Water level gages at multiple stations recor e
12/15/2018
10/11/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
ater eve gages at multiple stations recorded
12/15/2018
10/26/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recor e
12/15/2018
11/13/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
Water level gages at multiple stations recorded
12/15/2018
11/15/2018
Surface Water Transducer
Yes
Yes
elevations over surveyed bankful stage elevations
1) As stage relationships have not been calculated Tor the Qgs event, it is assumed that an event that has surpassed the identified ban ktull stage on site also
passed the Qgs event
Little Buffalo Creek Stream Mitigation Project — Project #94147 — Louis Berger — January 2019 — Monitoring Year 4

Figures 6a -g - Water Level and Rainfall Plots

639.0
638.8
638.6
638.4
638.2
638.0
p 637.8
Q 637.6
Z 637.4
v
w 637.2
c 637.0
0
636.8
v 636.6
LL 636.4
v
636.2
636.0
635.8
635.6
635.4
635.2
635.0
n
0
N
Little Buffalo Creek Hydrology Monitoring - MY4
Groundwater to Surface Water Comparison, UT 2 Lower
n n o0 000 000 00 00 000 00 000 000 00 000 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
H \ \ N N \ \ N N \ \ N
N N e -I
Date
Rainfall (IN) Gage 3_UT2 Lower Groundwater Gage 13 — — Bankfull Depth
6.00
5.00
4.00
v
L
c
3.00
m
c
z
2.00
1.00
0.00

Note: Period listed for observed continuous flow is for the longest period of observed continuous flow based on hydrologic gauges at the project site. Additional periods of
30 -day continuous flow are observed at individual gauges besides what is shown in the table.
Note: loggers ran out of memory in MY2 (7/14/16) after changing the frequency recording to a shorter interval than being downloaded.
Note: Barometric pressure gauge was lost/damage in MY2 and replaced. Regional airport barometric pressure was used for compensation from 9/20/15 - 2/26/16 and is
likely to cause periods showing no flow when flow occurred.
Gauge 2 only gauge during monitoring with consistant data and no continous flow for 30 days observed
Table
13 - Continuous Stream Flow Record
Gauge
Tributary
30 -Day Continous
Flow
Met in Current
Monitoring Period
MY 1 Period
MY 2 Period
MY 3 Period
MY 4 Period
1
LBC Reach 1
Y
12/18/14-5/25/15
2/27/15 - 7/14/16
9/22/16-9/26/17
3/12/18 - 6/25/18
2
UT 2 Upper
Y
12/18/14-9/1/15
-
7/19/17-9/26/17
1/23/18-4/12/18
3
UT 2 Lower
Y
12/18/14 - 8/2/15
2/26/16 - 7/14/16
1/1/17-2/1/17
9/18/18- 11/16/18
4
UT 4
Y
3/21/15 - 9/3/15
2/26/16 - 7/13/16
9/19/16-9/26/17
9/27/17 - 7/1/18
5
LBC Reach 4
Y
12/18/14 - 3/13/15
2/26/16 - 6/12/16
11/17/16-7/27/17
11/7/17 - 6/17/18
6
UT 3 Upper
Y
12/18/14 - 6/22/15
-
5/30/17-8/26/17
8/18/18 - 911/16/18
7
UT 3 Lower
Y
12/18/14 - 3/14/15
2/26/16 - 7/2/16
12/30/16-8/18/17
1/24/18 - 7/1/18
8
UT 7
Y
12/18/14-5/20/15
2/28/16 - 7/13/16
10/7/16-7/30/17
11/15/17 - 7/1/18
11
UT 5
N
NA
NA
NA
-
12
UT 7
Y
12/18/14-5/20/15
2/28/16 - 7/13/16
10/7/16-7/30/17
9/18/18-11/16/18
Note: Period listed for observed continuous flow is for the longest period of observed continuous flow based on hydrologic gauges at the project site. Additional periods of
30 -day continuous flow are observed at individual gauges besides what is shown in the table.
Note: loggers ran out of memory in MY2 (7/14/16) after changing the frequency recording to a shorter interval than being downloaded.
Note: Barometric pressure gauge was lost/damage in MY2 and replaced. Regional airport barometric pressure was used for compensation from 9/20/15 - 2/26/16 and is
likely to cause periods showing no flow when flow occurred.
Gauge 2 only gauge during monitoring with consistant data and no continous flow for 30 days observed

