20190049 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Draft_2020_20200918

ID#* 20190049 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/18/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/18/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20190049
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Carpenter Bottom
County: Gaston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: CarpenterBottom_100090_MPDraft_2020.pdf 74.28MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

MITIGATION PLAN CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
Gaston County, NC
Revised Draft NCDEQ Contract No. 7731
DMS ID No. 100090
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050102
September 10, 2020 (03050103 Expanded Service Area)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
NC DWR Project No. 2019-0049
RFQ #: 09132018
PREPARED FOR:
rktl
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
Gaston County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7731
DMS ID No. 100090
Catawba River Basin
HUC 0305102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Wft.,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone: [phone]
This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Project Manager Haley Brinkley, Mitigation Plan Development
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge Scott Gregory, Mitigation Plan Development
Kristi Suggs, Wetland Delineations Josh Short, El Stream and Wetland Design
Jordan Hessler, Mitigation Plan Development Christine Blackwelder, Lead Quality Assurance

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
August 31, 2020
Mr. Eric Neuhaus, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, N.C. 28806
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Subject:Draft Mitigation Plan for the
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin — CU# 03050102
Gaston County
DMS Project ID No. 100090
Contract # 7731
Dear Mr. Neuhaus:
On July 28, 2020, the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) received the draft mitigation plan for the
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site from Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI).
The report establishes the proposed mitigation activities on the project site. Anticipated mitigation on
the site includes 3,051 Stream Mitigation Units and 8.345 Wetland Mitigation Units. The following are
our comments on the draft mitigation plan report and preliminary plan set:
Title Page:
• Please include the 401 permit number if available.
Introduction:
• Stream credits and wetland credits do not match Table 20. Please update for final to match revised
asset table.
Table 1:
• Suggest reporting location in decimal degrees.
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover:
• Please indicate the approximate acreage of forest cleared between 2012 and 2016.
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q�I
Deparhnent of Environmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

3.3 Existing Vegetation:
• The Land Use/Land Cover section describes the site as being maintained as active cattle and hay
pasture. The Existing Vegetation sections makes no reference to grasses or other vegetation
typically found in these areas. Please update.
3.4 Existing Project Resources:
• Please add a statement regarding the completed PJD submittal also included in Appendix 3 in this
section.
Table 5:
• Add a row for the Existing Length of Reach (LF) to the first table. The second table showing UT2,
UT3 and UT4 has this parameter listed.
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass:
• Do the proposed site modifications increase the risk of hydrologic trespass to any areas outside
of the conservation easement? The discussion needs to address any concerns onsite or offsite
that could be impacted.
5.3 401/404:
• Please remember to update final plans with safety fencing location around wetlands outside of the
proposed limits of disturbance.
Table 13:
• Please provide an explanation for why the design discharge changes between existing and design.
7.4 Design Discharge Analysis and Table 14:
• "This decrease in discharge can be attributed to the attenuation of water in the wetland upstream
of Carpenter Branch. Wetland restoration efforts will furthermore increase the attenuation of
water, and therefore a relatively low bankfull discharge was determined for Carpenter Branch."
The design Q of 14 is significantly lower than the other methodologies. Can this rationale from
the cited section of 7.4 be defended given that the wetlands are currently ditched? The gauge
data also indicate that the ditching may not be that influential.
7.4.2 Wildlands Regional USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator:
• Section indicates that the Wildlands regional flood frequency analysis 1.2 year predictions are
plotted on Figure 8. This analysis is not currently plotted on Figure 8. Please update.
7.6 Project Implementation:
• Please describe how WEI will construct the Priority 2 sections. Will topsoil be stockpiled?
Minimum bench and side slopes? Since establishment of vegetative cover and vigor can be a
challenge on Priority 2 banks and benches, please include a discussion on how the soil restoration
will be addressed during construction and reference potential adaptive management.
Page 21, First Paragraph, Last Sentence:
• Please revise sentence structure. Words accidently left out.
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q�I
Department of Environmental Wali�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

7.6.5 UT4:
• Based on the profile shown on the plan sheet there is concern of adverse impact to the existing
culvert upstream of the site. Will raising UT4 through a Priority 1 restoration impound the culvert
upstream of the site or cause sediment deposition in the pipe?
7.7.3 Hydrologic Monitoring and Evaluation:
• Will the filling of the agricultural ditches and swales create a drainage concern up gradient and
outside of the conservation easement?
• Please provide rationale for a hydrologic success criterion of 12% with 3 gauges ranging from 16-
30% in the existing conditions.
• Recommend putting reference gauge hydroperiod in Table 16.
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan:
• The October 2016 IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidance states that planting shall occur between
November 15 and March 15. Please update section to reflect this time frame.
• Does WEI plan on treating fescue and other undesirable pasture grasses prior to or during
construction? The IRT has recommended early treatment in the past based on observations of
fescue impeding planted vegetation establishment and vigor.
7.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties:
• Detailed culver information was not included in the plan sheet details for the draft submittal.
Please verify that the new culvert will be appropriately sized and installed correctly to allow aquatic
organism passage.
8.2 Vegetation:
• Please identify the target community types and reference the sheet number of the species list for
each zone in the design plans.
• WEI expects stunted vegetation growth in proposed wetland restoration areas due to inundation
periods. What average height does WEI expect to see in these areas? WEI may want to reiterate
this expectation in Table 17.
8.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality Monitoring:
• If WEI wants to pursue the potential 2% to 4% credit bonus associated with additional monitoring,
then a plan must be outlined in the Mitigation Plan and not after the fact. Please include a
monitoring plan and discussion including water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
techniques that will be employed to accomplish this task. Please update the mitigation plan
accordingly. If WEI decides to pursue the additional monitoring, please allow DMS to review the
protocols before submitting final draft.
9.0 Monitoring Plan, Table 17, Table 18, Plansheets:
• The number of monitoring stations does not comply with the USACE 2016 Guidance Document
requirements for streams. At the design bankfull width for Carpenter Creek, 18 cross sections are
prescribed, 5 have been proposed. Additional gauges may also be requested to meet the
requirement to gauge the center and edges of wetlands. Please update accordingly.
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q�I
Department of Environmental Wali�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Table 18:
• Please provide rationale for baseline pebble counts at riffles and then conducting reach wide
counts only during monitoring.
Table 20:
• DMS is currently updating the Required Tables Spreadsheet based on IRT and Provider feedback.
Please add a column at the end for "Credits".
• For accounting purposes, please extend the credit calculations out to the third decimal place for
streams and wetlands.
• Credit calculations used in the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator are slightly off
when compared to Table 20. For example, Restoration Creditable Stream Length is shown as
3021.3 in the calculator, but summing Table 20 yields 3021. Preservation in the calculator shows
477.5, but Table 20 is 477. Total Baseline Credit in the calculator is shown as 3116.80, but Table
20 indicates 3116. Please revise once Table 20 has been finalized.
• The Asset Table tab in the Required Tables file shows UT4 as Restoration at a 2:1 ratio, and Table
20 in the report shows it as 1:1. Please update.
• Please populate the Stream Restoration Level columns with their respective lengths.
Figure 9 and Figure 10:
• Please add location of proposed fencing.
Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings:
• The IRT has requested recently that a figure noting the different planting zones be included in the
mitigation plan. Please consider adding this figure in the Figures section and referencing in the
report.
Preliminary Design Plans:
• Please add fencing and detail.
• Update plans with wetland safety fence locations for final.
o There are currently 3 details for safety fence in the draft plans.
Digital Deliverables:
• The following asset features had feature lengths/areas that differed from the reported values.
Please provide updated features for these assets that accurately represent the values reported in
Table 20.
o UT4: 34 ft vs. 45 ft
o Wetland Re -Establishment: 5.714 ac vs. 5.897 ac
• Please provide vegetation plot features as polygons rather than points.
• Please add ID attributes to all monitoring features.
• In Fig 3, there are 9 existing cross -sections, but only 3 existing conditions cross -sections were
included in Appendix 6.
• Data for 6 of the 9 existing conditions cross sections were provided in the required DMS Mit Plan
Tables Spreadsheet. Please include the data for the remaining 3 cross -sections.
• Please provide Excel versions of cross-section, substrate and gauge data instead of PDFs.
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q�I
Department of Environmental Wali�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

At your earliest convenience, please provide a written response letter addressing the DMS comments
provided and a revised/updated electronic copy of the draft mitigation plan. The comment response
letter should be included in the revised draft mitigation plan after the report cover. If you have any
questions, please contact me at any time at [phone] or email me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Matthew Reid
Project Manager —Western Region
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Mobile
NORTHCAROLINAD_E Q�I
Deparhnent of Environmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matthew Reid, NC DMS
FROM: Eric Neuhaus, PE
DATE: September 4, 2020
RE: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC
DMS ID No. 100090
DEQ Contract Number 7731
RFQ Number 09132018
SAW-2018-02062
Response to NCDMS Mitigation Plan Comments
This memo documents NCDMS's initial Draft Mitigation Plan review comments (in italics) received from
Matthew Reid's letter dated 08/31/2020, the project team's responses, and where the revisions have
been included in the final Mitigation Plan.
Mitigation Plan Comments:
• Title Page: Please include the 401 permit number if available.
• The 401-permit number is not available. Per NCDMS, the 401-permit application cannot be
submitted without the completion of Task 2.
• Introduction: Stream credits and wetland credits do not match Table 20. Please update for final to
match revised asset table.
• Stream and wetland mitigation credits were updated in the introduction to match Table
20.
• Table 1: Suggest reporting location in decimal degrees.
• Project Coordinates were updated to decimal degrees in Table 1.
• 3.2: Please indicate the approximate acreage of forest cleared between 2012 and 2016.
• Based on aerial photography, approximately 2.4 acres of forest within the proposed
conservation easement was cleared sometime in 2014. This information was added to
Section 3.2.
• 3.3 Existing Vegetation: The Land Use/Land Cover section describes the site as being maintained as
active cattle and hay pasture. The Existing Vegetation sections makes no reference to grasses or
other vegetation typically found in these areas. Please update.

• Text was added to Section 3.3 referring to grass and weed species found within managed
cattle hay pasture.
• 3.4 Existing Project Resources: Please add a statement regarding the completed PJD submittal also
included in Appendix 3 in this section.
The following text was added to Section 3.4: "An approved preliminary jurisdictional
determination including wetland and non -wetland waters is included in Appendix I"
Table 5: Add a row for the Existing Length of Reach (LF) to the first table. The second table showing
UT2, UT3 and UT4 has this parameter listed.
• Existing Length of Reach (LF) was added to Table 5 for Carpenter Branch and UT1 and
lengths were reconciled with the digital submittal information.
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass: Do the proposed site modifications
increase the risk of hydrologic trespass to any areas outside of the conservation easement? The
discussion needs to address any concerns onsite or offsite that could be impacted.
The potential for hydrologic trespass was heavily considered as part of the design and
Wildlands believes the current design mitigates much of the risk. Text was added to Section
5.2 identifying potential risk and how this is being addressed as part of the design.
• 5.3 4011404: Please remember to update final plans with safety fencing locations around wetlands
outside of the proposed limits of disturbance.
• Wetlands listed as no impact on the PCN but inside the limits of disturbance (LOD) will have
safety fence for protection. Wetland areas outside of the LOD will not be safety fenced as no
disturbance will be permitted outside the LOD.
• Table 13: Please provide an explanation for why the design discharge changes between existing and
design.
Design discharge values for existing conditions are calculated based on bankfull calls made
in the field and during existing conditions data processing. Design discharge values for
proposed conditions are estimated using the methodology outlined in the Section 7.4 of the
report. These values vary based on the differing methods of estimation. The existing
conditions estimates are not always straightforward based on the impaired conditions of the
channel and design discharge estimates consider potential changes to site hydrology. As
such, it is not uncommon for the values to vary by 3 to 5 cubic feet per second (CFS).
• 7.4 Design Discharge Analysis and Table 14: "This decrease in discharge can be attributed to the
attenuation of water in the wetland upstream of Carpenter Branch. Wetland restoration efforts will
furthermore increase the attenuation of water, and therefore a relatively low bankfull discharge was
determined for Carpenter Branch." The design Q of 14 is significantly lower than the other
methodologies. Can this rationale from the cited section of 7.4 be defended given that the wetlands
are currently ditched? The gauge data also indicate that the ditching may not be that influential.

Carper ter 2ctlom - Or -Site Re-ererce
■
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
4.1 x-section area (Ft.sq.)
W flood prone area (ft]
6.1 D50 Riffle (mm)
7.4 ' width (Ft)
' entrenchment ratio
10 D84 Riffle (mm)
0.5 ' mean depth (ft)
0.8 ' low bank height (ft)
6 ' threshold grain size (mm):
0.7 ' max depth (Ft)
1.2 ' low bank height ratio
7.8 ' wetted perimeter (Ft)
Roscien Stream Type
0.5 ' hydraulic radius (Ft)
--- Missing:.. Sinuosity, D50, slope
13.6 ' width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Foroes & Power
2.6 velocity (Ft1s)
0.024 Manning's roughness
0.4 channel slope (I]
10.4 ' discharge rate (cfs)
0.08 ' Darcy-Weisbach Frio.
0.13 ' shear stress (IbIsq.Ft.)
0.63 ' Froude number
10.0 ' resistance factor u+u'
0.26 ' shear velocity (ft1s)
16.7 ' relative roughness
0.35 ' unit strm power (IbIFUs)
3

7.4.2 Wildlands Regional USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator: Section indicates that the Wildlands
regional flood frequency analysis 1.2-year predictions are plotted on Figure 8. This analysis is not
currently plotted on Figure 8. Please update.
• Wildlands regional flood frequency analysis 1.2-year predictions are now plotted on Figure
8.
• 7.6 Project Implementation: Please describe how WEI will construct the Priority 2 sections. Will
topsoil be stockpiled? Minimum bench and side slopes? Since establishment of vegetative cover and
vigor can be a challenge on Priority 2 banks and benches, please include a discussion on how the soil
restoration will be addressed during construction and reference potential adaptive management.
• The following text was added to Section 7.8 of the report:
"Mechanical site soil preparation will be implemented where necessary, including but not
limited to wetland areas, priority 2 benches, and areas of cut greater than one foot. Site
preparations will be performed to create soil physical properties favorable for tree growth.
In the pasture areas, the planted area will be ripped in a grid -like pattern with a maximum
rip shank spacing of six feet. Ripping will be performed during the driest conditions feasible
to maximize shatter of the plow pan. Ripping may be implemented to reduce soil
compaction resulting from haul roads, stockpile areas, etc. Where required based on site
conditions, topsoil will be stockpiled and reapplied. Soil amendments may be incorporated
to augment survival and growth of planted vegetation as determined necessary by soil
testing."
• Wildlands will strip and stockpile topsoil before grading and reapply the material after
finished grading but prior to roughening to help establish vegetation in wetland grading
areas and on priority 2 benches, as necessary. Topsoil and subsoils within proposed grading
areas will be tested for typical soil parameters and amendments will be considered based
upon the results. If vegetative cover struggles to establish in planted areas of the project.
Wildlands will resample the affected area and implement soil amendments based on the
results of a soil test during the monitoring period.
Typical cross sections found on sheets 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 in the design plans indicate bench
slope tie ins to be 3:1 and bench slopes to be 10:1. Bench widths will vary to balance
earthwork and based on site conditions. As shown in the design plans, they are all currently
greater than 1.5 bankfull width. Wildlands anticipates bench widths greater than 1.5
bankfull widths as a consistent minimum for proposed priority two benches during
construction.
• Page 21, First Paragraph, Last Sentence: Please revise sentence structure. Words accidently left out.
• The last sentence of the paragraph was revised to: "Livestock will be excluded along the
entire length of the reach."
• 7.6.5 UT4: Based on the profile shown on the plan sheet there is concern of adverse impact to the
existing culvert upstream of the site. Will raising UT4 through a Priority 1 restoration impound the
culvert upstream of the site or cause sediment deposition in the pipe?
• There is not an existing culvert upstream of UT4. The existing culvert along UT4 is being
removed as part of the project. If NCDMS is referring to UT1 and the associated upstream
4

culvert, Wildlands will evaluate the condition of the culvert before final design and
determine if it makes logistical sense to replace this small culvert as part of the project, but
based on the current design, Wildlands is not concerned about damage to the existing pipe
based on the installation of the downstream BMP and associated stream restoration.
• 7.7.3 Hydrologic Monitoring and Evaluation:
• Will the filling of the agricultural ditches and swales create a drainage concern up gradient
and outside of the conservation easement?
o Wildlands has evaluated areas outside the proposed conservation easement and
believes that we have addressed future drainage concerns. Upgradient of delineated
wetland M outside of the proposed conservation easement, positive drainage will
be maintained via an existing drainage ditch. Between the two forks of the proposed
wetland the topography increases by at least 1-foot quickly, which will help this area
maintain upland hydrology. Drainage effects at the very upstream extent of
delineated wetland N are minor when compared to the interior of the wetland
restoration areas. Areas beyond the proposed wetland boundary and stream
floodplain quickly increase in elevations, helping to avoid increased inundation. Text
was added in Section 5.2 addressing potential hydrologic trespass to clarify these
evaluations within the mitigation plan.
• Please provide rationale for a hydrologic success criterion of 12% with 3 gauges ranging
from 16-30% in the existing conditions.
o As outlined in the report, 12% represents the upper limit of wetland saturation
thresholds provided in the Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for the Wilmington District (October 24,
2016) for the site soils (Worsham) which were determined by an outside License Soil
Scientist (LSS). Additionally, when looking at rainfall patterns for 2019, February,
April, June, and August of the growing season were either at or exceeded the 70%
rainfall exceedance threshold based on historic data established by the Gaston
County WETS table. As noted in the report groundwater gages with higher
inundation periods (1,3, and 5) are within the interior area proposed for wetland
restoration and as shown by data from gages 2 and 4 are not necessarily
representative of the entire proposed wetland restoration area. Based on these
observations, Wildlands believes a saturation threshold of 12% represents
monitoring criteria on the wetter end of regulatory guidance as a minimum success
criterion, which is consistent with Site goals. Wildlands added the 2019 rainfall
evaluation to Appendix 7 and updated headings in Table 16 for clarification.
• Recommend putting reference gauge hydroperiod in Table 16.
o Average consecutive days of inundation and corresponding percent of growing
season for four years of monitored groundwater data was added to Table 16. It
should be noted that reference wetland information including soil types, vegetation,
landscape information, and hummock depth/formation are all information gleaned
from reference wetland areas. Hydrology is only one of many factors used to
identify a useful reference wetland.

• 7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan:
• The October 20161RT Mitigation Guidance states that planting shall occur between
November 15 and March 15. Please update section to reflect this time frame.
Section 7.8 was updated with the following text: "Per the 2016 NCIRT Mitigation
Guidance plantings are preferred to occur between November 15 and March 15,
however, in some cases the March 15 deadline cannot be met but planting must
occur no later than April 30 for acceptance as a full season of monitoring. Per IRT
Guidance, vegetation monitoring also cannot be started within 180 days of the
completion of planting."
• Does WEI plan on treating fescue and other undesirable pasture grasses prior to or during
construction? The IRT has recommended early treatment in the past based on observations
of fescue impeding planted vegetation establishment and vigor.
o Wildlands primary treatment method for fescue will be mechanical removal based
on roughening of the wetland area and overall extent of site grading. If areas of
fescue are not proposed for grading or roughening, Wildlands will employ chemical
applications via tree rings to offset any impeding bareroot growth post construction.
• 7.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties:
• Detailed culver information was not included in the plan sheet details for the draft submittal.
Please verify that the new culvert will be appropriately sized and installed correctly to allow
aquatic organism passage.
o Detailed culvert information is not typically included with Mitigation Plan
submittals. This level of design is implemented after IRT Mitigation Plan approval.
The proposed culvert crossing will be sized to pass a minimum 10-year storm event
and will be imbedded below stream bed grade between 8-inches and 12-inches
depending on the determined pipe size.
• 8.2 Vegetation:
Please identify the target community types and reference the sheet number of the species
list for each zone in the design plans.
o The following text was added to Section 8.2: "The Site will be planted with species
to achieve a target community of a Southern Piedmont Small Floodplain and
Riparian Forest. Species designated for planting were selected based on
compatibility of silvics with expected site conditions within a given planting zone,
observation of reference communities, and best professional judgement. Species
lists for each planting zone are listed on Sheet 4.0 of the preliminary design plans
included in the Appendix. Additionally, proposed planting zones are shown in Figure
11."
• WEI expects stunted vegetation growth in proposed wetland restoration areas due to
inundation periods. What average height does WEI expect to see in these areas? WEI may
want to reiterate this expectation in Table 17.
o Wildlands added the following text to Section 8.2 and Table 17: "However, given
inundation periods anticipated for areas proposed for wetland restoration, woody

vegetation growth may be hindered in these areas resulting in stunted heights.
Taking this into consideration, monitoring criteria for woody vegetation within
wetland restorations zones should average 3.5 feet in height in each plot at the end
of the fifth monitoring year (MY5) and 5 feet in height in each plot at the end of the
seventh year (MY7) of monitoring year."
• 8.5 Ben thic Macroin vertebrates and Water Quality Monitoring:
• If WEI wants to pursue the potential2% to 4% credit bonus associated with additional
monitoring, then a plan must be outlined in the Mitigation Plan and not after the fact. Please
include a monitoring plan and discussion including water quality and benthic
macroin vertebrate sampling techniques that will be employed to accomplish this task. Please
update the mitigation plan accordingly. If WEI decides to pursue the additional monitoring,
please allow DMS to review the protocols before submitting final draft.
o Wildlands has evaluated this option and does not plan to pursue the potential 2% to
4% credit bonus.
• 9.0 Monitoring Plan, Table 17, Table 18, Plansheets:
• The number of monitoring stations does not comply with the USACE 2016 Guidance
Document requirements for streams. At the design bankfull width for Carpenter Creek, 18
cross sections are prescribed, 5 have been proposed. Additional gauges may also be
requested to meet the requirement to gauge the center and edges of wetlands. Please
update accordingly.
o Wildlands original proposed number of 5 cross sections was based on Carpenter
Branch classifying as a narrow stream with a proposed bankfull width of 7.5 feet and
2 cross sections per 1,000 LF of channel based on the guidance. Alternatively, if
Carpenter Branch Reach 1 is classified as a large stream with a proposed linear
footage of restoration of 2,250 LF. The guidance would require 15 cross sections
based on the guidance for large streams of 1 monitoring cross-section per 20
bankfull widths (2,250/(7.5*20)). However given that a 7.5-foot bankfull width is on
the smaller end of what is considered a large stream (not definitive in the guidance),
along with previous project experience and associated standard monitoring practice
considerations, Wildands proposes 12 Cross Sections (6 riffle, 6 pool) for Carpenter
Branch. Table 18 and Figure 10 have been updated accordingly.
o Wildlands previous experience with wetland gaging post construction within
wetland restoration areas has been approximately one groundwater gage per acre
depending on Site conditions. Based on existing gaging of the Site, Wildlands
believes 9 groundwater gages should be sufficient to map overall groundwater
trends throughout the wetland area.
Table 18: Please provide rationale for baseline pebble counts at riffle and then conducting reach
wide counts only during monitoring.
o Wildlands performs Riffle 100-count substrate sampling during baseline monitoring only
to characterize pavement within the riffles in the as -built conditions. Reach -wide pebble
counts are performed on restoration reaches in monitoring years one, two, three, five,
and seven for classification purposes of Rosgen channel types.

• Table 20
• DMS is currently updating the Required Tables Spreadsheet based on IRT and Provider
feedback. Please add a column at the end for "Credits".
o A column was added for Mitigation Credits in the Required DMS Mit Plan Tables
digital submittal as well as Table 20:Project Asset Table within the report.
• For accounting purposes, please extend the credit calculations out the third decimal place for
streams and wetlands.
o Stream and wetland credits are listed to 3 decimal places in the Required DIMS Mit
Plan Tables digital submittal as well as Table 20: Project Asset Table within the
report.
Credit calculations used in the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator are
slightly off when compared to Table 20. For example, Restoration Creditable Stream Length
is shown as 3021.3 in the calculator, but summing Table 20 yields 3021. Preservation in the
calculator shows 477.5, but Table 20 is 477. Total Baseline Credit in the calculator is shown
as 3116.80, but Table 20 indicates 3116. Please revise once Table 20 has been finalized.
o Lengths and crediting were finalized and are now identical within the Wilmington
District Buffer Credit Calculator and Table 20.
• The Asset Table tab in the Required Tables file shows UT4 as Restoration at a 2:1 ratio, and
Table 20 in the report shows it as 1:1. Please update.
o UT4 Restoration was revised to 1:1 in the Required DIMS Mit Plan Tables digital
submittal.
• Please populate the Stream Restoration Level columns with their respective lengths.
o Stream Restoration Level columns were populated in the Required DIMS Mit Plan
Tables digital submittal as well as Table 20: Project Asset Table within the report.
• Figure 9 and Figure 10: Please add location of proposed fencing.
• Cattle are being removed from the property by the property owners as the method of cattle
exclusion. No fencing is proposed for the project.
• Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings: The IRT has requested recently that a figure noting the
different planting zones to be included in the mitigation plan. Please consider adding this figure in
the Figures section and referencing in the report.
• Figure 11 (Proposed Planting Zone Map) was included and referenced in Section 8.2.
• Preliminary Design Plans:
• Please add fencing and detail.
o Cattle are being removed from the property by the property owners as the method
of cattle exclusion. No fencing is proposed for the project.
• Update plans with wetland safety fence locations for final.
A

o Wildlands updated the plans to show safety fence where wetlands abut disturbed
areas within the LOD. Wildlands will refine these locations as we develop final
construction plans.
• There are currently 3 details for safety fence in the draft plans
o Extra safety fence details were removed from design plans
• Digital Deliverables:
• The following asset features had feature lengths/areas that differed from the reported
values. Please provide updated features for these assets that accurately represent the values
reported in Table 20.
o UT4: 34 ft vs 45 ft
Proposed length was updated and changed to 36.364 ft in Table 20 for UT4
to reflect the proposed length of UT4 restoration per the design plans. The
attribute length for UT4 was updated in the feature class to reflect 36.349
ft.
o Wetland Re -Establishment: 5.714 ac vs 5.897 ac
■ The attribute area for Wetland Re -Establishment was updated in the feature
class to reflect 5.714 ac
• Please provide vegetation plot features as polygons rather than points.
o A polygon feature class has been created for the vegetation plots and is included in
the proposed condition geodatabase; the point feature class of the veg plots has
been deleted from the geodatabase.
• Please add ID attributes to all monitoring features.
o All monitoring feature attribute tables have been updated with populated ID fields.
These ID fields are subject to change at the As -Built and Baseline Monitoring stage
of the project based on field conditions during initial monitoring appurtenance
establishment.
• In Fig 3, there are 9 existing conditions cross sections, but only 3 existing conditions cross -
sections were included in Appendix 6.
o Appendix 6 as well as the associated digital files were updated to include all 9 cross
sections.
• Data for 6 of the 9 existing conditions cross sections were provided in the required DMS Mit
Plan Tables Spreadsheet. Please include data for the remaining 3 cross -sections.
o Data for the remaining three cross sections are now provided in the required DMS
Mitigation Plan Tables Spreadsheet.
• Please provide Excel versions of cross-section, substrate and gauge data instead of PDFs.
o Excel data was added to the existing conditions folder of the digital submittal. This data
is also provided in the Required DMS Mitigation Plan Tables Spreadsheet sheet for
cross -sections, substrate, and gage data.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction............................................................................................................................3
2.0
Watershed Approach and Site Selection...................................................................................3
3.0
Baseline and Existing Conditions..............................................................................................4
3.1 Landscape Characteristics............................................................................................................4
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover....................................................................................................................5
3.3 Existing Vegetation.......................................................................................................................6
3.4 Existing Project Resources............................................................................................................
7
4.0
Functional Uplift Potential.....................................................................................................10
4.1 Wetland Functional Uplift Potential...........................................................................................
10
4.2 Stream Functional Uplift Potential.............................................................................................
10
4.3 Hydrology....................................................................................................................................11
4.4 Hydraulics...................................................................................................................................
11
4.5 Channel Geomorphology............................................................................................................
11
4.6 Physicochemical..........................................................................................................................11
4.7 Biology........................................................................................................................................
12
4.8 Overall Functional Uplift Potential.............................................................................................
12
4.9 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift...........................................................................................
12
5.0
Regulatory Considerations.....................................................................................................12
5.1 Biological and Cultural Resources...............................................................................................
13
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.............................................................
13
5.3 401/404......................................................................................................................................13
6.0
Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives......................................................................................15
7.0
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan...........................................................................16
7.1 Design Approach Overview........................................................................................................
16
7.2 Reference Streams......................................................................................................................
17
7.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters...............................................................................
18
7.4 Design Discharge Analysis...........................................................................................................
20
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis......................................................................................................
21
7.6 Project Implementation..............................................................................................................
23
7.7 Proposed Wetland Design Overview..........................................................................................
24
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan.....................................................................................................
28
7.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties....................................................................................................
28
8.0
Performance Standards.........................................................................................................28
8.1 Streams.......................................................................................................................................29
8.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................
30
8.3 Wetland......................................................................................................................................
30
8.4 Visual Assessments.....................................................................................................................
31
8.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality Monitoring.....................................................
31
9.0
Monitoring Plan....................................................................................................................31
9.1 Monitoring Components............................................................................................................
32
10.0 Long -Term Management Plan................................................................................................35
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan...................................................................................................35
12.0 Determination of Credits.......................................................................................................36
13.0 References............................................................................................................................38
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page i September 2020

TABLES
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1..............................................................................
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2..............................................................................
Table3: Project Soil Types.................................................................................................
Table 4: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use............................................................
Table 5: Project Streams Attribute Table...........................................................................
Table 6: Existing Wetland Summary..................................................................................
Table 7: Project Attribute Table Part 4..............................................................................
Table 8: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands...............................................................
Table 9: Mitigation Goals and Objectives..........................................................................
Table 10: Stream and Wetland Stressors and Restoration Approach ...............................
Table 11: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters ...............
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters............................................................
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters............................................................
Table 14: Summary of East Side Design Discharge Analysis ..............................................
Table 15: Results of Competence Analysis........................................................................
Table 16: Existing Groundwater Monitoring Gage Data and Analysis Results .................
Table17: Monitoring Plan..................................................................................................
Table 18: Monitoring Components....................................................................................
Table 19: Long-term Management Plan............................................................................
Table 20: Project Asset Table.............................................................................................
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Service Area Map
Figure 3 Site Map
Figure 4 Watershed Map
Figure 5 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 6 Soils Map
Figure 7 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 8 Discharge Analysis
Figure 9 Concept Map
Figure 10 Monitoring Components Map
Figure 11 Proposed Planting Zone Map
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2 Historic Aerial Photos
Appendix 3 Jurisdictional Determination and Wetland Assessment Forms
Appendix 4 Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 5 Categorical Exclusion Documentation and Agency Correspondence
Appendix 6 Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Design Information
Appendix 7 Wetland Design Documents and Data
Appendix 8 Preliminary Design Plans
Appendix 9 Invasive Vegetation Treatment Plan
Appendix 10 Maintenance Plan
Appendix 11 Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 12 Financial Assurance
Appendix 13 NCIRT Meeting Minutes
Appendix 14 Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculation Results
........................... 3
........................... 4
........................... 4
........................... 6
........................... 8
........................... 9
.........................12
.........................14
.........................15
.........................16
.........................17
.........................19
.........................19
......................... 21
......................... 22
......................... 26
......................... 32
......................... 34
......................... 35
......................... 36
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page ii September 2020

1.0 Introduction
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Gaston County, NC approximately 4.1 miles
south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County border (Figure 1).
The project includes wetland rehabilitation and wetland re-establishment as well as the restoration and
preservation of five unnamed headwater tributaries to Beaverdam Creek which have been given names
for this project (Carpenter Branch, UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4). The project is located within the Catawba River
Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102050020 and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin
03-08-35 and was selected by DMS to provide stream credits and wetland credits for the [Catawba River
Basin HUC 03050103 within the expanded service area] (Figure 2). The Site is located within the South
Fork Catawba River (High Shoals) WS-IV water supply watershed and is located just outside the Indian
Creek Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). The project proposes to restore and preserve stream channels
and restore 10.2-acres of historically altered wetlands. Restoration and preservation of the project
streams and wetlands will provide 3,0530.230 cool stream credits and 8.345 wetland credits and will be
protected in perpetuity by an 18-acre conservation easement. The Site Protection Instrument detailing
the conservation easement is included in Appendix 1. General project information is included below in
Table 1.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1— Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Project Information
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
County
Gaston
Project Area (acres)
18.0
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.410725 N, 81.260717 W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
16.2
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The Site was selected based on its potential to support the goals and objectives of current conservation
and watershed planning documents which are outlined outlined below.
The July 2007 (amended in 2013) Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identifies
sediment impairments on waterways within the basin as a current basin stressor.
Beaverdam Creek is listed as fully supporting of benthic and fish communities within the 2010
Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (WQP). However, the WQP notes that signs of
sedimentation impacting stream health are becoming evident and protection of its headwaters
is a top priority to continue supporting the currently high biological quality of the creek.
The Catawba River basin is also discussed in the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission's (NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). The report notes that streams within the
basin are degraded or threatened by sedimentation, loss of riparian woody vegetation,
channelization and/or stream relocation, and nutrient loading. Poorly managed agricultural
activities and alterations to stream channels, including loss of riparian vegetation are cited as
contributing to sedimentation and habitat degradation via bank erosion.
Restoration of the Site will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP, the DWR
Basinwide WQP, and the NCWRC WAP by reducing sediment loads through cattle exclusion within
headwater tributaries of Beaverdam Creek, creating stable stream banks, and restoring a native forested
riparian buffer. Additionally, the proposed project will reduce nutrient and sediment contributions to
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 3 September 2020

receiving waters in a water supply watershed by restoring a natural headwater wetland which will
increase nutrient and sediment uptake at the Site.
3.0
Baseline and Existing Conditions
The Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 4) is in the central portion of the Catawba 02. It is situated in the
residential countryside in Gaston County just south of the City of Lincolnton and near the Gaston
County/Lincoln County border. The following sections describe the existing conditions of the Site and its
watershed.
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2 — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit)
03050102, 03050102050020
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)
180
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.65%
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
43% forest, 43% agricultural row crops and hay, 8%
grassland/herbaceous, <1% shrubland, 5% urban,
<1% impervious
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
3.1.1 Physiography and Topography
The Site is in the Southern Outer Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont
is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations ranging
anywhere from 300 to 1500 feet above sea level. The Site topography and relief are typical for the
region, as illustrated in Figure 5. Site topography is moderate to flat within the headwater wetland area
that drains to the ephemeral ditches. Stream and valley slopes increase as Carpenter Branch becomes
perennial and flows toward Beaverdam Creek. The downstream end of the project steps down over
natural bedrock features as the stream approaches the floodplain of Beaverdam Creek
3.1.2 Geology and Soils
The Site is located on the Cat Square terrane of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Cat square
terrane is composed of metamorphic sedimentary and volcanic rocks that have been intruded by
younger granitic rocks. The underlying geology of the Site is mapped as Late Proterozoic (500 to 900
million years in age) metamorphic rock mica schist (CZms). Multiple bedrock outcroppings can be seen
on site and within the channel bed.
The proposed project is mapped by the Gaston County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 3. Figure 6 provides a soils map of the Site.
Table 3: Project Soil Types — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Soil Name
Description
Worsham soils are found in depressions and at the toe of slopes on flats in the Piedmont.
Worsham
Slopes are typically between 1 and 4 percent. They are poorly -drained alluvial soils with a very
Loam
low permeability. Worsham Loam is listed on the NC hydric soils list for Gaston County.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 4 September 2020

Soil Name
Description
Chewacla Loam soils are predominantly found in Piedmont river valleys. They are somewhat
Chewacla
poorly -drained alluvial soils with a seasonal high-water table of 6-24 inches. This soil unit is
Loam
frequently flooded or ponded. Chewacla Loam is listed on the NC hydric soils list for Gaston
County.
Pacolet series soils consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that are
Pacolet Sandy
typically found in Piedmont uplands. Slopes are commonly steep (between 15 and 25 percent)
Clay Loam
but can range anywhere from 2 to 60 percent. Most areas of Pacolet series soils are in forests
of pines and mixed hardwoods; however, many areas have been cleared and are used for
agriculture including hay and pasture.
Winnsboro
The Winnsboro series consists of deep, well drained, slowly permeable fine soil that formed in
Loam
material mostly weathered from dark colored basic rocks of the Piedmont. Winnsboro Loam is
typically found on gently to moderately sloping Piedmont uplands.
Helena soils are very deep and moderately well drained soils with slow permeability and
Helena Sandy
moderate to rapid surface runoff. They are typically found on slopes from 0 to 15 percent and
Loam
have a high shrink/swell potential. Helena Sandy Loam is listed on the NC hydric soils list for
Gaston County.
Cecil Sandy
Cecil soils are very deep, well drained moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of
Clay Loam
the Piedmont uplands. They are typically found on slopes between 2 and 15 percent and have
developed in weathered felsic igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks.
Source: Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS, http://www.nres.usda.gov
To confirm the online mapping, a licensed soil scientist (LSS) performed a soil evaluation of the Site
along with Wildlands personnel on April 16, 2018. Details regarding this soils investigation and how it
relates to the wetland restoration design are detailed in Section 7.7 — Proposed Wetland Design
Overview. The soils investigation confirmed the NRCS web soil survey mapping of the Worsham soil
series.
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover
The project watershed totals 0.28 square miles and the primary land uses are agricultural and forest
which each comprise 43% of the watershed area. The next largest category of land use is
grassland/herbaceous which covers 8% of the watershed area. Urban land comprises 5% of the
watershed, and impervious and shrub each comprise less than 1% of the project watershed. The
watershed areas and current land uses for each of the project reaches are summarized in Table 4,
below.
Historical aerial photographs from 1950 to 2016 (Appendix 2) were reviewed for changes in land use and
land cover. The Site has been ditched and maintained as an active cattle and hay pasture as far back as
1950. Based on aerial photography, a small forested area within the proposed wetland restoration was
allowed to reforest starting around 1973. However, in 2014 approximately 2.4 acres was deforested to
provide additional pasture. A watershed reconnaissance survey was performed on November 10, 2016
to identify on the ground potential site stressors. The future land use potential was examined by
reviewing the Gaston County zoning boundaries and the Gaston County 2035 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan (Gaston County Planning & Development Services, 2016). Based on this review, potential future site
stressors include deforestation for residential development and agriculture. Risks are limited as the
majority of the project watershed is already in agriculture and increased hydrology from potential
clearing would be attenuated by the proposed restored forested headwater wetland complex.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 5 September 2020

Table 4: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
NCDWR
Watershed
Reach Name
Stream
Intermittent/
Watershed
Area (sq.
Land Use
Identification
Perennial
Area (acres)
mi.)
Form Scores
43% forest, 43% agricultural row crops,
Carpenter
20.50
Intermittent)
180
0.28
and hay, 8/ grassland/herbaceous, <1/
Branch
38.25
Perennial
shrubland, 5% urban
39% forest, 23% agricultural row crops
UT1
28.50
Intermittent
20
0.03
and hay, 30% grassland/herbaceous, 8%
urban
9%forest, 73%agricultural and hay, 4%
UT2
32.25
Perennial
39
0.06
grassland/herbaceous, 3% shrubland,
11% urban
51% forest, 38% agricultural row crops
UT3
20.75
Intermittent
17
0.03
and hay, 5%grassland/herbaceous, 6%
urban
UT4
35.00
Perennial
23
0.04
27% forest, 73% agricultural row crops
1NCDWR stream ID score of 20.50 and classification of intermittent was based on evaluation performed upstream of UT2
drainage (Figure 4.)
3.3 Existing Vegetation
Throughout the wetland re-establishment areas, vegetation within the drainage ditches is typical of
ephemeral drainages and/or linear wetland features and includes common rush (Juncus effuses) and flat
sedge (Cyperus odoratus). Outside of the drainage ditches, vegetation within wetland re-establishment
areas is currently managed in pasture grasses including tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and foxtail
millet (Setaria italica). Some invasive herbaceous species exist within the pasture including Carolina
horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and dogfennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium). The area upstream of Ditch 2 proposed for wetland rehabilitation was
cleared sometime in 2014 as noted in Section 3.2 of this report. Since vegetation has not been regularly
maintained within the wetland rehabilitation area, native woody and herbaceous species have started
to establish including but not limited to common rush, flat sedge, jewel weed (Impatiens capensis),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow (Salix), riverbirch
(eetula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), and sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). Along with native species, invasive herbaceous and woody species have established
themselves within this area including but not limited to Chinese privet (Ligustrum spp), wild tomato
(Solanum carolinense), honey suckle (Lonicera), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Asian
spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), and hardy orange (Poncirus trifoliata).
Vegetation along the Carpenter Bottom streams consists of native and invasive species within a narrow
riparian corridor varying in width from 15 to 20 feet. Native canopy species within the riparian corridor
include tulip poplar, red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore, sweet gum, and pawpaw (Asimina triloba).
Native shrub and herbaceous species along the reach include American holly (Ilex opaca), jewel weed,
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus). Invasive species along
the reach include Chinese privet, wild tomato, honey suckle, Japanese stiltgrass, Asian spiderwort, hardy
orange, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Outsied the narrow -forested corridor the floodplain is
managed in pasture and consists of common pasture species including tall fescue, foxtail millet, Carolina
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 6 September 2020

horsenettle, common ragweed, dogfennel, bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and broomsedge bluestem
(Andropogon virginicus).
3.4 Existing Project Resources
Wildlands investigated on -site jurisdictional waters of the United States (US) within the proposed
project area. Potential jurisdictional areas were delineated using the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 USACE Wetlands
Delineation Manual and the subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Streams
were classified using North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Classification Forms.
Jurisdictional waters of the US were surveyed for inclusion on plans and figures. Wetland determination
forms representative of on -site jurisdictional areas as well as non -jurisdictional upland areas are
included in Appendix 3. There are five (5) jurisdictional stream channels and 14 jurisdictional wetlands
on -site. An approved preliminary jurisdictional determination including wetland and non -wetland waters
is included in Appendix 3. Table 5 provide a summary of stream resources within the project limits.
Existing conditions are also illustrated in Figure 3. Reach specific cross sections and geomorphic
summaries are provided in Appendix 6.
3.4.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
A total of 14 jurisdictional wetland features (Wetlands A-N) were documented within the assessment
area (Figure 3). Table 6 provides a summary of wetland resources within the project limits. On -site
wetland features exhibit prolonged saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, hydrophytic
vegetation, and a depleted matrix or darkened surface horizons. Wetlands N, M, H, and I are drained by
ephemeral ditches and are currently in active cattle pasture (Figure 3).
Existing wetlands were evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). The
rapid assessment method evaluates field conditions relative to reference condition to generate function
ratings for specific wetland types. Using the NCWAM dichotomous key and best professional judgement,
existing wetlands were classified based on their reference wetland type if the area was not disturbed.
Onsite wetlands were all classified as headwater forests. All delineated wetlands on -site had an overall
wetland rating of low. NCWAM field assessment forms are included in Appendix 3.
3.4.2 Carpenter Branch Reach 1 and Reach 2
Carpenter Branch orginates as an intermittent stream from an agriculatural ditch that drains from
wetland N. Carpenter Branch Reach 1 remains an intermittent stream until the confluence of UT2 where
it becomes perennial. Carpenter Branch Reach 1 flows through an unconfined alluvial valley with
moderate slope in an incised condition (BHR>3.0). The stream exhibits evidence of active soil headcuts,
bank erosion, and cattle activity including wallows and entry/exit runs. Bedform diversity is moderate,
with some sections of riffle -pool sequences. However, much of the bedform is actively impacted by
cattle trampling. A relic road crossing maintains
channel grade for a short section usptream of the
conflluence with UT1. The stream has one existing
undersized cuvlert crossing. In Reach 2, the channel
incison reduces and channel bedform improves.
The valley slope increases and a stable step -pool
channel begins to form. Cattle have access to the
downstream extents, but impacts appear to be
limited by established vegetation which limits cattle
activity. The riparian corridor is narrow and heavily
invested with invasives species, particulary chinese
privet and hardy orange.
VV Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 7 September 2020