Appendix F - Supplemental Information

IRT Site Visit Minutes

Little Buffalo Creek — Old Mine Road, Gold Hill, Cabarrus County
June 19, 2018 — IRT Site Visit Meeting Summary
Attendees: Paul Wiesner & Kelly Phillips, DMS; Mac Haupt, NCDEQ/DWR; Kim Browning, USACE
Louis Berger: Robin Maycock (Project Manager); Matt Holthaus (Engineer); Douglas Parker (Botanist);
Alston Willard (Field Tech/Intern)
Purpose: To provide IRT an opportunity to visit the site and make comments prior to closeout.
Coverage: The main channel from Reach 1, just north of vegetation plot 11, to the cattle crossing in
Reach 5, as well as the lower portions of UT -2, UT -3, UT -4, UT -5, and UT -6.
Reach 1
The group walked in the pasture, north along the east fence line of Reach 1.
The small tributary, outside of the easement area
• The IRT recommended an additional 20 feet of fencing in this area to create a filter/buffer for
the tributary to protect water quality in Little Buffalo Creek. Any increased filtering capacity is
better than the existing conditions.
Source of maggots is assumed to be a dead cow. It was pointed out that Marcus (tenant) owns
several stock yards and tends to buy poorer cows with the thought of improving them.
Consider speaking with Marcus about keeping such cows elsewhere and/or to Phil Cline about
potentially adding fenced area. (DMS Note: We can't add conservation easement to the project
at this point for numerous reasons. Any additional BMP type measures would be acceptable.)
Invasive species
• Upon crossing the fence, an area where mature Tree of Heavens were removed, to prevent
seeding of the disturbed area to the north, was pointed out. Kelly stated that this had been a
good idea.
• Invasive species maintenance is ongoing with another treatment occurring in the fall.
The bare area around Vegetation Plot 11 was examined.
• The small area where soil sampling results showed copper toxicity was pointed out and the
anecdotal history of copper mining in the area was mentioned.
• The lack of trees in a narrow band encompassing vegetation plot 11 was examined. The soil
sample report was shared, showing low nutrient soil, as well as that the area being shallow to
rock, and wet.
o It was noted that on the stream side of this area, there were healthy willow saplings,
and on the upland side, healthy loblolly pines.
o Robin suggested spreading the beaver dam soil and debris on the bare areas and the IRT
agreed that it would be a good area to add depth and organic matter by adding the
beaver dam debris and accumulated sediment.
o Paul recommended random transects (100 meters square) to be more representative of
the vegetation in the area.
The beaver dam area was examined.
• The IRT asked how long the dam had been there (since approximately November) and when it
was removed. Robin stated that the beaver were trapped and the dam was breached in March).
• As beaver dam had been breached prior to the growing season, the trees survived, with the
exception of small area behind the dam.

• The IRT team asked why Berger was waiting until the fall to reshape the dam area and Robin
replied that they would prefer that it coincided with replanting and surveying trips.
General rule of thumb for performance tolerances at closeout were discussed:
• 5% of entire restoration length for streams.
10% of entire restoration area for vegetation (DMS Note: Site specific factors such as the area
of copper toxicity are considered on a case-by-case basis.)
Buffer width:
• IRT stated that the buffer width appeared to be narrow just north of the bend.
• They explained that buffer width should be 50 feet or greater and too much length without that
buffer width would be a concern.
• Thus, prior to closeout, Berger should measure and verify buffer widths.
Reach 2
The group then turned south, following the main branch. A turkey on her nest was encountered near
vegetation plot 10. The group crossed under the bridge into Reach 2. The group primarily walked down
the channel.
UT -2 was thoroughly examined:
• Flowing water was observed in the channel.
• The area was impacted by cattle following construction and has a shallow slope and as such,
water is backing up, forming a linear wetland type system.
• The area was pointed out to be in a landscape position that is known to have seeps and UT -2 is
fed by a pond.
• The consensus of the group was that as the trees matured they would transpire the
accumulated water and help the stream maintain a channel.
• IRT recommended getting good photos year round to show the channel structure during each
season.
• IRT requested that Gauge 3 not be replaced where it originally was but moved to the mid -point
of the stream length of UT -2 where the channel is clearly evident.
• Installation of the gauge at an increased depth sufficient to record water levels beneath the
channel was also requested. Correlation of the gauge water level reading to continuous channel
flow is required for this type of installation. An accompanying groundwater monitoring well was
also requested.
• DMS suggested random vegetation transects for this area.
• IRT noted that the tree density was sufficient but was concerned that their vigor (i.e., size) was
not where it should be.
• IRT recommended additional plantings in this area with larger (5 -gallon) trees of at least 4
different species.
• IRT stated that they would be looking for a defined channel with a history of flow and a lack of
these two features would be an issue.
• Matt stated that if the gauge was in a pool, it was correlated to elevation to show continuous
flow.
• DMS suggests continued monitoring and documentation of the "linear wetland areas".
Measured lengths should be discussed and documented in MY4 and MY5 reports. Detailed
observations of any channel adjustments within these areas should be made and presented in
the reports.