3.4.3 UT1
UT1 originates on -site as an ephemeral channel as it flows from a small existing culvert within a forested
buffer. The stream becomes intermittent approximately 70 LF downstream of the existing culvert. The
reach is deeply incised for its entirety and exhibits active erosion on both banks. Bedform is embedded
by bank sediments from active erosion.
3.4.4 UT2
UT2 originates as a perennial stream flowing from agricultural ditches which currently drain Wetlands H
and M. The reach flows through a wooded unconfined valley with a low slope to its confluence with
Carpenter Branch. The bed material consists of fine sediments from adjacent agricultural fields, eroding
banks, and cattle wallows. Bedform diversity and riffle -pool habitat is lacking throughout the reach. The
stream appears to have been channelized at some point, likely to drain upstream wetland areas and/or
connect it to the existing agricultural ditch network.
3.4.5 UT3
UT3 is an intermittent stream that originates within the
project limits. The reach is confined against the right
valley wall for approximately 180 LF before opening to
an unconfined valley. The upstream extents of the reach
are extensively impacted by cattle trampling and
wallowing. The riparian corridor along the reach consists
of sparse mature woody vegetation, with the understory
grazed by cattle. The stream exhibits weak to moderate
riffle -pool sequence and substrate dominated by fines
from upstream cattle impacts.
3.4.6 UT4
U 14 is a perennial stream that originates ott-site. 1 ne
reach flows into the project area through a smooth walled plastic pipe culvert. Downstream of the
existing culvert, the channel is daylighted for approximately 20 LF before converging with Carpenter
Branch. Channel habitat, bedform, and geomorphology is currently not functioning due to the existing
culvert.
Table 5: Project Streams Attribute Table
Parameter
Carpenter Branch
(Intermittent)
Carpenter Branch
(111, R2: Perennial)
UT1
Existing Length of Reach (LF)
376
2189
123
Valley Confinement (confined,
moderately confined, unconfined)
Moderately
confined
Confined to
moderately
confined
Confined
Existing Drainage Area (acres)
48
180
20
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
I
P
I
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
Existing Stream Classification'
G4
G4/134
G4
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)'
III
III/IV/V
III
FEMA Classification
None
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 8 September 2020

Parameter
UT2
UT3
UT4
Existing Length of Reach (LF)
245
387
50
Valley Confinement (confined,
moderately confined, unconfined)
Moderately
confined
Moderately
confined
Confined
Existing Drainage Area (acres)
39
17
23
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
I
P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
Existing Stream Classification'
G
Straightened C
G
Evolutionary Trend (Simon)'
III
III
I
FEMA Classification
None
'The Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) and Simon Channel Evolution Model (Simon, 1989) are for natural streams. These channels
have been heavily manipulated by man and therefore may not fit the classification category or channel evolution as described by these
models. Results of the classification and model are provided for illustrative purposes only.
Table 6: Existing Wetland Summary
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter
Wetland A
Wetland B
Wetland C
Wetland D
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Pacolet
Worsham
Pacolet
Pacolet
Drainage Class
Well drained
Poorly drained
Well drained
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status (field/mapping)
Yes
Yes
No
No
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater &
overbank
flooding
Groundwater &
overbank
flooding
Groundwater
& overbank
flooding
Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method
N/A
N/A
N/A
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Wetland H
Size of Wetland (acres)
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.39
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham
Worsham
Worsham
Worsham
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status (field/mapping)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater &
overbank
flooding
Groundwater &
overbank
flooding
Groundwater
& overbank
flooding
Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hydrologic,
Vegetative
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 9 September 2020

Parameter
Wetland I
Wetland J
Wetland K
Wetland L
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.36
0.01
<0.01
0.02
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Worsham/
Worsham/
Mapped Soil Series
Winnsboro
Winnsboro
Winnsboro
Winnsboro
Poorly
Drainage Class
drained/Well
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
drained
Soil Hydric Status (field/mapping)
Yes/No
Yes/No
No
No
Groundwater &
Groundwater
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
overbank
& overbank
Groundwater
flooding
flooding
Restoration or enhancement method
Hydrologic,
N/A
N/A
N/A
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
Vegetative
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter
Wetland M
Wetland N
Size of Wetland (acres)
1.02
2.35
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham
Worsham
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status (field/mapping)
Yes
Yes
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method
Hydrologic,
Hydrologic,
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
Vegetative
Vegetative
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential
4.1 Wetland Functional Uplift Potential
Areas proposed for wetland re-establishment currently do not provide functions associated with
wetlands due to hydrologic manipulation, agricultural activity, and maintenance of vegetation. Wetland
rehabilitation areas currently provide some functions however one of the physical, chemical, or
biological functions observed in jurisdictional wetlands have been impacted. Functional uplift to existing
wetland areas is expected as a result of the proposed activities on site. Removal of the existing ditch
networks will raise the water table and increase inundations periods, restoring hydrology to the
proposed forested headwater wetland area. Wetland restoration areas will also be planted with native
riparian wetland vegetation and areas of heavy invasive species will be treated. Proposed activities will
result in uplift of various wetland functions including increased water storage and groundwater
recharge, water quality treatment, and increased aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
4.2 Stream Functional Uplift Potential
The potential for functional uplift is qualitatively described in this section using terminology from the
Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman, 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy of five
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 10 September 2020

stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid (and sometimes
reinforces those below it). The five functions in order from bottom to top are hydrology, hydraulics,
geomorphology, physicochemical, and biology. Worksheets were not used to determine ratings of
function shown below. Alternatively, Site observations and information from existing conditions analysis
was used to assume a general rate of function for project resources. Neither the Stream Functions
Pyramid nor the Quantification Tool are proposed to determine success of the mitigation site.
4.3 Hydrology
Site hydrology has been altered by the management of the watershed for livestock and agricultural
practices. These alterations in land cover typically result in reductions in rainfall interception and
evapotranspiration which lead to increases in runoff and water yield (Dunne and Leopold, 1978),
resulting in an increase in both peak flows and base flows. The watershed has adjusted to its landcover
changes and the hydrologic regime has stabilized. Based on observations and the Gaston County 2035
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it is suggested that landcover will continue to be dominated by
agriculture and population growth in the rural area will continue to be low.
A stream restoration project performed at a specific site does not often result in uplift to watershed
hydrology (Harman, 2012). The restoration of the headwater wetland should reduce peak flows through
increased inundation times for areas within the project boundary but, the rainfall -runoff relationship will
not significantly improve within the overall project watershed.
4.4 Hydraulics
Site streams, particularly Carpenter Branch and UT1, are hydraulically impaired due to their lack of
consistent floodplain connection (BHR = 3.4 to 6.1) with a typical entrenchment ratio of 1.4.
Reconnecting or establishing a floodplain using Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration will provide the in -
stream relief needed to improve the hydraulic function of the Site streams. High flow velocities, along
with bankfull channel shear stresses, will be reduced. The channels will be designed to experience out of
bank events at a recurrence interval typical of a naturally functioning stream system. All restoration
reaches will be constructed with a bank height ratio of 1.0 to I.I. The overall water table is expected to
rise to meet the restored elevation of the stream channel. Changes in the stream dimension and
improvement of floodplain connectivity will raise the hydraulic function of the Site streams.
4.5 Channel Geomorphology
Watershed impacts for agricultural and cattle have degraded the streams on Site. Apart from Carpenter
Branch Reach 2, the bedform and habitat along the stream lack diversity. Upstream sedimentation from
active cattle wallows limit pool formation and embed riffles with fine sediments.
There is opportunity to improve the geomorphology function on Site. Channel dimension will be
stabilized on restoration reaches and the incision and bank erosion will be corrected. LWD will be added
to the system through construction of in -stream structures and bank revetments and a riparian buffer
will be planted, resulting in the long-term geomorphic function of Site streams.
4.6 Physicochemical
No water quality sampling has been conducted on the Site and there are no water quality monitoring
stations within the project watershed. The 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP)
identifies sediment impairments on waterways within the basin as a current basin stressor.
Upon completion of the project, the exclusion of cattle within the Site provides a great potential to
improve the physicochemical functioning of the streams. The establishment of a riparian buffer and
headwater wetland system within the conservation easement will reduce runoff and erosion of nutrient -
rich agricultural sediments and eventually provide stream shading, reducing water temperatures. Water
will flow over in -stream structures providing reaeration. However, the potential improvements to
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 11 September 2020

physicochemical functioning on Site streams will not happen immediately and some aspects will not
occur until a mature canopy is established. Therefore, physicochemical improvements will not be
explicitly monitored for success, although visual observations should show that the improvements are in
place and functioning.
4.7 Biology
Currently, no data on the existing biological communities are available. Current habitat conditions vary
on the Site from poor in areas that are actively incising and altered by cattle to excellent in the proposed
preservation reach.
There is opportunity to improve the instream and riparian habitat on Site streams and wetlands.
Instream structures with a variety of rock and woody materials, pools of varying depths, and woody
bank revetments will be added to the streams to increase instream habitat diversity. A wide, consistent
riparian buffer that will shade the stream and improve terrestrial habitat will be planted. Wetland
development will diversify the available habitats for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Despite these
immediate improvements, the biological response may be slow. The ultimate level of improvement in
biology may not occur until after the completion of the seven-year monitoring period. Although the
biological response of the project will be difficult to quantify based on a lack of existing conditions data,
improvements in biologic activity of the Site will likely be noted during visual assessments and
appropriate monitoring of the project.
4.8 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
Overall, the Site has functional uplift potential, from the improvement in watershed hydrology with
wetland re-establishment and riparian buffer establishment to the improvements in stream hydraulics
that will be seen throughout the Site with stream restoration. Improvements in geomorphology will
come with restoring streams that are suited to the valley types throughout the Site. Physicochemical
and biological improvements are a likely result of the project. However, there is no existing basis for
classifying the existing condition of these functions and the likely improvements will occur gradually
after construction.
4.9 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
Due to the project reach length and proximity to non -project parcel boundaries, UT4 was a constraint on
the design approach of Carpenter Bottom Reach 1 and UT1. The design approach selected minimizes
hydrologic trespass while maintaining appropriate stream dimensions to reduce potential long-term
effects on the project. There are no other known Site constraints that will affect the functional uplift of
the project. The valley width on the Site will allow for the development of pattern and dimensions to
restore stable, functioning streams and wetlands. The degree to which the physicochemical and biology
functions can improve on the Site is limited by the watershed conditions beyond the project limits and
the presence of source communities downstream of the Site.
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 7, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are
expanded upon in Sections 5.1-5.3.
Table 7: Project Attribute Table Part 4 — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
PCN1
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 12 September 2020

Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
PCN1
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Coastal Zone Management Act
No
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
1. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan.
5.1 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site was approved on June 12, 2019. This
document included investigation into the presence of threatened and endangered species on Site
protected under The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as any historical resources protected
under The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The biological conclusion for the Site, per the
Categorical Exclusion research and response by US Fish and Wildlife Service, is that "any resulting
incidental take that may results from the associated activities [from the project] is exempt under the
4(d) rule." All correspondence with USFWS and a list of Threatened and Endangered Species in Gaston
County, NC is included in Appendix 5. The conclusion for cultural resources per the Categorical Exclusion
research and response by the State Historic Preservation Office is that there are no historic resources
that would be affected by this project. For additional information and regulatory communications please
refer to the Categorical Exclusion document in Appendix 5.
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The Site is represented on the Gaston County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels 3620 and 3621, with an
Effective date of 9/28/2007. The Site is located outside of the Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
regulatory floodplain associated with Beaverdam Creek. None of the project streams are mapped under
the regulatory authority of FEMA.
Since most of the streams originate on -site, the potential for hydrologic trespass is limited. Areas with
the most risk for hydrologic trespass are where UT4 enters the project and the area upstream of
jurisdictionally delineated wetland M. To address these potential issues, design of the UT4 profile has
been lowered to accommodate current channel grades. Additionally, associated design on the Carpenter
Branch profile downstream of the confluence with UT4 has been lowered to a priority 2 approach to
avoid hydrologic trespass. Upstream of Wetland M, positive drainage within the existing ditch that flows
through the adjacent field outside of the project area will remain and flow will be directed into the
proposed wetland restoration area. Generally, outside of the proposed wetland restoration areas and
the stream floodplain, the topography at the site increases quickly and there is little risk for increased
inundation.
5.3 401/404
Impacts to existing wetlands will be minimized or avoided as much as possible. The majority of these
wetlands are in areas of cattle pasture. Most existing wetlands will be improved by planting native
vegetation and fencing out livestock. Project streams and wetlands will be protected in perpetuity under
the conservation easement placed on the properties. During construction safety fence will be installed
to prevent unintended impacts of on -site wetlands that are located outside of the proposed limits of
disturbance. This fencing will be denoted in the final plans.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 13 September 2020

Table 8 estimates the anticipated impacts to wetland areas on this project. The Pre -Construction
Notification, including this data, will be submitted to the IRT with the Final Mitigation Plan.
Table 8: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Permanent (P) Impact
Temporary (T) Impact
Jurisdictional
Feature
Classification
Acreage
Type of
Impact
Type of
Impact Area
Area
Activity
Activity
(acres)
(acres)
Road
Wetland A
0.07
-
0.007
Naturalization
Floodplain
Wetland B
0.01
0.012
-
-
Grading
Conversion
Floodplain
Wetland C
0.01
to Stream
0.001
0.012
Grading
Resource
Floodplain
Wetland D
0.01
_
-
0.011
Grading
Fill,
Wetland E
0.001
Floodplain
0.001
-
-
Grading
Road
Naturalizatio/
Wetland F
0.07
-
-
0.009
Floodplain
Grading
Construction
Wetland H
Headwater
0.39
Fill
0.012
Access/Floodp
0.067
Forest
lain grading
Conversion
Construction
Wetland 1
0.36
to Stream
0.031
Access/Floodp
0.332
Resource
lain Grading
Fill/Floodplai
Wetland J
0.01
0.011
-
-
n Grading
Construction
Wetland K
0.01
_
-
0.007
Access
Conversion
Floodplain
Wetland L
0.02
to Stream
0.004
0.014
Grading
Resource
Road
Naturalization
Wetland M
1.02
Fill Ditch
0.237
0.070
/Construction
Access
Construction
Wetland N
2.35
Fill Ditch
0.224
Access, Minor
1.990
Grading
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 14 September 2020

6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The project aims to improve stream and wetland functions at a Site level as described in Section 4
through stream restoration, cattle exclusion, buffer re -vegetation, rehabilitation of existing wetlands,
and the re-establishment of relic wetland areas. Project goals are desired project outcomes and are
verifiable through measurement and/or visual assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the
accomplishment of goals. The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as
described in Section 8 of this report. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 9.
Table 9: Mitigation Goals and Objectives — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Function
Supported
Reduce direct fecal coliform and
Exclude livestock
Install livestock fencing as needed to
nutrient inputs to the Site
from stream
exclude livestock from stream
streams. Reduce sediment
Geomorphology,
channels and
channels, wetlands, and riparian
inputs from bank erosion.
Physicochemical,
wetlands.
areas.
Reduce shear stress on channel
Biology
boundary. Eliminate cattle
trampling of wetlands.
Reconstruct stream channels with
Improve the
stable dimension, pattern, and
Reduce sediment inputs from
Hydrology,
stability of stream
profile. Reconnect streams to
bank erosion. Reduce shear
Hydraulics,
channels.
existing floodplain. Add bank
stress on channel boundary.
Geomorphology,
revetments and in -stream structures
Increase floodplain engagement.
Biology
to protect restored streams.
Increase and diversify available
Install habitat features such as
habitats for macroinvertebrates,
constructed steps, constructed
fish, and amphibians. Promote
Geomorphology,
Improve instream
riffles, and brush toe on restored
aquatic species migration and
Physicochemical,
habitat.
reaches. Add woody materials to
recolonization and increase in
Biology
channel beds. Construct pools of
biodiversity over time. Add
varying depth.
complexity including LWD to the
streams
Restore wetland
Restore wetlands through re -
Hydrology,
function and
establishment of hydrology. Remove
Raise water table and hydrate
Physicochemical,
hydrology.
the drainage effects of agricultural
riparian wetlands.
Biology
ditching and maintenance.
Reduce sediment inputs from
Restore and
bank erosion and runoff.
Hydrology,
enhance native
Plant native tree, shrub, and
Increase nutrient cycling and
Hydraulic,
floodplain and
understory species in riparian and
storage in Provide
Geomorphology,
wetland
proposed wetland restoration zones.
riparian and wetland habitat.
d wetland
physicochemical,
vegetation.
Add a source of LWD and
Biology
organic material to Site streams.
Support all stream functions
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 15 September 2020

Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Function
Supported
Permanently
Protect Site from encroachment
Hydraulic,
protect the project
Establish conservation easements on
on the riparian corridor and
Geomorphic,
site from harmful
the Site.
direct impact to streams and
Physicochemical,
uses.
wetlands. Support all stream
Biology
functions
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
7.1 Design Approach Overview
The design approach for this Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 6
which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 4. The design is also
intended to provide the expected outcomes in Section 6, though these are not tied to performance
criteria. Carpenter Branch and its associated tributaries will be reconnected with their active floodplains
and reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile. The headwater wetland system will be
restored (either re-established or rehabilitated) by plugging and filling the agricultural drainage swales.
The floodplains and wetlands will be planted with native tree species and invasive species will be treated
where necessary. Instream structures will be constructed in the channels to help maintain stable
channel morphology, improve aquatic habitat, and enhance channel bedform. Cattle will be excluded
from the entire project area, eliminating wallow areas within the headwater streams and wetlands. The
entire project area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement. Table 10 summarizes the
stressors of each project reach and the mitigation activities expected to address those stressors.
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration, and also relies on empirical data and prior experience and observations. Reference reaches
and reference wetlands were identified to serve as a portion of basis for design. Channels were sized
based on design discharge analysis which uses a combination of empirical and analytical data as
described within this report. Wetland potential and hydrology was assessed with existing groundwater
gage data, reference wetland data, and soils analysis. These design approaches have been used on many
successful Piedmont restoration projects and are appropriate for the goals and objectives for this Site.
Table 10: Stream and Wetland Stressors and Restoration Approach
Project Reach
Primary Stressors/Impairments
Approach
Mitigation Activities
Poor Buffer, bank erosion cattle
Restoring appropriate dimension, adding
Carpenter Branch
impacts, stream incision, lacking
R
bedform with instream structures, planting
Reach 1
bedform (pool habitat)
buffers, excluding cattle, protecting with
conservation easement.
Carpenter Branch
Minor cattle impacts
P
Excluding cattle and protecting with
Reach 2
conservation easement.
Poor Buffer, bank erosion, cattle
Restoring appropriate dimension, adding
UT1
impacts, stream incision, lacking
R
bedform with instream structures, planting
bedform.
buffers, excluding cattle, protecting with
conservation easement.
Poor Buffer, bank erosion, cattle
Restoring appropriate dimension, planting
buffers, excluding cattle, protecting with
UT2
impacts, stream incision, invasive
R
conservation easement, treating invasive
species in riparian buffer.
species.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 16 September 2020