Reach 3
A small area of undercutting on the main branch was examined:
• The area appears to be stabilizing with tree growth, with no mass wasting, nice substrate, and
connected to the floodplain.
• IRT stated the area looks good.
UT -4 was examined near Gauge 5
• IRT stated the area looks good.
Reach 4
The left bank riparian corridor was examined (where the cattle had gotten in and grazed):
• IRT expressed concern about the size of the tree saplings.
• IRT recommend replanting with more mature trees (5 -gallon) of at least 4 different species.
• At closeout, IRT is looking for trees to be at or near 10 feet tall.
• IRT believes if the area is left alone (not replanted) this area could be a concern at closeout.
Enhancement level 1 area on main channel (concrete removal area):
• A small area with scour was examined.
• IRT stated it was not significant and had no issues with this area.
The lower portions of UT -3 (ash grove):
• It was pointed out that Berger did additional work in this area that was beyond the initial scope.
• Berger asked about incorporating the extra section of work that had been done into the credits
(this would require a mitigation plan modification).
o IRT highly recommended against trying to modify the existing mitigation plan to
incorporate the extra section of work Berger completed as it could potentially open the
project to additional monitoring.
o IRT suggested that Berger note that extra repairs were made in the final report and to
also mention it at close out.
UT -3 was thoroughly examined:
• The tributary was found to be flowing.
• Bare banks along UT -3 were pointed out as well as the fact that the willow live stakes had leafed
out this year (had not the prior year).
• IRT recommended deploying a gauge at the mid -point of the stream length.
• IRT was concerned with the size of the tree saplings in this area and recommended planting with
more mature trees (5 -gallon) of at least 4 different species.
• IRT recommended getting good photos year around to show the channel structure during each
season.
Reach 5
UT -5 was thoroughly examined:
• The tributary was found to have no flow but contained some wet areas.
• Gauge was moved to mid -point of the stream length
• Kim stated that she considered UT -5 to be a grass water -way.
• Mac stated it was likely not a stream.
• The soil was examined and found to vary between hydric and non -hydric.

• UT -5 was considered by the IRT to potentially not be a stream and is considered a clear credit
risk.
UT -6 was examined:
• The tributary was found to have flow and has historically had flow.
• IRT no comments.
• IRT no need for a gauge.
Cattle Crossing
• IRT — cattle crossing looks good and the re -enforcement looks sufficient. There was no evidence
of recent cattle access within the conservation easement.
• Asked about a hot wire for when cattle cross (had one, but the solar pack was removed by the
landowners).
• Asked about why the gates weren't kept closed continuously (maintain cattle access to water).
• Asked about alternative water (had gotten a cost proposal for a well but was too expensive,
researching other alternatives).
• IRT stated that they were not familiar with the blue pickle barrels but were good with whatever
we wanted to try.
o Verified that the blue barrels would be in addition to the existing fencing.
o IRT recommended waiting to see how the new re -enforcement was working before
installing the blue pickle barrels.
• IRT stated the biggest concern with the cattle crossing was continued maintenance by the
landowners.
• The easement modification was brought up (at state property office for review) and the IRT
expressed no concerns and made no comments regarding the easement modification.
Miscellaneous
• Paul would proceed with getting Berger paid for MY3.
• IRT requested that MY4 and MY5 reports include discussion on initial planted acreage versus
replanted acreage (as percentages).
• IRT recommended providing before and after photos of the site in MY5 report for their closeout
review to understand the uplift that has occurred.
• IRT was complimentary of Berger's efforts to keep the cows out and appreciated that Berger
staff visited the site frequently enough to be familiar with it and its issues.
• The possibility of an additional year's monitoring was brought up
o IRT stated this was a possibility due to low vigor on the tree sapling growth
o If an additional year of monitoring was requested, it could be tailored to just vegetation
o Paul stated that the IRT, in the past, has been very reasonable in requesting additional
monitoring years
Action Items:
1. Color code stream centerlines on CCPV maps for MY4 and MY5 reports to distinguish levels of
restoration effort.
2. Remove beaver dam and spread debris on the copper area and the bare area around vegetation
plot 11.
3. Deploy new gauge mid -point of stream length UT -2. Installation of the gauge at an increased
depth sufficient to record water levels beneath the channel.
4. Install groundwater well on UT -2 in conjunction with new gauge.
5. Replant around UT -2 with more mature trees of at least 4 different species.

6. Measure linear stream length that may be considered a linear wetland at closeout for more
accurate number in the winter. (DMS Note: This should be measured in both MY4 & MYS to
track any changes. Measurements will be much easier in the dormant season).
7. Replant the left bank riparian corridor of Reach 4 (cattle grazed area) with more mature trees of
at least 4 different species.
8. Deploy new gauge mid- point of stream length UT -3.
9. Replant around UT -3 with more mature trees of at least 4 different species.
10. Conduct more vegetation transects around Vegetation Plot #11, UT -2, Reach 4, and UT -3.
11. Take lots of photographs of the tributary's in flow, at different times of the year, to show the
channels.
12. Include this meeting summary in the Appendix of MY4's report.

Random Vegetation Plot Transects Stem Counts
Type = Tree, Shrub, Livestake Color for Density
T = Total Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Plot 3 - UT3
Plot 4 - Reach 4
Plot 8 - UT2
Plot 11 - Reach 1
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Upstream - Same
bank
T
Downstream -
opposite bank
T
Upstream
T
Downstream
T
Downstream -
Same bank
T
Downstream -
Opposite Bank
T
Upstream
T
Downstream
T
Acer
maple
Tree
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
2
2 1
71
15
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
1
1
3
Ilex glabra
inkberry
Shrub
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
6
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
2
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
12
2
Pinus virginiana
Virginia pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
3
8
15
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
2
2
2
2
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
shrub
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
18
24
Sambucus
elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Sassafras albidum
sassafras
Tree
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
1
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
0.83613
0.02
6
435.5986244
6
0.83613
0.02
2
290.3990829
12
0.83613
0.02
5
580.7981658
8
0.83613
0.02
6
387.1987772
13
0.83613
0.02
7
629.198013
9
0.83613
0.02
4
435.5986244
109
0.83613
0.02
4
5275.58334
56
0.83613
0.02
4
2710.391441
Type = Tree, Shrub, Livestake Color for Density
T = Total Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Figure 7a -7d - Random Vegetation Plot Transects
Location Maps

0' 40' 80'
SCALE: 1 "= 40'
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
LEGEND:
— — —
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— — —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
— -
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS—BUILT TOP OF BANK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
CONSERVATION FENCE
X X *
A
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
PHOTO LOCATION
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
F*_1
EQU REMENTSIBY <10%
— FAILS
F#_1VEGPLOT
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
RANDOM VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
RANDOM VEGPLOT — EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
CROSS-
L
R
. few 1,� ,?, ._ � f4 '►
RANDOM VEGPLOT PLOT 3
UT3 UPSTREAM, SAME BANK
C t
Y
` ..
. A / \_'
01 ,t , I .' /
.' : w _ ;
• m 1 � / I •'
i .
if
I
,.lam i m I
' m
• I I i�i I.
ol
» I
I
' I GAGE 12 \ I.
a m
I
-ROSS SE�;TI❑N UT3-2R
--RANDOM VEGPLOT PLOT 3
•' �► /UT3 DOWNSTREAM, ❑PP❑SITE BANK
wl
0
Z
0
0
N
K
cn
0
� o
U
z
Lo
CD
0 N
c� >
LLJ �m
U
� � t
Wo
00 z
CD
in CD
.2
O @
J �
W
2
H
U
O LLJ U M
D > H
O w O
www
LLJ
w I
c�zz
0 O O O O
�a�U)o
U)
wO_D
� Z
M � w O
wQ� �
wwmo Q
< w
~<o w
Jw �
�7
U)>�
0
Z
uML MARCH 2019
PROJECT NO. 94147