Project Reach
Primary Stressors/Impairments
Approach
Mitigation Activities
Poor Buffer, bank erosion cattle
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
UT3
R
planting buffers, protecting with
impacts, stream incision.
conservation easement
Daylighting stream and restoring natural
UT4
Encapsulated in existing culvert
R
channel features including dimension and
bedform.
Maintained vegetation for
Plugging/filling drainage features, planting
Wetland Re-
agriculture, decreased hydrology
native wetland community, treating invasive
establishment
due to drainage features, cattle
R
species, excluding cattle.
impacts.
Existing drainage features,
Plugging/filling drainage features, planting
Wetland
maintained vegetation, invasive
R
native wetland community, treating invasive
Rehabilitation
species, cattle impacts
species, excluding cattle.
(wallowing and trampling).
7.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
pieces of design of for stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Six
reference reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the design of the project streams
(Figure 7). These reference reaches were chosen because based on their similarities to the Site streams
including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. Reference geomorphic parameters
for these reaches are summarized in Appendix 4. The references to be used for the specific streams are
shown in below in Table 11. A description of each reference reach is included below.
Table 11: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Design Stream
Carpenter Branch
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Reach
1
Reference Stream
Stream Type
Reedy Creek Nature Preserve
B4c
X
UT to Lyle Creek
C5
X
X
Foust Upstream
C4
X
UT to S. Fork Catawba
E5
X
UT to Sandy Run
E4
X
X
X
UT to South Crowders
E4
X
X
X
7.2.1 Reedy Creek Nature Preserve —South Fork
The Reedy Creek Nature Preserve — South Fork reference reach is located in northeast Mecklenburg
County, NC on the publicly -owned Reedy Creek Nature Preserve and Park. The stream receives drainage
from a 0.2 square mile watershed. The stream's width -to -depth ratio ranges from 6.0 to 11.7 and the
overall channel slope is 0.67%. Habitat features include meander pools, pools formed around logs and
debris, rock riffles, root mats, and woody debris in the stream. The reach classifies as a B4c stream.
7.2.2 Foust Upstream
Foust Creek is located within the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont, approximately 12 miles
south of Burlington, NC, in Alamance County. The stream receives drainage from a 1.4 square mile
watershed. Wildlands collected riffle cross -sections, pool cross -sections, and a longitudinal profile
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 17 September 2020

representative of the reference reach. The stream's width -to -depth ratio ranges from 14.3 to 15.7. The
Foust Creek reference site classified as a C4 channel.
7.2.3 UT to Sandy Run
UT to Sandy Run is located in Cleveland County, 45 miles west of Charlotte, NC. This site is classified as
an E4 stream type and has a drainage area of 0.15 square miles. The valley slope is 2.0% and the channel
slope is 1.5%. The bed material d50 for the reach is 19 mm. While the stream formally classifies as an E-
type channel, the stream and valley slope are steeper than typical E channels, and reference conditions
observed in the field appeared analogous to B channels on -site.
7.2.4 UT to South Crowders
UT to South Crowders is a perennial stream located in Crowder Mountain State Park that receives 0.22
square miles of drainage from the forested mountain side. The stream is quite sinuous given the 2.57%
valley, with a sinuosity of 2.2. UT to South Crowders is an example of a classic, small E4 stream within a
higher sloped setting, with a width to depth ratio ranges from 5.7 to 8.2 and a high entrenchment ratio
ranging from 3.7 to 4.2. The stream is fully connected to its alluvial floodplain, and supports varied
habitats including root mats, deep meander pools, rock riffles, and woody debris in the channel.
7.2.5 UT to South Fork Catawba — Vile Preserve
UT to South Fork Catawba River - Vile Preserve is a perennial stream located in the floodplain of the
South Fork Catawba River. The stream flows through a broad, flat, wetland floodplain complex, which
receives runoff from adjacent agricultural uplands. The stream is completely connected to the floodplain
wetlands with a bank height ratio of 1.0 and an entrenchment ratio over 30. The reach has a low slope
with a sandy substrate and classifies as a Rosgen E5 stream type. The channel dimension, interaction
with the floodplain wetland, and similar stream substrate make it an applicable reference reach for
design of the streams within the wetlands on the West side of the project.
7.2.6 UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Lyle Creek is a perennial stream flowing through the broad, flat floodplain of Lyle Creek. UT to
Lyle's watershed is wooded, and the stream is fully connected to the floodplain with a bank height ratio
of 1.0 and an entrenchment ratio of over 2.5. The width -to -depth ratio ranges from approximately 15 to
18, and the overall valley slope is approximately 0.8%. UT to Lyle Creek has a sinuosity of 1.1 and
classifies as a straight, C5 stream channel. In -stream habitat features within this reach include shallow
pools, woody debris, and small sections of tree roots.
7.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reaches were a primary source of information to develop the pattern and profile design
parameters for the streams. Ranges of pattern parameters were developed within the reference reach
parameter ranges with some exceptions based on best professional judgement and knowledge from
previous projects. For example, for meandering C designs, radius of curvature ratio is kept above 1.8 on
all reaches and meander width ratio is kept above a 2.4. Meandering designs have pool widths to be 1.2
to 1.5 times the width of riffles to provide adequate point bars and riffle pool transition zones.
Wildlands has found these minimum ratios to support stable geometry. Designer experience was used
for pool design as well. Pool depths were designed to be a minimum of 3 times deeper than riffles to
provide habitat variation. Cross-section parameters such as area, depth, and width were designed based
on the design discharge and stable bank slopes. Key morphological parameters for the Site are listed in
Table 12 and Table 13. Complete morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions
are in Appendix 6.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 18 September 2020

Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters- Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Parameter
Carpenter Branch Reach 1
UT1
Existing
Reference: UT to
S. Fork Catawba
Proposed
Existing
Reference:
UT to South
Crowders
Proposed
Valley Width (ft)
14
N/A
17 - 26
4-8
N/A
11-18
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
180
602
180
20
141
20
Channel/Reach Classification
G4
E5
C4
G4/5
E4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
10.2
6.1 - 6.2
7.5
3.1
6.1- 8.4
5.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7 - 0.8
0.6
0.6
1.0-1.1
0.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
7.0
4.5 - 5.3
4.4
1.8
6.4 - 8.7
1.9
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s)
2.0
11.0
3.2
3.8
2.9
3.3
Design Discharge (cfs)
14
54
14
7
22
6
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0130
0.0068
0.0120
0.0258
0.0091
0.0200
Sinuosity
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
2.2
1.3
Width/Depth Ratio
15
7-8
12.5
5
6-8
12.5
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
1.0
1.0-1.1
6.1
1.4 - 2.1
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
3.0+
2.2 - 3.5
1.4
3.7 - 4.3
2.2 - 3.5
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters- Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Parameter
UT2
UT3
Existing
Reference: UT to
Lyle Creek
Proposed
Existing
Reference: UT
to Sandy Run
Proposed
Valley Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
13 - 21
N/A
N/A
13 - 21
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
39
160
39
17
96
17
Channel/Reach Classification
G4/5
C5
C4
G4/5
E4
C41b
Design Discharge Width (ft)
4.2
7.0 - 8.6
6.0
9.5
7.3 - 7.8
6.0
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.7 - 0.8
0.5
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
3.4
3.5 - 4.1
2.9
2.8
5.7 - 6.2
2.9
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s)
3.5
4.7
3.0
2.2
3.4
3.8
Design Discharge (cfs)
12
18
8
6
20
8
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0116
0.0057
0.008
0.026
0.0150
0.023
Sinuosity
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
5
15 -18
12
32
7 -10
13
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.0
1.0-1.1
1.3
1.7
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
5.7 - 6.4
2.2 - 3.5
N/A
1.6 - 2.1
2.2 - 3.5
Existing geomorphic parameters are not provided for UT4 because the entirety of the existing reach is within an existing culvert. Proposed geomorphic
design ratios for UT4 are included in Appendix 6.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 19 September 2020

7.4 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for each of the project restoration
reaches: the NC Rural Piedmont regional curve (Harman et al., 1999), NC Piedmont/Mountain regional
curve (Walker, unpublished), a Wildlands regional USGS flood frequency analysis, a site -specific
reference reach curve, existing bankfull indicators using Manning's equation, and data from previous
successful design projects. The resulting values were compared, and best professional judgment was
used to determine the specific design discharge for each restoration reach. Each data source is plotted
on Figure 8 to show the relationship of the data to the design discharge selections.
Determining the bankfull discharge for Carpenter Branch relied heavily on existing bankfull indicators
and onsite reference riffle cross -sections. Existing cross -sections along Carpenter Branch suggest a
channel forming discharge significantly less than the values estimated when using the other listed
methods. This decrease in discharge can be attributed to the attenuation of water in the wetland
upstream of Carpenter Branch. Wetland restoration efforts will furthermore increase the attenuation of
water, and therefore a relatively low bankfull discharge was determined for Carpenter Branch.
7.4.1 Regional Curve Data
Discharge was estimated using the published NC Rural Piedmont Curve (Rural Data on Figure 8) as well
as the updated curve for rural Piedmont and Mountain streams, shown as the Alan Walker Curve on
Figure 8.
7.4.2 Wildlands Regional USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator
Wildlands developed a regional flood frequency analysis tool that tailored the USGS 2009 publication
Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006 to the
Piedmont of North Carolina. Of the 103 stations referenced in the publication, 23 were used in the
development of the tool. To fill gaps in data, five additional stations were added by Wildlands to
represent streams with drainage areas less than one square mile. The Hosking and Wallis homogeneity
test was performed in R© to identify the most appropriate gages based on homogeneity (Hosking and
Wallis, 1993). The gages used were:
• USGS 02096740 — Gun Branch near Alamance, NC (DA = 4.06 mil)
• USGS 02096846 — Cane Creek near Yadkin Grove, NC (DA = 7.54 mil)
• USGS 02097010 — Robeson Creek near Pittsboro, NC (DA = 1.71 mil)
• USGS 02101030 — Falls Creek near Bennett, NC (DA = 3.43 mil)
• USGS 0210166029 — Rocky River at SR1300 near Crutchfield Crossroads, NC (DA = 7.42 mil)
The data from these 28 gage stations were used to develop flood frequency curves for the 1.2-year and
1.5-year recurrence interval discharges. These relationships can be used to estimate discharge of those
recurrence intervals for ungaged streams in the same hydrologic region, and were solved for each
project reach's discharge with the drainage area as the input. The discharge estimates are shown on
Figure 8 as the USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator 1.2-yr Predictions.
7.4.3 Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
Six reference reaches were identified for this project. Each reference reach was surveyed to develop
information for analyzing drainage area -discharge relationships as well as development of design
parameters. Stable cross -sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull
discharge with the Manning's equation for each reference reach. The resulting discharge values were
plotted with drainage area on Figure 8 (Reference Reach Curve) and compared the other discharge
estimation methods.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 20 September 2020

7.4.4 Existing Bankfull Indicators (Manning's Equation)
A riffle cross-section was surveyed on each design reach on the Site, with the exception of UT4, totaling
4 cross -sections. Bankfull indicators were identified in the field during this survey. Manning's equation
was used to calculate a corresponding discharge using the survey data for channel slope. It can be
difficult to identify bankfull features on disturbed reaches which can lead to uncertainty in the results.
For this reason, the results from this method were considered but were not weighted heavily when
determining the bankfull discharge.
7.4.5 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
The design discharges for each restoration project reach were developed so that the reconstructed
channels will flood with the desired frequency. Results from each of the methods described above were
evaluated and compared to the other methods. For this analysis, the most emphasis was placed on the
results from the regional flood frequency (1.2-year event) and the piedmont regional curve in selecting a
design discharge for UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4, while existing cross -sections were analyzed to select a
design discharge for Carpenter Branch. Table 14 gives a summary of the discharge analysis.
Table 14: Summary of East Side Design Discharge Analysis — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Carpenter
Branch Reach 1
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
DA (acres)
180
20
39
17
23
DA (sq. mi.)
0.28
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.04
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs)
35
7
10
10
7
Alan Walker Curve (cfs)
20
4
5
5
4
Wildlands Regional USGS
Flood Frequency Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year event
30
6
9
9
6
1.5-year event
44
9
13
13
9
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
27
6
8
8
6
Max Q from Manning's Eq. from XS survey (cfs)
1 237
285
21
14
N/A
Final Design Q (cfs)
14
1 6
1 8
1 8
6
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
The watershed was assessed via aerial photography and field reconnaissance to characterize the current
land cover and potential sediment sources. As discussed in Section 3.2, the majority of the project
watershed is dominated by pasture, agriculture fields, and forest. Primary potential sediment sources
include overland runoff from agricultural fields and active streambank erosion.
Project streams were visually assessed to obtain qualitative data on aggradation and degradation within
the channels. The presence of fine sediment throughout the project streams indicate that the current
agricultural practices and unstable stream conditions are overloading the carrying capacity of the
project streams and their ability to move fine sediment. Observations of incised channels, actively
eroding stream banks, and cattle wallowing within headwater streams indicate that actively degrading
channels are a major source of fine sediment to the stream. Restoring the project streams and valley will
address the major local sediment sources by protecting stream banks, removing unconsolidated alluvial
deposits, reducing shear stress, and eliminating sediment from livestock trampling. The revegetated
headwater wetland system will capture agricultural sediments further reducing local sediment loads.
Buffers will be converted from active cattle pasture to undisturbed native woody vegetation, stabilizing
potential floodplain sediment sources. By addressing local sediment sources, capacity issues currently
observed on -site should be dramatically improved post construction. The focus of sediment transport
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 21 September 2020

analysis for design was to verify that the designed channels will have the competence to pass the
sediment that continues to be delivered by the watershed while still maintaining channel stability after
local sediment issues have been addressed at the Site.
7.5.1 Competence Analysis
Competence analysis was performed for Carpenter Branch Reach 1, comparing existing and proposed
shear stress, mean depth, and slope. The evaluation was performed to determine parameter
requirements to move the maximum particle of the existing bed material sampled at the Site. Carpenter
Branch Reach 1 is representative of site conditions and contains the majority of Site assets. As such,
sediment transport analysis was not performed on the associated unnamed tributaries. Additionally, the
data was used to evaluate whether channel shear stress exceeds required maximum values and could
potentially cause channel degradation of the existing bed material without further supplementing
coarser material within the channel. The analysis utilized standard equations based on a methodology
using the Shields (1936) curve and Andrews (1984) equation described by Rosgen (2001). The results of
the analysis are shown in Table 15.
Table 15: Results of Competence Analysis — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Carpenter Branch Reach 1
Existing
Proposed
Dbkf (ft)
0.7
0.6
Schan (ft/ft)
0.0130
0.0120
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft)
0.49
0.42
Dmax Bar/Subpavement (mm)
30
30
Movable particle size (mm)
Shields/Rosgen
37/90
32/81
Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax
Shields/Rosgen
0.40/0.11
0.40/0.11
While the proposed design reduces shear stress of the bankfull channel, both the Shield's and Rosgen's
results indicate that the proposed stream design exceeds the required shear stress to intiate movement
of the existing bed particles. While the channel should have adequate boundary shear stress to move
most particles in the subpavement layer and theoretically pass the largest particle supplied by the
watershed, if bed substrate material is not supplemented there would be potential for downcutting and
erosion to occur within the stream. The results were used to inform further design of the reach.
The excess shear estimated within the Site stream requires larger material (Dmax > 3.5-inches) be
incorporated within constructed riffles proposed for the Site. The proposed D5o and Dioo for the
constructed riffles on all stream reaches will be sized accordingly to prevent channel degradation.
Additionally, to increase stabilization, structures such as rock/log sills, steps, J-hooks, and vanes will be
installed within the channel to provide grade control. Brush toes will also be installed to increase
roughness within the channel and reduce boundary shear stress along outside meanders. These
measures will ensure a stable pavement layer that also allows for bed load material to be active during
isolated events. It should also be noted that the analysis on the existing channel was only performed up
to a bankfull event, and that the highest shear stresses the existing channel is experiencing occurs
during flow events beyond bankfull in which channel incision limits floodplain connection and exposes
stream banks and beds to extreme stress. The reconstruction of appropriate channel dimension will
eliminate these extreme shear stress events through the reconnection of an active floodplain.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 22 September 2020

7.6 Project Implementation
7.6.1 Overview
The mitigation approaches proposed for the streams and wetlands on Site have been developed to
achieve the potential for functional uplift relative to the existing conditions on the Site (described in
Section 4). The site includes elements of stream restoration, stream preservation, wetland re-
establishment, and wetland rehabilitation as described below. Figure 9 shows the approaches proposed
for the project reaches.
Restoration reaches will be constructed as Priority 1 and Priority 2. Restoration reaches have been
designed to create stable, functional stream channels based on reference parameters, design discharge
analysis, and sediment transport analysis. Dimension, pattern and profile have been designed for all
restoration reaches to provide a cross -sectional area sized for frequent overbank flows, a stable bed
with variable bedforms, well -vegetated bank slopes, and improvements to aquatic habitat. Improved
vertical and lateral stability will reduce stream channel erosion. Diverse bedforms will be established
using in -stream structures appropriate for the geomorphic setting. These structures will provide grade
control to prevent incision and serve as habitat features. Pools will have varied depths to increase
habitat diversity.
In -stream structures for restoration reaches will include riffles, boulders sills, log sills, log j-hooks, and
brush toe. Constructed riffles will be built from excavated on -site rock if it meets specifications and is
available. Quarry stone may be used if on -site materials are not sufficient. Riffle material will also
incorporate woody material and logs, which will provide pore spaces within the riffles, benefiting in -
stream habitat and the hyporheic exchange process. Using a diverse range of constructed material and
types will provide grade control, habitat diversity and will create varied flow vectors. Log j-hooks will
direct the flow away from the banks, while providing grade control and habitat variability. Log and
boulder sills will be used to allow for small grade drops across pools. Brush toe will be used in select
meander bends to help reduce erosion, encourage pool maintenance, and provide varied pool habitat.
The Site includes riparian riverine headwater seep, pocket, and floodplain wetlands that will be re-
established and rehabilitated. Existing agricultural drainage ditches/swales will be filled to provide
hydrologic uplift, appropriate forested wetland vegetation will be established, and invasive species will
be treated.
7.6.2 Carpenter Branch Reach 1 and 2
Carpenter Branch Reach 1 will be restored through a combination of Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration.
Due to profile and earthwork constraints, a Priority 1 approach cannot be used along the entire reach
and a Priority 2 approach is required at transitions as well as at the confluences of tributaries. The
channel will be raised and a floodplain bench will be established with minimum bank height ratios of
1.0-1.1 and minimum entrenchment ratios of 2.2. The channel is designed as a Rosgen C-type stream
with moderate sinuosity. In -stream structures will be added for stream stability, grade control and
habitat variability. A native vegetation riparian buffer will be established, and invasive vegetation will be
treated. Livestock will be excluded along the entire length of the reach.
Carpenter Branch Reach 2 is slated for preservation. The reach is currently stable and exhibits mature
vegetation, stable dimension, and variable bedrock bedform. Desirable aquatic habitat is present
throughout the reach. Invasive vegetation will be spot treated as needed along the reach.
7.6.3 UT1
UT1 will be restored through a combination of Priority 1 and Priority 2 restoration. The channel will be
raised and reconnected to a constructed floodplain bench or relic floodplain where possible. In -stream
structures will be installed to provide bedform, a riparian buffer will be established for enhanced
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 23 September 2020