0' 20' 40'
SCALE: 1 "= 20'
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015
LEGEND:
— — —
THALWEG, RESTORATION
— — —
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
k
THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II
THALWEG, PRESERVATION
— -
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT
AS -BUILT TOP OF BANK
,----
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
►`
* CONSERVATION FENCE
X X
A
CONTROL POINT
STREAM GAGE
PHOTO LOCATION
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
VEGPLOT
F*_1
EQU REMENTSIBY <10%
- FAILS
F*_1VEGPLOT
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
RANDOM VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
RERETSLBEXCEEDS
Y
<10%
v=
_ /441
4001,
dt
t
It
r
f
•01 `
It
-•� VEGPLOT 4
.s « -
r
Ab
RANDOM VEGPLOT PLOT 4 -
REACH 4 UPSTREAM
AND❑M VEGPLOT PLOT 4
REACH 4 DOWNSTREAM
U)
0
6
0
U
z
U
a Lo
CD
, N
� Q o
W @
U
��
w o
m�z
U)o�
5-.2
0
J �
w
2
H
0
~
w
w
O Ld O
>
�0 �
w�>_w o
W J
� Z �
000 i
0�0�
J < < (n
�(n0
0 -D H J
mU)n>
wQ z
L_LL 0:� m O 0
Q
�QOz
J w 0
7n w
0 > >
o g
0
0
z
a
LATE MARCH 2019
'ROJECT NO. 94147
IGURE 7B

* ,
0' 20' 40'
SCALE: 1 "= 20' �, \
■
_----RANDOM VEGPLOT PLOT 11 �
AERIAL SOURCE: NC DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY 2015 REACH 1 UPSTREAM
Z
LEGEND:
— — — THALWEG, RESTORATION ` \
— THALWEG, ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I
THALWEG ENHANCEMENT LEVEL II \ �
U)
THALWEG, PRESERVATION !- \ o
ROSS SE N 1�•-�P w �
THALWEG, OUT OF EASEMENT \ '••.,- w
AS-BUILT TOP OF BANK f = 64 U
CONSERVATION EASEMENT - Z
* CONSERVATION FENCE + „� • =i� \CFS _
4►.' ' i — Lo
CONTROL POINT �": ► l a o
STREAM GAGE ��U 1 VEGPL❑T ,11 11 0 Sm
PHOTO LOCATION dip Q 'o
VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS L i w C)
REQUIREMENTS BY >10% �'� \\■ ' 1 w� o
_ m�z
\'o• coot
VEGPLOT
EQU REMENTS BY D<10% • ~ ,' - \
VEGPLOT - FAILS j \ ^ # o of
REQUIREMENTS BY <10%0 F*-]
E VEGPLOT - FAILS
F* REQUIREMENTS BY >10%
Y
RANDOM VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS
REQUIREMENTS BY >10% �'�, '„ �,� _ ti ■
i
RANDOM VEGPLOT - EXCEEDS "� �' •1�� I �� ' s �' �'
N REQUIREMENTS BY <10%
t f
o
Ia t ��^
t-
WLLJ
w
LLj ~
w� Q� >_cn of
• -' ��� ;, RANDOM VEGPLOT PLOT 11 ♦ z z a
n r REACH 1 DOWNSTREAM - , o 0 0 0
o -D —
A J
::) cn C(
w ch m o O
i\\ J w
1 \ CROSS SECTION MS-1R > >
'= o
T� a
of
I , DATEMARCH 2019
` . PROJECT NO. 94147
i
•J FIGURE 7D