stability, and livestock will be excluded to eliminate this water quality stressor. At the upstream extent,
a portion of ephemeral channel within the conservation easement will be converted to a step -pool
stormwater conveyance system to address potential storm drainage flowing from an existing culvert. No
maintenance is expected to be required for the step -pool stormwater conveyance system based on the
minimal drainage that it will receive.
7.6.4 UT2 and UT3
UT2 and UT3 are headwater streams which begin within the proposed conservation easement. Both
streams originate at the downstream end of the headwater wetland. The upstream extent of the
streams will be transitioned from small, shallow swales to a dimension indicative of Rosgen C-type
channels. The channels will be restored through Priority 1 restoration and will be raised to reconnect
them to their relic floodplains as they meander towards Carpenter Branch with moderate slope and
sinuosity through unconfined valleys. In -stream structures will be used to promote stability, a native
riparian buffer will be established, livestock will be excluded, and invasive species will be treated along
both reaches. These headwater perennial and intermittent streams provide a key role in overall stream
health and restoration of these streams will help protect larger channels restored downstream.
7.6.5 UT4
UT4 will be daylighted and removed from an existing culvert within the limits of the conservation
easement. The channel will be restored using a Priority 1 restoration approach. A stable pattern and
profile will be established, and in -stream structures will be added to promote a diverse bedform. A
native riparian buffer will be planted, and invasive species will be treated along the reach.
7.6.6 Wetland Re-establishment
Relic wetland areas will be re-established on the Site through hydrologic uplift, establishment of
forested wetland plant communities, cattle exclusion, and roughening to promote increased retention
times. Hydrology within proposed wetland re-establishment areas has been altered through agricultural
ditching and increased drainage effects of channels at the downstream extent. Restoration of these
headwater channels will promote increased hydrology appropriate for a Piedmont forested wetland
system. Vegetation within wetland re-establishment areas has been maintained in pasture and hay has
been grazed by cattle for multiple seasons. Increased roughness from vegetation will reduce surface
drainage effects within the wetland and allow for development of facultative herbaceous and woody
species.
7.6.7 Wetland Rehabilitation
Jurisdictionally delineated areas including wetlands H, I, M and N are slated for rehabilitation. Existing
hydrology within these areas will be improved by filling the existing network of drainage ditches and
roughening the surface of these areas to promote increased retention times. The restoration of existing
incised streams which connect the network of ditches will raise overall water table elevations within the
existing wetland areas which will also improve hydrologic function. Rehabilitation areas which are
dominated by herbaceous vegetation and grasses will be planted with appropriate woody species to
establish a forested wetland system. In previous cutover areas (primarily Wetland N) invasive and
upland species, including hardy orange and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) will be treated. Cattle will also
be excluded from all existing wetland areas, eliminating wallow areas which are currently acting as
nutrient and sediment sources for the project receiving waters.
7.7 Proposed Wetland Design Overview
The proposed design includes the restoration of 8.8 acres of historically altered wetlands which will be
re-established and rehabilitated at the headwaters of Carpenter Branch. Wildlands performed a
multilevel analysis of the proposed wetland area to holistically understand the ditching and
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 24 September 2020

anthropogenic effects, current and proposed hydrologic conditions, and current and potential hydric soil
development.
7.7.1 Jurisdictional Investigation
As outlined in Section 3.4.1 and Table 6 of this report, Wildlands investigated potential waters of the
United States within the project area. These areas were delineated using the USACE routine On -Site
Determination method presented in the 1987 Corps of Engineers delineation manual, the subsequent
Regional Supplement for the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region, groundwater hydrology data,
and the evaluator's best professional judgement. All jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. were located by
sub -meter GPS. The Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted on March 24,
2020. The approved PJD was issued to Wildlands on May 20, 2020 and is included in Appendix 3.
7.7.2 Hydric Soils Investigation
To ensure adequate potential for the development of hydric soils within the proposed wetland
restoration areas, an initial evaluation of Site soils was performed using Natural Resources and
Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey mapping. Soils within the proposed wetland restoration
areas are mapped as Worsham Loam (Figure 6). The Worsham soil series is a poorly drained soils series
with very slow permeability. Worsham soils are listed on the North Carolina hydric soils list for Gaston
County in low sloped and depressional areas meeting hydric criteria 2.
To confirm the online mapping, a licensed soil scientist (LSS) performed a preliminary soil evaluation of
the Site along with Wildlands personnel on April 16, 2018 and also follow up investigation to further
confirm the presence and existence of hydric soils on April 24, 2020. Hand auger borings were advanced
on the property to approximate the location and extent of hydric soils. Borings were evaluated to assess
the presence or absence of hydric soil indicators utilizing the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States —A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (version 7.0, 2010). Based on the
preliminary and follow up site visits, reports and figures included in Appendix 7 were prepared outlining
the potential for wetland restoration on Site. The soils investigation confirmed the NRCS web soil survey
mapping of the Worsham soil series. Soil borings performed within the study area were identified as
hydric soils meeting the F3 — depleted matrix hydric soils indicator. Depth to hydric soil indicators were
less than 10-inches sitewide and in most cases were less than 2" below the land surface. Due to the on -
site ditching, many areas exhibiting hydric soil indicators did not exhibit primary or secondary wetland
hydrology indicators.
7.7.3 Hydrologic Monitoring and Evaluation
Six groundwater gages were installed to evaluate the existing hydrologic conditions of the Site (Figure
3). As much as possible, groundwater gages were placed in transects to allow evaluation of the water
table across the proposed wetland areas. Groundwater gages one through four were placed within the
area proposed for wetland re-establishment, groundwater gage 5 was placed within the main portion of
the project proposed for wetland rehabilitation, and groundwater gage 6 was placed just outside the
proposed wetland restoration boundary.
Groundwater gages collected data at the Site between March 1, 2019 and October 3, 2019. The defined
growing season based on the Gaston County, North Carolina WETS table for 50% probability of soil
temperatures greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit is March 151" to November 141" representing a 250-
day growing season. Table 1 listing wetland saturation thresholds provided in the Notification of
Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for the Wilmington
District (October 24, 2016) defines a wetland saturation threshold for Worsham soils between 10% and
12%. Based on the defined growing season outlined above, wetland saturation thresholds for the project
should range between 25 and 30 consecutive days of inundation within the defined growing season at
VV Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 25 September 2020

the Site to provide minimum hydrology for adequate wetland processes to occur. Given that Wildlands
had nearly an entire growing season of groundwater gage data across the Site, an evaluation of existing
water table elevations was performed based on the installed gages.
An evaluation of the data from the installed existing groundwater gages is shown below in Table 16 and
plots of the existing groundwater data are provided in Appendix 7. Based on the evaluated data,
groundwater gages 1, 3, and 5 saw consecutive inundation periods of 48-days, 48-days, and 73-days,
respectively. For these gages, this represents 19.6%, 19.6%, and 29.8% of the growing season for the
three gages. Groundwater gages 2 and 4, both show consecutive inundation periods of 22-days,
representing 9% of the growing season. Groundwater gage 6 recorded 13 days of consecutive
inundation within the growing season representing 5.3%. Gage data collected within areas proposed for
wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment show that the Site is very close if not currently getting
adequate hydrology to begin to allow wetland processes to occur. The identification of shallow hydric
soils, and the amount of delineated wetland features further supports that the Site is either currently
meeting a wetland hydrologic regime or is just outside the hydrologic regime required for wetland
processes to occur. Based on Wildlands observations, major limiting factors for wetland processes at this
point, are cattle access, agricultural ditching, a lack of roughness due to vegetative maintenance, and
drainage effects from incised headwater streams at the downstream extent. The proposed mitigation
approach of filling the agricultural swales and ditches and shallowing the headwater channels at the
downstream extent of the wetland system will raise hydrology within the currently ditched areas.
Additionally, roughening of the Site and increased roughness from woody vegetation will slow surface
drainage form the proposed wetland areas and increase retention times at the wetland surface.
Wildlands generated the proposed wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment boundaries based on
field indicators and hydrology data that supports that proposed areas will meet minimum saturation
thresholds. Locations of proposed groundwater gages for post construction monitoring were chosen so
that data can be compared between existing and proposed groundwater gages and confirm general
hydrologic uplift at the Site. The existing gage data, along with the jurisdictional delineation, and LSS
investigation provides support that if drainage effects on Site are reduced, proposed wetland areas will
meet minimum required hydrology standards.
Table 16: Existing Groundwater Monitoring Gage Data and Analysis Results
Consecutive Percent
Consecutive Days in
Growing Season
Growing Season Wells Met
Gage
Groundwater Depth
Wells Groundwater
Evaluated Dates
Wetland Approach
Depth Criterion
Criterion Under 2019
Under 2019 Rainfall
Rainfall Conditions (Days)
Conditions (%)
1
48
19.6%
3/1/19 to 10/3/19
Re-establishment'
2
22
9.0%
3/1/19 to 10/3/19
Re-establishment
3
48
19.6%
3/1/19 to 10/3/19
Re-establishment
4
22
9.0%
3/1/19 to 10/3/19
Re-establishment
5
73
29.8%
3/1/19 to 10/3/19
Rehabilitation
Outside Proposed
6
13
5.3%
3/1/19 to 10/3/19
Wetland Restoration
Area
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 26 September 2020

Consecutive Percent
Consecutive Days in
Growing Season
Growing Season Wells Met
Gage
Groundwater Depth
Wells Groundwater
Evaluated Dates
Wetland Approach
Depth Criterion
Criterion Under 2019
Under 2019 Rainfall
Rainfall Conditions (Days)
Conditions (%)
Refz
151
65%
2016 to 2019
Reference
Growing Seasons
'Groundwater gage 1 is located near the boundary of the wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation.
'Data in the table represents the average consecutive days and percent of growing season over 4 analyzed growing seasons of reference
well data.
7.7.4 Reference Wetland
To further evaluate the Site hydrologic regime, a reference wetland was identified approximately 6.7
miles from the Site. This reference wetland area is a mature Piedmont Bottomland Forest that is located
within the floodplain of Howards Creek in Lincoln County. Historical aerials reveal no recent
disturbances to the reference property and no disturbances were observed in the field. The existing
vegetation communities are typical of a Bottomland Hardwood Forest and include mature canopy tree
species, moderate subcanopy and shrub species, as well as an herbaceous layer. Dominant canopy
species include river birch, green ash, sycamore, box elder, and red maple. Understory species include
ironwood and spicebush. The herbaceous layer within the reference wetland included arrow arum,
jewelweed, lizard's tail, and microstegium.
The hydrology of this system is intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded, but unlike the project
site, the reference area has not been disturbed by clearing or ditching. As a result, mature vegetation
has been established and the natural flooding regime has been preserved. This reference wetland has
been used by Wildlands for previous mitigation sites and groundwater data has been collected for the
last four growing season, providing a good baseline of hydrologic data for comparison during
monitoring. The proximity of the reference area to the project site provides quality hydrologic
information to use in rehabilitating and re-establishing wetlands at the proposed site.
Groundwater monitoring data from the reference well for the 2019 growing season is included in
Appendix 7 and is also shown on the existing groundwater gage plots installed at the Site for hydrologic
comparison. During the recorded period, general trends of reference Site hydrology (peak and
drawdown periods) are very similar in duration and magnitude to gages installed at the Site within the
proposed wetland areas. This data supports that the reference site sees similar climatic conditions as
the proposed mitigation site. It can also be observed that drawdown periods (receding limbs of the
groundwater hydrographs) for the proposed mitigation site are steeper than those at the reference site,
indicating that a lack of surface roughness from vegetation and increased drainage effects form
agricultural ditching are influencing Site hydrology. Groundwater gage 5 located within the previous
cutover area which currently contains more established vegetation most nearly matches the reference
well data, supporting that establishing herbaceous and woody vegetation will slow drainage effects.
While currently meeting wetland hydrologic criteria, groundwater gage 5 is still seeing some drainage
effects from existing agricultural swales, and is anticipated that the groundwater levels will increase
further once these drainage features are filled during construction, increasing groundwater levels even
closer to those observed at the reference wetland site. These hydrology data support that the reference
site has the appropriate hydrologic regime to serve as a reference condition for the project site. The
reference gage will continue to record water table depth throughout the post -construction monitoring
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 27 September 2020

period. In the event of unusual weather during the post -construction monitoring period, the reference
well performance will be used as a check for the mitigation site performance.
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over time, a 50-foot thriving riparian buffer composed
of native tree species. This restored buffer will improve riparian and wetland habitat, help the restored
streams stay stable, shade the streams, and provide a source for LWD and organic material to the
streams.
Non -forested areas within the conservation easement will be planted with bare root tree species and
permanent riparian seed mix. Riparian buffers will be seeded and planted with early successional native
vegetation chosen to develop species diversity and are listed on Sheet 4.0 of the preliminary design
plans located in Appendix 8. The specific species composition to be planted was selected based on the
community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent to the Site, and best
professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated Site conditions in the early years
following project implementation. In addition, the stream banks will be planted with live stakes and the
channel toe will be planted with herbaceous plugs. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on
streambanks, floodplain areas, and disturbed areas within the project easement. Per the 2016 NCIRT
Mitigation Guidance plantings are preferred to occur between November 15 and March 15, however, in
some cases the March 15 deadline cannot be met but planting must occur no later than April 30 for
acceptance as a full season of monitoring. Per IRT Guidance, vegetation monitoring also cannot be
started within 180 days of the completion of planting.
Mechanical site soil preparation will be implemented where necessary, including but not limited to
wetland areas, priority 2 benches, and areas of cut greater than one foot. Site preparations will be
performed to create soil physical properties favorable for tree growth. In the pasture areas, the planted
area will be ripped in a grid -like pattern with a maximum rip shank spacing of six feet. Ripping will be
performed during the driest conditions feasible to maximize shatter of the plow pan. Ripping may be
implemented to reduce soil compaction resulting from haul roads, stockpile areas, etc. Where required
based on site conditions, topsoil will be stockpiled and reapplied. Soil amendments may be incorporated
to augment survival and growth of planted vegetation as determined necessary by soil testing.
Invasive species within the riparian buffers of restoration reaches will be treated at the time of
construction. The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Please refer to Appendix 9 for the invasive
species treatment plan.
7.9 Project Risk and Uncertainties
In general, this project has low risk. Due to the rural nature of the watershed and the Site's location in
the upper reaches of the watershed, there is very little risk that changes in land use upstream in the
project watershed would alter the hydrology or sediment supply enough to damage the project streams
after construction.
One easement crossing will be part of the Site: a new internal culvert crossing on Carpenter Branch
Reach 1. Stone will be placed along the entrance and exit of the Carpenter Branch culvert to dissipate
energy and provide stability.
8.0 Performance Standards
The performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the DMS
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (June 2017), and the October 2016 IRT
Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 28 September 2020

assess the condition of the completed project. The stream restoration sections of the project will be
assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology.
Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the (up to) seven years of post -construction
monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and at least four bankfull events have
occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and/or vegetation
monitoring after five years with written approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina
Interagency Review Team. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
8.1 Streams
8.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, and width -to -depth ratio. Per NC IRT guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and
entrenchment ratios must be no less than 1.4 at any measured riffle cross section. Riffle cross sections
should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do
occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of
instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a
decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial
action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
8.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. Signs of instability may include bank scour,
bank migration, and bed incision.
8.1.3 Hydrology
Four bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the restoration reaches
within the seven-year monitoring period. Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the
form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using photographs and either a crest gage or a pressure transducer,
as appropriate for Site conditions. The selected measurement device will be installed within a surveyed
riffle cross section. The device will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has
occurred. Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition. A pressure transducer will be installed in the channel to document baseflow within streams
channels. The pressure transducer data will be plotted and included in the annual monitoring reports.
Per the NCIRT request via meeting minutes included in the appendix, stream gages are proposed along
UT1, UT2, and UT3 to document continuity of flow along these reaches.
8.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration and enhancement areas as well as vegetation plots.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 29 September 2020

Longitudinal reference photos will be established along the channel by taking a photo looking upstream
and downstream. Cross sectional photos will be taken of each permanent cross section looking
upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots.
Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point, cross section, and vegetation plot will be
taken on the same day the stream and vegetation assessments are conducted. The photographer will
make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
8.2 Vegetation
The Site will be planted with species to achieve a target community of a Southern Piedmont Small
Floodplain and Riparian Forest. Species designated for planting were selected based on compatibility of
silvics with expected site conditions within a given planting zone, observation of reference communities,
and best professional judgement. Species lists for each planting zone are listed on Sheet 4.0 of the
preliminary design plans included in the Appendix. Additionally, proposed planting zones are shown in
Figure 11.
Vegetative performance for riparian buffers associated with the stream restoration component of the
project (buffer widths 0 — 50ft) will be in accordance with the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued
October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT. The success criteria is an interim survival rate of 320 planted
stems per acre at the end of monitoring year three (MY3), 260 stems per acre at the end of monitoring
year 5 (MY5) and a final vegetation survival rate of 210 stems per acre at the end of monitoring year 7
(MY7). Planted vegetation must average 7 feet in height in each plot at the end of the fifth monitoring
year (MY5) and 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year (MY7) of monitoring.
However, given inundation periods anticipated for areas proposed for wetland restoration, woody
vegetation growth may be hindered in these areas resulting in stunted heights. Taking this into
consideration, monitoring criteria for woody vegetation within wetland restorations zones should
average 3.5 feet in height in each plot at the end of the fifth monitoring year (MY5) and 5 feet in height
in each plot at the end of the seventh year (MY7) of monitoring year. Vegetation monitoring will be
conducted between July 1st and the end of the of the growing season. The extent of invasive species
coverage will be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period
(MY7).
A combination of permanent and random vegetation plots will be used to demonstrate vegetation
coverage. Both fixed and mobile plots will be chosen randomly and will include a mix of the planted
vegetation communities. All woody stems, including exotic invasive species, are to be counted within
each plot.
Permanent vegetation plots will be established after construction during the as -built baseline (MYO).
Permanent plots will be visually marked in the field and planted woody stems within these plots will be
marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off a known origin, so that they can be found
in subsequent monitoring years. Individual plot data will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any),
planted species versus volunteer species, and survival. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
Mobile vegetation plots will not make up more than 50% of the total required plots. Locations (GPS
coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified and included in the corresponding
monitoring year's report. Plots will be physically marked in the field so that they may be evaluated
during the monitoring year. Random plot data collected will include species and height.
8.3 Wetland
Groundwater monitoring gages will be established throughout the proposed wetland area as shown in
Figure 10. Generally, the gages will be installed at appropriate locations so that the data collected will
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 30 September 2020

provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland project area. As outlined above in
Section 7.7.3, Table 1 listing wetland saturation thresholds provided in the Notification of Issuance of
Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for the Wilmington District
(October 24, 2016) defines a wetland saturation threshold for Worhsam soils between 10% and 12% and
the defined growing season based on the Gaston County, North Carolina WETS table for 50% probability
of soil temperatures greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit is March 15t" to November 14t" representing a
250-day growing season. Based on the information above, along with the existing hydrologic Site
investigation and reference wetland data, Wildlands proposes a saturation criterion of 12% of the 250-
day growing season, representing 30 consecutive days of inundation.
Growing season dates for the project area will be confirmed using soil temperature probes installed on -
site and soil temperature data will be collected for each individual monitoring year. Per USACE guidance,
soil temperature probes will be located at a depth of 12 inches. The growing season will be defined as
that portion of the year where soil temperature remains above 40 degrees Fahrenheit and can be
corroborated with vegetative indicators, including bud burst and leaf drop. The growing season may not
begin before March 1 of each year when calculating hydroperiods. If a wetland zone does not meet the
performance standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed, and the
hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference wetland to assess whether atypical weather
conditions occurred during the monitoring period. Soil profile descriptions will be recorded at each
boring where a gage is installed before and after construction. The profile descriptions will present a
record of the soil horizons, color, texture, and redoximorphic features.
8.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the
seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (e.g. lateral
and/or vertical instability, instream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation
health (e.g. low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species, or encroachment), beaver activity,
or livestock access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed and will be accompanied by a
written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, a plan of action will be provided in the annual
monitoring report.
8.5 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality Monitoring
Based on the issued and approved NCIRT meeting minutes from January 16, 2019 included in Appendix
13, the Site is a good candidate for benthic and water quality monitoring with a potential associated 2%
to 4% credit bonus associated with this monitoring. If based on review of the draft mitigation plan,
NCDMS and the NCIRT are still in support of this monitoring and associated credit bonus, Wildlands will
draft a technical memorandum outlining water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
techniques which will be included with the comment response letter submitted with the Final Mitigation
Plan and associated crediting bonuses will be based on quantities presented in Table 20.
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported using the
DMS Baseline Monitoring Report Template (April 2017). The monitoring report shall provide project data
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, ease population of DMS
databases for analysis and research purposes and assist in close-out decision making.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 31 September 2020

Using the DMS Baseline Monitoring Report Template (June 2017), a baseline monitoring document and
as -built record drawings of the project will be developed for the constructed Site. Complete monitoring
reports will be prepared in the fall of monitoring year one, two, three, five, and seven and submitted to
DMS. In monitoring years four, and six, a summary of the site conditions along with photos, current
condition plan view (CCPV) map, and applicable hydrology data will be prepared and submitted to DMS.
Annual monitoring reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template (June 2017).
The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance
criteria have been met. Table 17, below, describes how the monitoring plan is set up to verify that
project goals and objectives have been achieved.
9.1 Monitoring Components
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 18. Approximate locations of the
proposed vegetation plots and groundwater gage monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 10.
Table 17: Monitoring Plan — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Goal
Objective
Performance Standards
Monitoring Metric
Exclude livestock
Install livestock fencing as
Visual assessment
from stream
needed to exclude livestock
Prevent easement encroachment
of fencing and
channels and
from stream channels,
signs of livestock
wetlands.
wetlands, and riparian areas.
encroachment.
Reconstruct stream channels
with stable dimension,
pattern, and profile.
Bank height ratios stay below 1.2.
Cross-section
Improve stability of
Reconnect streams to
Visual assessments showing
monitoring and
stream channels.
existing floodplain. Add bank
progression towards stability.
Visual assessment.
revetments and in -stream
structures to protect
restored streams.
Install habitat features such
as constructed steps,
constructed riffles, and
Improve instream
brush toe on restored
There is no required performance
Visual assessment
habitat.
reaches. Add woody
standard for this metric.
materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying
depth.
Restore wetlands through
Free groundwater surface within 12
Groundwater
Restore wetland
re-establishment of
inches of the ground surface for a
gages will be
function and
hydrology. Remove the
minimum of 12% (30 consecutive
placed in wetland
hydrology.
drainage effects of
days) of the growing season for
restoration areas
agricultural ditching and
and monitored
maintenance.
Gaston County.
annually.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 32 September 2020

Goal
Objective
Performance Standards
Monitoring Metric
In open areas planted; Survival of
210 planted stems per acre at MY7.
Interim survival of at least 320
planted stems at MY3 and at least
260 planted stems per acre at MY5.
Permanent and
No success criteria are associated
mobile 100 square
Restore and enhance
Plant native tree, shrub and
with shaded area planting. Planted
meter vegetation
native floodplain and
understory species in
vegetation must average 7 feet in
plots within
wetland vegetation.
riparian and proposed
height in each plot at the end of
planted open
wetland restoration zones.
MY5 and 10 feet in height in each
areas. Shaded
plot at the end of MY7.
areas planted will
In wetland restoration zones:
be visual assessed.
Woody vegetation should average
3.5 feet in height in each plot at the
end of the MY5 and 5 feet in height
in each plot at the end of MY7.
Permanently protect
Establish a conservation
Record and close conservation
the project site from
easement on the Site.
easement prior to implementation.
Visual assessment
harmful uses.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 33 September 2020

Table 18: Monitoring Components — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Quantity/Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Carpenter
Carpenter
Branch
Branch
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Frequency
Notes
Reach 1
Reach 2
Riffle Cross -sections
6
N/A
1
N/A
1
N/A
Dimension
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Pool Cross -sections
6
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Substrate
Reach wide (RW)
1
N/A
1
1
1
1
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
3
Pebble Count
Hydrology
Crest Gage (CG) and/or
1 SG
N/A
1 SG
1 SG
Semi -Annual
4
Transducer (SG)
CVS Level 2/Mobile
Vegetation
13 (9 permanent, 4 mobile)
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
5
Plots
Wetland
Groundwater Gage
9
Semi -Annual
Visual
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Assessment
Exotic and
nuisance
Semi -Annual
6
vegetation
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
7
Reference Photos
Photographs
4
1
1
1
1
1
Annual
1. Cross -sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and
thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as -built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate
widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only. Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide substrate
monitoring.
4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to
record stage once every 2 hours. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi-annually. A transducer will be installed on the intermittent portion of Carpenter Branch Reach 1, UT1,
and UT3 to document 30 days of continuous flow.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the open areas planted. 2% of the open planted acreage will be monitored with
permanent plots and mobile plots. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document
number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed. Number indicates total number of plots for the entire
site.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage and boundary encroachments will be mapped.
W Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 34 September 2020

10.0 Long -Term Management Plan
The Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment
system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The
use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for stewardship, monitoring,
stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed. No livestock, fencing, or crossings are currently present or planned for the project area. Any
future livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner of the
underlying fee to maintain.
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 1.
Table 19: Long-term Management Plan — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Long -Term Management Activity
Long -Term Manager Responsibility
Landowner Responsibility
The landowner shall report
damaged or missing signs to the
long-term manager, as well as
Signage will be installed and
The long-term steward will be
contact the long-term manager if
maintained along the Site
responsible for inspecting the Site
a boundary needs to be marked,
boundary to denote the area
boundary and for maintaining or
or clarification is needed
protected by the recorded
replacing signage to ensure that the
regarding a boundary location. If
conservation easement area is clearly
land use changes in future and
conservation easement.
marked.
fencing is required to protect the
easement, the landowner is
responsible for installing
appropriate approved fencing.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
inspections and for undertaking
The Site will be protected in its
actions that are reasonably calculated
The landowner shall contact the
entirety and managed under the
to swiftly correct the conditions
long-term manager if clarification
terms outlined in the recorded
constituting a breach. The USACE, and
is needed regarding the
their authorized agents, shall have the
restrictions associated with the
conservation easement.
right to enter and inspect the Site and
recorded conservation easement.
to take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post -construction monitoring
defined in Sections 8 and 9. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to
address minor issues as necessary (Appendix 10). If, during the course of annual monitoring it is
determined the Site's ability to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized, Wildlands will
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 35 September 2020

notify the DMS of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Plan of Corrective Action is
prepared and finalized Wildlands will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions;
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE;
• Obtain other permits as necessary;
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan; and
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
12.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream credits associated with the Site are listed in Table 20. Stream restoration is proposed at
a credit ratio of 1:1 and stream preservation is proposed at a credit ratio of 5:1 based on cattle
exclusion, establishment of a conservation easement, and removal of invasive species. Wetland re-
establishment and rehabilitation are proposed at a ratio of 1:1 and 1.5:1, respectively. Crediting ratios
are based on discussions with the IRT as included within post contract meeting minutes included in
Appendix 13 along with current mitigation standards. The credit release schedule is located in Appendix
11.
Approximately 10% of linear footage of the Site streams proposed for crediting do not have the required
50-foot buffer for Piedmont Streams due to property constraints. This exceeds the 5% threshold allowed
by the NCIRT mitigation guidance and subsequently, proposed credits were reduced using the issued
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator. Results and mapping from the analysis are included
in Appendix 14 and results from the GIS analysis are included with submitted digital files. The analysis
results in an overall reduction of 66 stream mitigation credits at the proposed mitigation site.
Table 20: Project Asset Table — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Existing
Mitigation
Footage
Plan
or
Footage or
Mitigation
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Ratio
Project Segment
Acreage
Acreage
Category
Level
Level
I (X:1)
Credits
Carpenter Branch Reach 1
2,564
2,249.689
Cool
R
P1, P2
1.0
2249.689
Carpenter Branch Reach 2
477.080
Cool
P
5.0
95.416
UT1
123
174.819
Cool
R
P1, P2
1.0
174.819
UT2
245
178.196
Cool
R
P1
1.0
178.196
UT3
387
384.661
Cool
R
P1
1.0
384.661
UT4
1 50
36.349
Cool
R
P1
1.0
36.349
Wetland Re -Establishment
0.000
5.714
RR
RE
1.00000
5.714
Wetland Rehabilitation
4.130
3.947
RR
RH
1.50000
2.631
kAV Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 36 September 2020

Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
3023.714
Re-establishment
5.714
Rehabilitation
2.631
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
95.416
Total Baseline Crediting
3,119.130
8.345
Total Credit'
3,053.230
8.345
Notes:
1. Credits reported have been adjusted based on buffer width deviations from standard 50-foot buffer width and internal
crossings removed. Detailed calculations included in Appendix 14.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 37 September 2020

13.0 References
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company. New
York.
Gaston County Planning & Development Services. 2016. Gaston County 2035 Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. Gaston County, NC
Giese, G.I and Robert R. Mason Jr. 1993. Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2403.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2016. Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Spreadsheet User Manual Version 2. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W. R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Harman et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. AWRA
Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D. S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA Summer
Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Hosking, J. R. M., and J. R. Wallis. 1993. Some statistics useful in regional frequency analysis, Water
Resour. Res., 29(2), 271-281, doi:10.1029/92WR01980.
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources
Management. 1996. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT) Field Methods. Montgomery County,
Maryland.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Gaston County.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale
1:500,00, in color.
NCGS, 2017. NCGS Publications. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/interactive-geologic-maps
NCGS, 2013. Mineral Resources. http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/mineral-resources
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Gaston County, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth
Approximateion. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 38 September 2020

Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R, Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575-582.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Federal Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of
Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District.
October 24, 2016.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2014. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Gaston County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/Gaston.html
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Draft Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 39 September 2020

FIGURES

03050102040030 q
C., .`
�� �/' -03 • 050.102030020'
�atawba,Lands
0305010204�40 / Con je%%nc - . . . . . . . . - ` . . .
Pres01 d` - 03050101160010
27 First United Methodist Chu 1� '
yy 73
.th Aspen Street Historic•District • •
182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/ ! Catawb Land ..... ......... :. y : :........... 27
.... ......... '321 .......::::::::::::. .
i,
j ,%%�%j /,/,�/.'/. Ielly-LinkFarmsteac� ::... ......:::::...
% . IPr to isxo-nc DlstrIcT- ' COIIMfYa hwM" ................. .
03050102050010•
�h n r Magnolia Grove .
• Cons t oni Bourid'ary Ezpansioh:
j �, t • r serve, . . . . . 03050102060010
froHis#oi+e �f .. ............... ..
�� is ct •� ::::::: :: ::::::::::::::: .::::::
. . . . . . . . •r i'1. •.GASTON CO. .
i9
...... :::::::::::. Mill
. . .'i,.a9 .::::::::::::::
.........................:Project Location ; ......... :............. .
C erryville Aigh Shoals. . .
. 03050102050020. . . . . . . . . . . . . •w• : :��'
......................................... i ...... ... 7Catawba ands•
................................... nsenianc;Yasgment:� :..... .
................................:MiddiePtasour:..:�
:Moury'taip............. .........:` .......
.....9... /. '��........ . I..—.\......./7 ..............1 .. ..
• ° '03050102070010 ' 3z,- `
'•'� .yam • �� .
Gaston County Open Space .v• yv�� • • • • . • • • • • •
South Pasour
0 Project Location _ Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit) Significant Natural Heritage Areas
County Line ® Local Watershed Plan NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
CCatawba 02 River Basin Targeted Local Watershed —303d Listed Streams
: Municipalities Water Supply Watershed
NC Historic Preservation Areas
Bessemer City Gastonia Gas onIL Gasto
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
%!iP E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

%joWon v._ i ty
ahonal
Fo r� s1
Natlun�l
Fr
rr
Shelby
m�
-- Spartanburg
Denvi
WILDLANDS o
1*,
ENGINEERING
Project Location
Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area
Hydrologic Unit Code (8-Digit)
Catawba 03050101
Catawba 03050102
Catawba 03050103
] Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
I
S tesville
S'dis
"Op,
b1c:�:re:�:ille
Concord
f �I
Hill `
I r
''arohna
Figure 2 Project Service Area
15 Miles Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

I
r
Y
GWG S I A h f
f GWG 4
M
866
QProject Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Potential Existing Wetlands
Existing Cattle Access
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Ephemeral Channel
Non -Project Streams
Cross Sections
OO Reach Breaks
U Sediment Sample
Existing Groundwater Gage
II G
GWG3
GWG 2
I +GWG G
W I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet
kv ENGINEERING I I I I I
O
Po-s.
Figure 3 Site Map
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

b•SF
u�
C LINCOLN CO -
_ a —-----••-----•— __ _.•
8BB UT2'+! "'-GASTONCO-
82e lb$z
V
O�
Carpenter Bottom
180 acres
BBB
m
Proposed Conservation Easement
QCarpenter Bottom Watershed
QSubwatersheds '.,=
County Boundary
Project Streams
Non -Project Streams
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet
ENGINEERING i I I I I t
ao
m
Figure 4: Watershed Map
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

Project Location
i Conservation Easement
„Vo •
•I
"w��
l •
I /!
i
Lincolnton West, NC USGS US Topo 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle i
Figure 5 USGS Topographic Map
�, W I L D L A N D S 0 400 800 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I ICI Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

Figure 6 Soils Map
ktW I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
� ENGINEERING I I I I I Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

h
Foust Upstream
o IloiIIi,Ii
UT to Lyle Creek
It
It t
n Ashebc,l,•
UT to South Fork Catawba
Flan dolph
llaill
A - - 91f rt •ash Y - -
C uIICOrd
Albemarle
I III � .I and 11�1'hdlf!'
It [I- ttI-
Natonal
F ..
Reedy Creek Nature Preserve
UT to South Crowders
UT to Sandy Run
F',• •1 Ihll I lul di nu
rI r..=il':
�WILDLANDS 0 10 20Miles
ENGINEERING I I I I
L au rnn Lal r el
FY e \
Cie \
Shcsa \
ill s Ma,II
d
Figure 7 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

w
0
10000
1000
100
10
NC Rural Piedmont and Alan Walker (Rural Piedmont/Mountain) Regional Curves: Bankfull
Discharge Plot
NC Rural Piedmont
Regional Curve
y = 89.039xo.7223
R2 = 0.9069 •
Ae
oo
Alan Walker (NC Piedmont/Mountain)
Regional Curve
y = 55.699xo.7655
R2 = 0.9931
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
y = 64.664xo.6666
R2 = 0.9025
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Drainage Area (square miles)
Rural Data
— — Rural Lower 95% Limit
USGS Rural Piedmont Calculator 1.2-yr Predictions
♦ Design Discharges
Power (Rural Data)
Power (Select Reference Reaches for Curve)
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
— — — Rural Upper 95% Limit
• Alan Walker Curve
v Select Reference Reaches for Curve
■ Surveyed Project Reaches (Manning's Eqn.)
Power (Alan Walker Curve)
Figure 8 Discharge Analysis
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

>� e
a
X,
AI
866
QProject Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
Preservation
{ Proposed BMP
Non -Project Streams
Ephemeral Ditches To Be Filled
OO Reach Breaks
T
m
Reach 1
r �•
e
� O
f i t
A
6
m
Figure 9 Concept Map
%kW I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
V ENGINEERING I I I I I Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

Figure 10 Monitoring Components Map
%kW I L D L A N D S 0 100 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
V ENGINEERING I I I I I Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

m • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • �� • • • • • • • • • • • S�Y'
�S f
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! 'Iy.
.p M1 L yv • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • e • • •
• • • • • r • • • • • • • • •
m_ . . . . . . .
'� � m • • .. a .. • e O '. �54. ,�.
c
W
m
m
sze
Q Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Wetland Planting Zone
Riparian Planting Zone
Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
Preservation
Proposed BMP
Non -Project Streams
Ephemeral Ditches To Be Filled
O Reach Breaks
WILDLANDS
III P ENGINEERING
Reach 1
866
O
Figure 11 Proposed Planting Zone Map
0 100 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
I I I I I Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC

APPENDIX 1
Site Protection Instrument

Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. Parcels are optioned for easement purchase by Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). Upon transfer of lands to Wildlands, a conservation easement will be
recorded on the parcels and includes streams and wetlands being restored and preserved along with
their corresponding riparian buffers.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Memorandum of Option
Under Option
Acreage to
Conservation Easement
Current Landowner
PIN
County
to Purchase
be
Deed Book (DB) and Page
by Wildlands?
Protected
Number (PG)
Lucille Mauney
3621611613962
Gaston
Yes
BK 4986 PG 2333 to 2336
6.75
Brian O'Neill
3621627101
Gaston
Yes
BK 4986 PG 2329 to 2332
2.60
Bumgarner
Joyce Mccraw
3621720283
Gaston
Yes
BK 4986 PG 2325 to 2328
0.76
Annette Poole &
3621618181
Gaston
Yes
BK 4986 PG 2341 to 2344
4.57
Wilber Poole
Diane Carpenter &
3621701221
Gaston
Yes
BK 4986 PG 2337 to 2340
3.34
Wade Carpenter Jr.
The conservation easement template that will be used for recordation is included in this appendix. All
site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Appendix 1
DMS ID No.100090 Page 1 September 2020

APPENDIX 2
Historic Aerial Photos

T4
I
9
I
ASIR

rF •f 1 •t`��:r +.,,�`� + `?j 'f >¢• t�` �e ,f it'A�/ •i�t� +�i.n�ajr'+� �' �,T '. n,
%• ' S l J� f - tf >>�f�j f ,r.J� ! r fi ' 1 i'(�� < ti �.,Y !.j^ [ _
R `4• t G }�J yresJ / f �`f � � �'l r t U,�a +� t ] � 1 'C
r� " i �' 1�[�.f f �` 'r''x-. /' � 1 f I,i��� n 1 P�ff�tY 11 �Il ;Fj•�r �1 4�.. �.. �.. 7 ��,•. K. , �+
r f rY+V i {, t ��,'rti � 1 H �i! r�'rt � �•tL •Y < d
,,,{ � �� ? '� jy .2�t � t �{1�t � �1,�tt{t �► r 1 ��'F {� �v,
� �• � �" �r i •C iz� ff S L'f� FT,," /t�rli . �<i Pii ��' Py� A�} � „4 . � . � �' C i .�� '��r+ •�vYii'L- > c
An I
r • , 'Q•.FF �<� f y�i � • 1 • • ►. €� ,` �!?4 n �•' t�/ _-,'{, ��� �1f� r .. � ` y, s'- (Y•�t'�r.
�,�.•TiL
ra
t, •,y- �� f ;��°•Fs,t. � '�'•'��r��, a �'E3�p'r, �;.. { ,Q`� _ .� - •S � rid,} �'���:g�• , i3
ail
4{ 9 4 sa{ e. }.(•; _ r• f` • ! { " o `.tr
b�, l �•. .: ireY iplr.
l r f.1 � ,��j �`i•.!t" fit, t `: �wt t
19
?t < t�• p � �� f•,•ti3,f:.i�'- ` �.• �'O:P•.L'�� v4S./p+`f�„r,@'� t t9�. ,.
it.
�1 sit{,lf •} �, �i�-^ '.;w �,t. f{ff ._ -
TT��.� k
.YlL jib
• _ �ti(�t � F�`'y'�N'' 'iY(��,jy� ° �i {�L _lapji[• �l'. Y' •q.
' • z ' {r t li+ �v f,�i � Sl � r y I R � '�I�,. � Pf �,
t' J • •r < • • ,tr l i, ' i\• �'• , _�,L,.(tyr. }. �T r 4eAll
�w .. t ` ' �*�` ' �,,�F'. "; ,,, Jr� fi, 1�'t��'t.E�� �i• _'+'•`,; �ii'�
�#�� • ` r : iCr t . F a %t (, +`� �fkJr►`i. try
�kt� �F
a•
\ �; .}M •.�'jf � �, w� � ski. } ��~'�. � �A 1C,' t�"L� �•
. � - f � � '� � � �, � 77ww, � �y„ -� �''"�titi��S!l4�144'''���-- }���.., 'trF�i:'•'�• �:�'r�jt�'� � 7^W:
INQUIRY #: 5378600.5 {:>s{�s•tsSc `°;�r� ` 'r.',i• e ��;'"' . _
YEAR: 2009I. �r�jf 4. �.r��Q. ! 4• L,f i`" •" $w i ,�F, �i ` r
YY • j .i�iY
CEDW •: Y>ra

� rxi g6�gz}y' rY j'? �ji r r r ,,, �' i_ 3/k � yyf� ; ,��, ��•
���� +�i� �•f1y tr,F ,yti f z' 1� .e.r�f r� � �1���ti��l�� r.�;'�'• :i". i:.., ��:5. .:�wrii,'iT.�tr!tifi'�+tA.:'
r.�'�k 4� Y � � Y r r • a
:y
Xle
AR
l 1 ' . R . t}•� �'ly
x

s'W
i
ti
49 . , it
ftr
.. { La ;
■
T
•ti

0
AMU
u
yw
q6.
...
. 4
Y
1 r� .
ti : m
AL . !�
INQUIRY #: 5378600.5 N
YEAR: 1993 ",iJr
= 500' CEDR

do
i � y
1
' y F•
a, of
I•

• w 1
dp ,r
+ r 4 L y d 4%
Mo+
r r 4
dff
I
4 --
f
INQUIRY #: 5378600.5 /�
YEAR: 1976 ",�Jr'
= 500' (rEDR'
A(
�; •w-.
0
w

WSW'
INQUIRY* 5378600.5
YEAR: 1964
-
CEDR°
500'

40
1
k..
k
INQUIRY #: 5378600.5 iN
YEAR: 1956
500' �EDR

APPENDIX 3
Jurisdictional Determination and Wetland Assessment Forms

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2018-02062 County: Gaston U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Lincolnton
West
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMNATION
Requestor: Kristi Suggs
Address: 1430 S. Mint Street #104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704-332-7754 ext 110
E-mail: ksuggs(a,wildlandseng.com
Size (acres) 20 Nearest Town Lincolnton
Nearest Waterway Beaverdam Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050102 Coordinates Latitude: 35.410705
Longitude:-81.260321
Location description: The review area is located 0.211 miles Gaston-Webbs Chanel Road and Huffstetler Lane in Gaston
County. PIN(s): 3621-62-8677, 3621-72-0270, 3621724534, 3621-70-1117, 3621-62-6176, & 3621-61-2994..
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
® There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated 3/12/2020. Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory
mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other resource protection
measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.

SAW-2020-02062
❑ The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
❑ The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below on DATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Catherine M. Janiczak at 704-510-1438 or
C atherine.M.Janiczaknn ,,u sace. armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 05/20/2020.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shaman, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 1OM15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date of JD: 05/20/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2020-02062
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.anny.mil/cm_apex/Vp=136:4:0

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Kristi a s File Number: SAW-2018-02062
Date: 05/20/2020
Attached
is:
See Section below
❑
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
®
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Res4ulatoiyPros4ramandPennits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak
CESAD-PDO
Charlotte Regulatory Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15
8430 University Executive Park Drive, Suite 615
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Charlotte, North Carolina 28262
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportum to participate in all site investi ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Catherine M. Janiczak, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 05/20/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Kristi Suggs, 1430 S. Mint Street
#104,Charlotte, NC 28203
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, Carpenter Bottom PJD,
SAW-2018-02062
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The review area is located 0.211
miles Gaston-Webbs Chapel Road and Huffstetler Lane in Gaston County. PIN(s): 3621-62-8677, 3621-72-0270,
3621724534, 3621-70-1117, 3621-62-6176, & 3621-61-2994..
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Gaston City: Lincolnton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.410705 Longitude:-81.260321
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Beaverdam Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
® Field Determination. Date(s): 05/20/2020
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEWAREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Estimated amount
Geographic authority
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
of aquatic resources
Type of aquatic
to which the aquatic
(decimal
(decimal
in review area
resources (i.e.,
resource "may be"
wetland vs. non -
degrees)
degrees)
(acreage and linear
subject (i.e., Section
feet, if applicable
wetland waters)
404 or Section 10/404)
1.) Carpenter Branch
Non -wetland
(Perennial)
35.408603
-81.259961
2,176 LF
waters
Section 404
2.) Carpenter Branch
Non -wetland
35.409587
-81.260431
376 LF
Section 404
(Intermittent)
waters
Non -wetland
3.) UT1
35.407605
-81.259788
123 LF
Section 404
waters
Non -wetland
4.) UT2
35.409336
-81.260015
245 LF
Section 404
waters
Non -Wetland
5.) UT3
35.409270
-81.260510
387 LF
Section 404
Waters
Non -Wetland
6.) UT4
35.407494
-81.260019
61 LF
Section 404
Waters
9.) Wetland A
35.404910
-81.258531
0.07
Wetland waters
Section 404
10.) Wetland B
35.406346
-81.259584
0.01
Wetland waters
Section 404
11.) Wetland C
35.405102
-81.259098
0.01
Wetland waters
Section 404

12.) Wetland D
35.406650
-81.259826
0.01
wetland waters
Section 404
13.) Wetland E
35.407647
-81.259794
0.001
Wetland waters
Section 404

Estimated amount
Geographic authority
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
of aquatic resources
Type of aquatic
to which the aquatic
(decimal
(decimal
in review area
resources (i.e.,
resource "may be"
wetland vs. non -
degrees)
degrees)
(acreage and linear
subject (i.e., Section
feet, if applicable
wetland waters)
404 or Section 10/404)
14.) Wetland F
35.435084
-81.259752
0.07
Wetland waters
Section 404
15.) Wetland G
35.408871
-81.259671
0.01
Wetland waters
Section 404
16.) Wetland H
35.409599
-81.259679
0.39
Wetland waters
Section 404
17.) Wetland 1
35.409577
-81.260181
0.36
Wetland waters
Section 404
18.) Wetland J
35.409340
-81.260397
0.01
Wetland waters
Section 404
19.) Wetland K
35.409333
-81.260885
0.01
Wetland waters
Section 404
20.) Wetland L
35.409334
-81.260740
0.02
Wetland waters
Section 404
21.) Wetland M
35.411225
-81.259599
1.02
Wetland waters
Section 404
22.) Wetland N
35.410976
-81.261605
2.35
Wetland waters
Section 404
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved 7D (AID) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of 7Ds and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AID for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AID
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AID could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AID
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such

jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AID
or a PJD, the 7D will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AID, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AID to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for all checked items:
® Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map: Figure 3 (Dated 03/12/2020)_
® Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
® Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does notconcurwith data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
® U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24000 Scale Lincolnton W quandrangle
® Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: NRCS Web Soil Survey Website_
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory _
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMAVFIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
® Photographs: ®Aerial (Name & Date): Figure 3 (Dated 03/12/2020)
or ❑Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily been
verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later Jurisdictional determinations.
Signature and date of ulator
staff member completing PJD
05/20/2020
Signature and date of person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) t
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the
established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to finalizing an
action.

r �AssessmentArea
Q Project Parcels
- Potential Wetland Waters
Potential Non -Wetland Waters
Ephemeral
Intermittent
Perennial
Non -project Streams
WoWILDLANDS
250 500Feet
ENGINECRINC,
Figure 3 Delineation Overview Map
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
Gaston County, NC
03/12/20

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland A
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.40491/-81.258531
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
OF OF From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
®C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
®C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
U? ❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
®C
®C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland B, D, & E
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.406346/-81.259584
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
®C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
®B
®B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetlands abut streams in floodplain areas.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland B, D, & E Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland C
Wetland Type
Seep
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.405102/-81.259098
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
®C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
0
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland is located in an agricultural field primarlily used for hay production.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland C Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Wetland Type Seep Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
NA
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
NA
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Particulate Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Physical Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland F
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.408492/-81.259752
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
0
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland area is located in an agricultural field primarily used for hay production.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland F
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland G
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.408871/-81.259752
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
®E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
®F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
0
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland area is located in an agricultural field primarily used for hay production.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland G
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland H
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.409599/-81.259679
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
®B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ®I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
®C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1 to 4
❑C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Livestock have full access to wetland area and have created ares of heavy trampling

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland H
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland I
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.409577/-81.260181
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
®C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ®D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
®B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
®I ®I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
HE
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
®C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Wetland area exhibits highly trampled and wallow area from cattle. It also exhibits evidence manual manipulation likely from ditching.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland I
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland J, K, & L
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.409333/-81.260885
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
®C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
®C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
®A
®A
Dense herb layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland J, K, & L Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
MliliVlll QIIICJ VJCI IYIQIIUQI VCIJIVII J.V
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Date of Evaluation
4/1/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI)
Wetland Site Name
Wetland M & N
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Jordan Hessler/ WEI
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Beaverdam Creek
River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03050102
County
Gaston
NCDWR Region
Mooresville
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.410976/-81.261605
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
®B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes ®No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
®E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ®D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
®A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
❑A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
®B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
®G ®G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A
❑A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
®B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
®D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑ B 1 to 4
®C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
0
❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
UP
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
®B
®B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
These areas are located in the headwaters of the drainage area where cattle have full access. Wetland areas have been trampled and there is
evidence of ditching throughout these areas to drain them for pasture use.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland M & N
Wetland Type Headwater Forest
Date of Assessment 4/1/20
Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpernter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.40491 Long:-81.25853 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Pacolet Sandy clay loam (PaD2) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
DP1 is representative for Wetland A.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) X
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 12
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Surface water was present in the wetland; however, it was not present in the auger hole.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 80 x 1 = 80
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 5 x 2 = 10
1.
FAC species 15 x 3 = 45
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 135 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.35
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Murdannia keisak
80 Yes
OBL
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Microstegium vimineum
15 No
FAC
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Persicaria lapathifolia 5 No FACW
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
100 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
50 20% of total cover:
20
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-4 10YR 3/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
4-14 Refusal due to bedrock
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type: Bedrock
Depth (inches): 10
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
X Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <1 %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.40635 Long:-81.25958 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Sampling upland point it representative for Wetlands A, B, C, D, & E. Sampling point is located in an agricultural field primarlily used for hay
production.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrologic indicators present.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Acerrubrum
10
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3.
Juniperus virginiana
5
Yes
FACU
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
25
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
13 20% of total cover:
5
OBL species 5 x 1 = 5
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
1.
Cephalanthus occidentalis
5
Yes
OBL
FAC species 30 x 3 = 90
2.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5
Yes
FAC
FACU species 100 x 4 = 400
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 135 (A) 495 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.67
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
10
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Schedonorus arundinaceus
90
Yes
FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
5
No
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Dichanthelium clandestinum 5 No FAC
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
100
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
50 20% of total cover:
20
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling location is in an agricultural field primarlily used for hay production
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-14 5YR 4/6 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators present.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.40645 Long:-81.25957 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative for Wetlands B, D, & E. Wetlands abut streams in floodplain areas
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Acer rubrum
2. Juglans nigra
3. Ilex opaca
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
50
Yes
FAC
25
Yes
FACU
10
No
FACU
85 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 43 20% of total cover: 17
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
1.
Ligustrum sinense
5
No
2.
Ilex opaca
25
Yes
3.
Liriodendron tulipifera
1
No
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
31
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
16
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
Sanicula marilandica
5
No
2.
Impatiens capensis
20
Yes
3.
Boehmeria cylindrica
20
Yes
4.
Microstegium vimineum
30
Yes
5.
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
15
No
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
FACU
FACU
FACU
7
FACU
FACW
FACW
FAC
FACU
90 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 45 20% of total cover: 18
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 57.1 % (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 40 x 2 = 80
FAC species 80 x 3 = 240
FACU species 86 x 4 = 344
UPL species 10 x 5 = 50
Column Totals: 216 (A) 714 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.31
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_3 - Prevalence Index is:53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Poncirus trifoliata 10 Yes UPL
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
10 =Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 5 20% of total cover: 2 Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-7 7.5YR 4/4 100 Loamy/Clayey
7-14 2.5Y 4/1 80 5YR 3/4 20 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
X Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.40833 Long:-81.25974 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No_
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Sampling point DP4 is representative for Wetland C. Wetland is located in an agricultural field primarlily used for hay production
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 1
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Surface water is from a floodplain seep.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP4
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Liquidambar styraciflua
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
10 Yes FAC
10
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
5
20% of total cover:
Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
1.
Cephalanthus occidentalis
15
Yes
2.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
15
Yes
3.
Juglans nigra
5
No
4.
Liquidambar styraciflua
5
No
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
40
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
Juncus effusus
15
No
2.
Microstegium vimineum
60
Yes
3.
Persicaria lapathifolia
5
No
4.
Dichanthelium clandestinum
15
No
5.
Eupatorium capillifolium
2
No
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
97
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
49
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Wetland is located in an agricultural field primarlily used for hay production
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2
OBL species 15 x 1 = 15
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
OBL
FAC species 90 x 3 = 270
FACW
FACU species 7 x 4 = 28
FACU
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
FAC
Column Totals: 147 (A) 383 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.61
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
FAC
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
FACW
FAC
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
FACU
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
20 height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-14 10YR 4/3 75 5YR 4/6 25 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
X Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: D5
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.40849 Long:-81.25975 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No_
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of Wetland F. Wetland area is located in an agricultural field primarily used for hay production
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 14
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Soil saturation present within the auger hole from 0 - 14 inches below ground surface.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: D5
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 7 x 1 = 7
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
1.
Acer rubrum
5
Yes
FAC
FAC species 22 x 3 = 66
2.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5
Yes
FACW
FACU species 5 x 4 = 20
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 109 (A) 243 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.23
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
10
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Eupatorium perfoliatum
15
Yes
FACW
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Juncus effusus
40
Yes
FACW
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Dichanthelium clandestinum 15 Yes FAC
4.
Persicaria lapathifolia
5
No
FACW
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
Helenium flexuosum
2
No
FAC
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6.
Cyperus strigosus
10
No
FACW
height.
7.
Juncus articulatus
5
No
OBL
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
Ageratina altissima
5
No
FACU
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9.
Carexlurida
2
No
OBL
(1 m)tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
99
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
50 20% of total cover:
20
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: D5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-4 5Y 4/1 85 5YR 4/6 15 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
4-14 10GY 4/1 90 7.5YR 5/8 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
X Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: D6
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): <1 %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.40947 Long:-81.25977 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Upland site associated with Wetlands F & G. Sampling point located in an agricultural field primarily used for hay production
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Located in floodplain adjacent to Wetland F.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: D6
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
)
FACW species 7 x 2 = 14
1.
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
2.
FACU species 83 x 4 = 332
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 376 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.76
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Schedonorus arundinaceus
80 Yes
FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Eupatorium capillifolium
3 No
FACU
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Juncus effusus 7 No FACW
4. Dichanthelium clandestinum
10 No
FAC
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
100 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
50 20% of total cover:
20
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Sampling point is located in an agricultural field primarily used for hay production
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: D6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-3 7.5YR 4/4 100 Loamy/Clayey
3-14 5YR 4/6 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
No hydric soil indicators present.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: D7
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0%
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.4097 Long:-81.25977 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of Wetland G. Located in an agriculatural floodplain primarily used for hay production
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) X
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 12
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Standing water present in wetland; howver, no surface water, water table, or soil saturation present in auger hole.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: D7
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5
2. Acer rubrum 1
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
_=Total Cover
20% of total cover:
Yes FACW
No FAC
6 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 3 20% of total cover: 2
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Carex lurida
2. Juncus effusus
3. Helenium flexuosum
4. Dichanthelium clandestinum
5. Xanthium strumarium
6. Eupatorium pilosum
7. Eupatorium capillifolium
8. Persicaria lapathifolia
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 47
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10 No
OBL
35 Yes
FACW
6 No
FAC
35 Yes
FAC
1 No
FAC
3 No
FACW
2 No
FACU
2 No
FACW
94 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 19
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Located in an agriculatural floodplain primarily used for hay production.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 10 x 1 = 10
FACW species 45 x 2 = 90
FAC species 43 x 3 = 129
FACU species 2 x 4 = 8
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 100 (A) 237 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.37
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: D7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
(inches)
Color (moist)
%
Color (moist) % Type'
Locz
Texture Remarks
0-6
2.5YR 3/2
95
7.5YR 4/6 5 C
PL
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-10
2.5YR 3/2
50
7.5YR 4/6 50 C
PL/M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
10-14
2.5YR 3/2
30
7.5YR 4/6 70 C
M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/15/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: DP8
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Flat Slope (%): <1 %
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.41098 Long:-81.2616 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation X Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No X
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No_
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Data point is representative for Wetland H. Livestock have full access to wetland area and have created areas of heavy trampling
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
X High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) X
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
—Iron Deposits (135)
X Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
X Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 9
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 9
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 14
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Backswimmer was located in surface water.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP8
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1. Acer rubrum
2.
Pinus taeda
3.
Morus rubra
4.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.
6.
7.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
60
Yes
FAC
10
No
FAC
5
No
FACU
10
No
FACW
85
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
43
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
1. Pinus taeda
5
No
2. Viburnum dentatum
20
Yes
3. Juniperus virginiana
10
Yes
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
35
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
18
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Microstegium vimineum
2. Saururus cernuus
3. Symphyotrichum puniceum
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 50
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
17
FAC
FAC
FACU
7
70 Yes FAC
2 No OBL
27 Yes OBL
99 =Total Cover
20% of total cover: 20
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0% (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 29 x 1 = 29
FACW species 10 x 2 = 20
FAC species 165 x 3 = 495
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 219 (A) 604 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.76
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is <-3.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP8
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-8 5Y 3/1 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
8-14 5Y 3/1 80 5YR 4/6 20 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
X Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
X Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
X Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site City/County: Gaston Sampling Date: 7/12/19
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. State: NC Sampling Point: DP9
Investigator(s): Kristi Suggs & Ian Eckardt Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Hummock Local relief (concave, convex, none): Convex Slope (%): -
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.41079 Long:-81.26156 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: Worsham loam (WoA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS —Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
Upland data point representative for Wetland H. An upland hummock surrounded by Wetland H
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
—High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
X Depth (inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
No hydrologic indicators present.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP9
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Juglans nigra
40 Yes
FACU
Number of Dominant Species
2. Pinus taeda
20 Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
60 =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover:
12
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 15 x 2 = 30
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5 Yes
FACW
FAC species 20 x 3 = 60
2.
FACU species 125 x 4 = 500
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 160 (A) 590 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.69
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
5 =Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
3 20% of total cover:
1
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Schedonorus arundinaceus
80 Yes
FACU
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Juncus effusus
10 No
FACW
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Eupatorium capillifolium 5 No FACU
4.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
95 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
48 20% of total cover:
19
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP9
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Locz Texture Remarks
0-8 7.5YR 4/6 100 Loamy/Clayey
8-14 7.5YR 4/4 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
—Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
—Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

APPENDIX 4
Stream Identification Forms

j
i
SGPI
O; A C-1 aL
i*,:(- MAT) '�frpnm IrlpnHM-!1'hlnn F'nVrii'V­,, a I I.
Date: qq r�
�• -• 11' I "\
Project/Site: wP s" r
C, '�;[ MlowN
I Latitude:
Evaluator: /K5
County: G as+'D A
Longitude:
Total Points:
Sfreamisatleastintamritt?Rf ^
J0o S
Stream Deter (circle one)
Epherrlera Intermitten
Other C f
fi`rP�r'1'<<
i(>_ f9orpersnniafif? 30'
Perennial
e:g. Quad Nam:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1• Absent
1" Continuity of channel bed.and bank 0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosit% of channel along thalweg 0
--- 2 --.._.....-.__.
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-000l:sa uence F�,, o,�y � �:{��� . , 0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate ° '� r• 0
1
3
5. AcUv6lrelict fioodplain• p
I
3
6. Depositional bar' or benches 0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1 I
1 5
10. Natural valley 0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0
Yes = 3
artincial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
R Hvrirninnv MiihhnFnl = 4 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
2
3
14. Leaf litter
EA�'
1
0.5
I 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
= 0
1.5
Yes = 3
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
"1
1
0
19. Rooted upland.plants in streambed 4t,)
0
20, Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
I 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22, Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
; 0
0.5
1
1.5
. 24, Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae I
0
5
1
1.5
26, Wetland plants in strearr,bed Jvv Lu
]A IW = 0.75, OBL = 1.5� Other = p
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods, See p. 35 of manual.
Notes;
Sketch:
i
�i

scp Z
k
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 �s �c,� .�lcs's MO'- c h
Date:! g
ProjectfSite:
Latitude: -5a Zvi a �i 5
Evaluator:
County: CAcr��
Longitude: C-(r 157 r'SE ,rW
Total Points:
Stream Determination Wr
Other
Stream is at least Intermittent
if>_ 19 orperennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erenn is
P
e. Quad Name:
g'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z`l )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9, Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artmcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = q _____)
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es =
C. Biology (Subtotal = __S_'ZS_ _ _ )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19, Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
CD
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
()
1
2
3
22. Fish
CD
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1:
25. Algae
0
.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

5cP 3
iN( V VN Q Jtream Iden titication Form -Version 4.11
Date:�.11„ Project/Site: an�er I Latitude:
Evaluator: County: G' t"s4o^ Longitude:
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle one) Other uT
Strum is at least intermittent
Ephe
i(>_ f9 or perenniali(_>. 30• meral ntermitten erennial e.g.. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I I ')
1" Continuity of channel bed.and bank
I . Absent
0
Weak
i
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2, Sinuosity of channel along thaP,ve
9 9
0
1
2....
- -
3 ..
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool: sequence
I 0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
Eq_3.
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodoiain
0
1 lY�
2
6. Depositional -bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial depositsE
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1.5
10. Nt tural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificlal ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvrirnlnnv fSuhtntal =. !�.S 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter.
5
1
0.5
( 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16, Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Mo = 0
Yes = 3
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note 81versib/ and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatiotvlollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0,5
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
5
1
1
.24. Amphibians
0
.5
1.5
25. Algae .
0..5
1
1.5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACIA/ = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 her =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch: Qar1 aQ__ .Sct�-: LO IS
0. cJ
gipp' i � C
.JS. a x t •.`e. P f
1n.�,:w�� `�viuJ
\,1
�5114'15a..!�
I6a+. I, G, �L_,
e ,`,_o).

i-N(- v vN t1 Jtream iclentitication ForrivVersion 4.11 I .
Date: 4„ l I .- (q ProlectlSite: �' �j � '"f Latitude:
ar en .t► i
Evaluator: ICS County: Gas +4^ Longitude;
Total Points:
Stream Determination ci fie Other
Stream is at least intermitter _ ) Ul AA
if>_19orperennial if_>30• � Epherti.eral Intermitien Perennial e.g. QuadMame: P!
rA�nf� t'�iA�ttd ,�, Ei
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I O�t.i) Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I` Continuity of channel bed.and bank 0
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0
3, in -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool;'
ripple -pool: sequence 0 I
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrata 0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain 0
t
3
..3
6. Depositionalbars or benches 0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits 0,
,
2
3
B. Headcuts
1
2
9. Grade control ' ems -t,4 bav ► },� t,G\e 0
6.5
3
10. Natural valley 0
0.5
1 5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel No = 0
'
`Yes ='3
arated; ditches are not ra ed`, s_dmnniini
see _ s-
ions m �
R Hvrlrnlnnv tRithtntal = VI 2, 1
r.Y
12. Presence of Baseflow
I 0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
14, Leaf litter
1.
0.5
3
I 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 5
1 1.5
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water ta' le?
No = 0
1.5
Yes = 3
r' Rinlnnv Mi ihtnt.l = I i
18.. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversityand abundance)
0
1
2
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
: 0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.
0.5
1
3
1.5
23, Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
..24. Amphibians
0
0,5
1.5
25. Algae.
0,
1
1.5
26. Welland plants in streambed t l i� n , ;,) ,
FACW _ .QBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other method See p. 35 of manuat.
Notes:
Sketch

S -P 5
i`(n" 1) .Is-trpnryi fr1pntif ontinn FnrmA'arcin.. d-11
Date; I-, I'
Project/Site:Cwr ana�r
I Latitude:
Evaluator: TI-)
County: 9(,x4Q^
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ,
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other UT3
i(>_ l9 or perennial if 2 30'
E herreral Intermittent Perennial
p
a.9 Quad Name:
A. Geornor holo (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1', Continuity of channel bed.and bank
0
1 .
2
3
2. Sinuositj of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool se uence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrata
0
1 1.
2
3
5. Active/relict floodolain
0
1
2
3 '
6. Depositional bars: or:benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0'
1
2
3 .
8. Headcuts
1
2 -
3.
9. Grade control Seve•�a� �.., , ' {,WL ,r^I'
0
0.5.
1.51.5
10. N6tural valley
0
0:
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0 L
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are, not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hwimlonv (Suhtntal = . e 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2 I 3
14. Leaf litter
On0.5
1 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1 1.5
16, Organic debris lines or piles
0
0,5
1 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
f-]It lit PI IV a11HM 11Rl Is_W 2 1 -err-J
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upiand.plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
( 3
21. Aquatioblollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
.24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae •
0
0
1
1.5
26.'Netland plants in streambed Pt5,,,,& .S ' .t
0.75 OBL = 1.5 Other = p
' 'parennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

C- r
NC DWO Stream frlentilirntion Fnrn1-VPrcinn s I I
Date: _ 11 I I
Project/Site:C(ti(PGA'i G� QaloM
Latitude:
_t
Evaluator: 11 �5
County: �
Longitude:
Total Points: 35
Stream is at least intermittent +
if 2:f 9 or peranni3l if > 30
Stream Determination (ci
Epherrleral Intermitten Perennial
Other UY�
e,g. Quad flame: -
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = l j Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13 Continuity of channel bed.and bank 0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0
2
- 3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
rip le -pool. ae uence 0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate 0
1
2
5. Activ6/relict floodolain 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional'barsor'benches
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
2
3
8. Headcuts
3.
9, Grade control
=00.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
11.5I
I )P.,acond or greater order channel
Yes-
P m�
'+. 'artificial ditches ar., not rated, see discussions Ir
R Hvriminnv MiIhtntnl
12. Presence of Baseflo.av
I 0
1
2
'
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1•
2
I 3
14. Leaf litter
'.1.5
0.5
( 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
1
1.5 .
16. Organic debris lines or piles
17. Soil -based evidence of high avatar table?
0
�Jo = 0
1 1.5
Yes = 3
18, Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diverslbl and abundance)
1
3
2.1. Aquatio Mollusks
1 •
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1 I
1
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
25. Algae
0,5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants In streambed
FACraf = 0.75; OBL
Wrannial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p, 35 of manual,
�v w v N u f r- , n nv `� r. a;�,
O�.r•G.rV (, � �\L.. 1 f wV^�e`I�. �:rA..� �1..1
l
Sketch:
-! ".� s � /,��1 , %! t,.f•
��n.GT �l�'..+ 'C..t�wh'C' li < '
�. .�::
i � ir}

APPENDIX 5
Categorical Exclusion Documentation and Agency Correspondence

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
General
Part
1: Project Information
Project Name:
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Count Name:
Gaston county
DMS Number:
100090
Project sponsor:
Wldlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Andrea Eckardt
Project Contact Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 26203
Project Contact E-mail:
[e-mail]
DMS Project Manager: Matthew Reid
Proiect Description
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is located in Gaston County, NC approximately 4.1 miles south of the City of
Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County border. The project includes wetland restoration
along with the restoration and preservation of Carpenter's Branch and several unnamed tributaries. Proposed
mitigation areas are currently active cattle and hay pasture with limited forested canopy. The project will provide
3,229 stream credits and 8.2 riparian wetland credits to the Division of Mitigation Services in the Catawba River
Basin (03050103 expanded service area).
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
D�.c GCJ 5ect--12-1 q
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA

Part 2: All
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
Ell Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
✓❑ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑
No
✓❑
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
❑✓ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
✓❑ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1.
Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
❑✓ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
❑ No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
3.
Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4.
Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5.
Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by
the EBCI?
❑✓ No
2.
Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3.
Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1.
Will real estate be acquired?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2.
Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑✓ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1.
Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2.
Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6 f
1.
Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑✓ No
2.
Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1.
Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5.
Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1.
Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Wilderness Act
1.
Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal
agency?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A

ornee or the Chief
Bill John Baker
GWY9 D8P
Principal Chief
ASS" �M
CHEROKEE NATION®
O-
(YEOGdJ
P.O. B.. 948 - TWO q.4 OK74465.0948 • 918453-5000 • e1 n ke &
S. Joe Cnttendel
Deputy Principal Chief
0. KG (EYc;aJ`
WPA DGdA OIEOGJJ
January 29, 2019
Kimberly Browning
United States Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: SAW-2018-02062, Carpenter Bottom Site
Ms. Kimberly Browning:
The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about SAW-2018-02062,
Carpenter Bottom Site, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project.
Please allow this letter to serve as the Nation's interest in acting as a consulting party to this
proposed project.
The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre -historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project's legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.
However, the Nation requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) halt all
project activities immediately and re -contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural
significance are discovered during the course of this project.
Additionally, the Nation requests that USACE conduct appropriate inquiries with other pertinent
Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not included in the
Nation's databases or records.
If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
W ado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Stephen Yerka & Russell Townsend
Historic Preservation Specialists
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
[phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Dear Mr. Yerka and Mr. Townsend,
5/1/2019
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Carpenter
Bottom mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal
agency for this proposed mitigation project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a public notice (SAW-2018-02062) on
1/11/19 for this stream and wetland mitigation project. The USACE public notice closed on
2/27/19 and no response was received from the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
Responses from the Cherokee Nation and NC SHPO are included for your review.
A USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area
are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute
USGS Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows:
35024'31"N,81015'35"W.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Gaston County, NC approximately
4.1 miles south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County
border.
The site is being affected by heavy sedimentation, channelization, and nutrient loading. Poorly
managed agricultural activities and alterations to stream channels, including loss of riparian
vegetation are cited as contributing to sedimentation and habitat degradation via bank
erosion. The site is currently accessible to cattle, but they will be excluded with the start of
the project. It is planned to place approximately 15.2 acres under a permanent conservation
easement. The project will yield 3,229 SMUs from restoration and preservation, and 8.2
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mf of FWY—=n lDu'lify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

WMUs, which consist of 6.8 acres of wetland re-establishment, and 2.1 acres of wetland
rehabilitation.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within 30
days of receipt of this email in an effort to implement this necessary stream restoration/
mitigation project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
concerning this project.
Respectfully,
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
Cherokee Nation Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
NC SHPO Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NORTH CAROUNA I
Qapmb t of Qwlify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Erin Thompson & Sheila Bird
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
18263 W. Keetoowah Circle
Tahlequah, OK 74464
918-871-2838 / 918-871-2852
ethompsonOukb-nsn.gov / [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Thompson and Ms. Bird,
5/1/2019
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Carpenter
Bottom mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal
agency for this proposed mitigation project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a public notice (SAW-2018-02062) on
1/11/19 for this stream and wetland mitigation project. The USACE public notice closed on
2/27/19 and no response was received from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.
Responses from the Cherokee Nation and NC SHPO are included for your review.
A USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area
are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute
USGS Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows:
35024'31"N,81015'35"W.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Gaston County, NC approximately
4.1 miles south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County
border.
The site is being affected by heavy sedimentation, channelization, and nutrient loading. Poorly
managed agricultural activities and alterations to stream channels, including loss of riparian
vegetation are cited as contributing to sedimentation and habitat degradation via bank
erosion. The site is currently accessible to cattle, but they will be excluded with the start of
the project. It is planned to place approximately 15.2 acres under a permanent conservation
easement. The project will yield 3,229 SMUs from restoration and preservation, and 8.2
WMUs, which consist of 6.8 acres of wetland re-establishment, and 2.1 acres of wetland
rehabilitation.
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mf of FWY—=n lDu'lify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within
30 days of receipt of this letter in an effort to implement this necessary stream
restoration/ mitigation project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that
you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
P"d/ VY61'&OUIA
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
Cherokee Nation Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
NC SHPO Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NORTH CAROUNA I
Qapmb t of Qwlify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

6
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 29, 2019
Claire Ellwanger
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Ellwanger,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, a stream and wetland mitigation site
located in Gaston County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and a Project Conceptual Map showing
the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the
Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle and the site is located at latitude
35.4089600, longitude-81.2604790.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and riparian wetland impacts. This project will include wetland
restoration along with stream restoration and preservation of Carpenter's Branch and its
unnamed tributaries, which all flow to Beaverdam Creek. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. The site has been disturbed due to agricultural use,
including cattle that have full access to the stream.
According to your website (https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/gaston.html) the
threatened or endangered species for Gaston County are the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) the Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora), and the Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). If we have not
heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you do not have any comments regarding
associated laws and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current
time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,0,t4z4� r, (�
S. Lip--G�c.O[.�1.
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map Figure 2 Project Conceptual Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Andrea Eckardt
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:02 AM
To: Ellwanger, Claire
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Andrea Eckardt; [e-mail]
Subject: NLEB 4(d) rule consultation - Carpenter Bottom mitigation site, Gaston County
Attachments: Carpenter Bottom site- NLEB Consultation Form_5-29-19.docx; Figure 1 Carpenter Bottom site USGS
map.pdf, Figure 2 Carpenter Bottom site map.pdf
Good morning Claire,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation
framework for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site in Gaston County, NC.
Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form along with site maps/figures.
Thank you,
Donnie
Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d)
Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their project and meet the requirements of the
framework.
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form serves to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation for the 4(d) rule is required.
This form requests the minimum amount of information required for the Service to be able to track this
information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section 7(a)(2) compliance for
any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration

310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

Northern Lone -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency' to determine if your project is near
❑X
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑X
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑X
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question 41 or yes to question 42 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicane (Name, Email, Phone No.): FHWA, Donnie Brew, Donnie. brewkdot.goov
919-747-7017
Project Name: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): 35.4089600"N 80.2604790"W
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is a stream and wetland mitigation project located in Gaston County, approximately
4.1 miles south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County border. The project will
include the restoration and enhancement of Carpenter's Branch and several unnamed tributaries. Proposed mitigation areas
are currently active cattle and hay pasture with limited forested canopy. The project will provide 3,229 stream mitigation
units and 8.2 riparian wetland mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services in the Catawba River Basin (03050103
expanded service area). Construction of the stream restoration project will include some tree removal (>3"DBH) —
approximately 2.5 acres.
1 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/W'NSZone.pdf
z See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/pleb/nhisites.httnl
31f applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum? (47 miles)
❑
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
❑X
Does the project include forest conversion49 (if yes, report acreage below)
❑X
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
2.5 ac
If known, estimated acres' of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
Estimated wind capacity MW
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature:
Date Submitted: 5-29-19
' Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
s If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Andrea Eckardt
From: Andrea Eckardt
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 4:20 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC
Subject: RE: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Attachments: Carpenter AD 1006 Final.pdf
Milton -
Thank you so much. Attached is the fully completed AD1006 Form for Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site for your files.
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 5:16 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Andrea
Please find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation on Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site,
Gaston Co. NC
If I can be of further assistance please let us know.
Thanks
State Soil Scientist
USDA NRCS
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Desk: 919-873-2171
From: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:17 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Hi Milton -
I was just following up on the email I sent April 29t" regarding the Carpenter Bottom Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site.
Let me know if you need any additional information from me.
1

Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Andrea Eckardt
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Milton -
I have attached the partially completed AD1006 Form for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, located in Gaston
County.
I have also included a USGS Topographic Map, a Concept Map, and a Soils Map associated with the proposed stream and
wetland mitigation project.
The soils map includes a breakdown of acreage of each soil type with the project's conservation easement area.
Please let me know if you need anything else to complete Parts II and IV of the AD 1006 Farmland Conversion Form.
Thank you for your time,
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 04/29/2019
Name Of Project Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream and Wetland Restoration
County And State Gaston
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 05/09/2019
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). V ❑ - none 81 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 157,912 acres % 68
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 156,022 acres % 67
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Gaston Co. NC, LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
May 21, 2019 By eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
15.1
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
1.0
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
2.6
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0023
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
67.8
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15
13
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10
9
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20
10
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
10
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
5
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
5
10. On -Farm Investments
20
4
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
102
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

W ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 29, 2019
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, a
stream and wetland mitigation site located in Gaston County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and a
Project Conceptual Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure
was prepared from the Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle and the site is
located at latitude 35.4089600, longitude-81.2604790.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and riparian wetland impacts. This project will include wetland restoration along with
stream restoration and preservation of Carpenter's Branch and its unnamed tributaries, which all flow to
Beaverdam Creek. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The site
has been disturbed due to agricultural use, including cattle that have full access to the stream.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Ottot�!�, fc_ia�u
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2 Project Conceptual Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Stephen Yerka & Russell Townsend
Historic Preservation Specialists
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
[phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Dear Mr. Yerka and Mr. Townsend,
5/1/2019
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Carpenter
Bottom mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal
agency for this proposed mitigation project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a public notice (SAW-2018-02062) on
1/11/19 for this stream and wetland mitigation project. The USACE public notice closed on
2/27/19 and no response was received from the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
Responses from the Cherokee Nation and NC SHPO are included for your review.
A USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area
are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute
USGS Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows:
35024'31"N,81015'35"W.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Gaston County, NC approximately
4.1 miles south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County
border.
The site is being affected by heavy sedimentation, channelization, and nutrient loading. Poorly
managed agricultural activities and alterations to stream channels, including loss of riparian
vegetation are cited as contributing to sedimentation and habitat degradation via bank
erosion. The site is currently accessible to cattle, but they will be excluded with the start of
the project. It is planned to place approximately 15.2 acres under a permanent conservation
easement. The project will yield 3,229 SMUs from restoration and preservation, and 8.2
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mf of FWY—=n lDu'lify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

WMUs, which consist of 6.8 acres of wetland re-establishment, and 2.1 acres of wetland
rehabilitation.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within 30
days of receipt of this email in an effort to implement this necessary stream restoration/
mitigation project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
concerning this project.
Respectfully,
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
Cherokee Nation Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
NC SHPO Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NORTH CAROUNA I
Qapmb t of Qwlify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Erin Thompson & Sheila Bird
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee
18263 W. Keetoowah Circle
Tahlequah, OK 74464
918-871-2838 / 918-871-2852
ethompsonOukb-nsn.gov / [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Thompson and Ms. Bird,
5/1/2019
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Carpenter
Bottom mitigation site. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal
agency for this proposed mitigation project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a public notice (SAW-2018-02062) on
1/11/19 for this stream and wetland mitigation project. The USACE public notice closed on
2/27/19 and no response was received from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.
Responses from the Cherokee Nation and NC SHPO are included for your review.
A USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area
are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute
USGS Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows:
35024'31"N,81015'35"W.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Gaston County, NC approximately
4.1 miles south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County
border.
The site is being affected by heavy sedimentation, channelization, and nutrient loading. Poorly
managed agricultural activities and alterations to stream channels, including loss of riparian
vegetation are cited as contributing to sedimentation and habitat degradation via bank
erosion. The site is currently accessible to cattle, but they will be excluded with the start of
the project. It is planned to place approximately 15.2 acres under a permanent conservation
easement. The project will yield 3,229 SMUs from restoration and preservation, and 8.2
WMUs, which consist of 6.8 acres of wetland re-establishment, and 2.1 acres of wetland
rehabilitation.
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mf of FWY—=n lDu'lify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within
30 days of receipt of this letter in an effort to implement this necessary stream
restoration/ mitigation project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that
you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
P"d/ VY61'&OUIA
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
Cherokee Nation Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
NC SHPO Response to USACE Public Notice (SAW-2018-02062)
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NORTH CAROUNA I
Qapmb t of Qwlify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

6
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 29, 2019
Claire Ellwanger
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Ellwanger,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, a stream and wetland mitigation site
located in Gaston County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and a Project Conceptual Map showing
the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the
Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle and the site is located at latitude
35.4089600, longitude-81.2604790.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and riparian wetland impacts. This project will include wetland
restoration along with stream restoration and preservation of Carpenter's Branch and its
unnamed tributaries, which all flow to Beaverdam Creek. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. The site has been disturbed due to agricultural use,
including cattle that have full access to the stream.
According to your website (https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/gaston.html) the
threatened or endangered species for Gaston County are the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) the Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora), and the Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). If we have not
heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you do not have any comments regarding
associated laws and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current
time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,0,t4z4� r, (�
S. Lip--G�c.O[.�1.
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map Figure 2 Project Conceptual Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Andrea Eckardt
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 9:02 AM
To: Ellwanger, Claire
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Andrea Eckardt; [e-mail]
Subject: NLEB 4(d) rule consultation - Carpenter Bottom mitigation site, Gaston County
Attachments: Carpenter Bottom site- NLEB Consultation Form_5-29-19.docx; Figure 1 Carpenter Bottom site USGS
map.pdf, Figure 2 Carpenter Bottom site map.pdf
Good morning Claire,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation
framework for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site in Gaston County, NC.
Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form along with site maps/figures.
Thank you,
Donnie
Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d)
Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their project and meet the requirements of the
framework.
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form serves to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation for the 4(d) rule is required.
This form requests the minimum amount of information required for the Service to be able to track this
information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section 7(a)(2) compliance for
any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration

310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

Northern Lone -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency' to determine if your project is near
❑X
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑X
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑X
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question 41 or yes to question 42 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicane (Name, Email, Phone No.): FHWA, Donnie Brew, Donnie. brewkdot.goov
919-747-7017
Project Name: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): 35.4089600"N 80.2604790"W
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is a stream and wetland mitigation project located in Gaston County, approximately
4.1 miles south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County border. The project will
include the restoration and enhancement of Carpenter's Branch and several unnamed tributaries. Proposed mitigation areas
are currently active cattle and hay pasture with limited forested canopy. The project will provide 3,229 stream mitigation
units and 8.2 riparian wetland mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services in the Catawba River Basin (03050103
expanded service area). Construction of the stream restoration project will include some tree removal (>3"DBH) —
approximately 2.5 acres.
1 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/W'NSZone.pdf
z See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/pleb/nhisites.httnl
31f applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum? (47 miles)
❑
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
❑X
Does the project include forest conversion49 (if yes, report acreage below)
❑X
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
2.5 ac
If known, estimated acres' of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June 1 to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
Estimated wind capacity MW
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature:
Date Submitted: 5-29-19
' Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
s If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

Andrea Eckardt
From: Andrea Eckardt
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 4:20 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC
Subject: RE: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Attachments: Carpenter AD 1006 Final.pdf
Milton -
Thank you so much. Attached is the fully completed AD1006 Form for Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site for your files.
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 5:16 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Andrea
Please find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation on Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site,
Gaston Co. NC
If I can be of further assistance please let us know.
Thanks
State Soil Scientist
USDA NRCS
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Desk: 919-873-2171
From: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:17 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Hi Milton -
I was just following up on the email I sent April 29t" regarding the Carpenter Bottom Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site.
Let me know if you need any additional information from me.
1

Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Andrea Eckardt
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: AD1006 - Stream/Wetland Mitigation Project
Milton -
I have attached the partially completed AD1006 Form for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, located in Gaston
County.
I have also included a USGS Topographic Map, a Concept Map, and a Soils Map associated with the proposed stream and
wetland mitigation project.
The soils map includes a breakdown of acreage of each soil type with the project's conservation easement area.
Please let me know if you need anything else to complete Parts II and IV of the AD 1006 Farmland Conversion Form.
Thank you for your time,
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 04/29/2019
Name Of Project Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream and Wetland Restoration
County And State Gaston
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS 05/09/2019
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). ✓❑ ❑ - none 81 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 157,912 acres % 68
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 156,022 acres % 67
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Gaston Co. NC, LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
May 21, 2019 By eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
15.1
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
1.0
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
2.6
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0023
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
67.8
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On -Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

W ILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
April 29, 2019
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site, a
stream and wetland mitigation site located in Gaston County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and a
Project Conceptual Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure
was prepared from the Lincolnton West, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle and the site is
located at latitude 35.4089600, longitude-81.2604790.
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel and riparian wetland impacts. This project will include wetland restoration along with
stream restoration and preservation of Carpenter's Branch and its unnamed tributaries, which all flow to
Beaverdam Creek. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The site
has been disturbed due to agricultural use, including cattle that have full access to the stream.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Ottot�!�, fc_ia�u
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2 Project Conceptual Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

APPENDIX 6
Data, Analysis, and Supplementary Design Information

Existing Conditions Geomorphic
Parameters
Parameter
Notation
Units
Carpenter's
Branch Reach 1
UT1
UT2
UT3
stream type
G4
G4/5
G4/5
G4/5
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.28
0.03
0.06
0.03
bankfull cross -sectional
area
Abkf
SF
7.0
1.8
3.4
2.8
avg velocity during
bankfull event
Vbkf
fps
2.0
3.8
3.5
2.2
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
10.2
3.1
4.2
9.5
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
feet
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.7
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.3
bankfull width to depth
ratio
wbkf/dbkf
14.9
5.2
5.2
31.9
low bank height
feet
4.1
4.9
1.6
1.0
bank height ratio
BHR
3.4
6.1
1.3
1.3
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
14.2
4.2
N/A
N/A
entrenchment ratio
ER
1.4
1.4
N/A
N/A
max pool depth at bankfull
dpool
feet
1.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
2.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
feet
6.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
pool width ratio
Wpool/Wbkf
0.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bkf pool cross -sectional
area
Apool
SF
7.6
N/A
N/A
N/A
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
1.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
pool -pool spacing
p-p
feet
23.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
pool -pool spacing ratio
P-P/Wbkf
2.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
valley slope
Svalley
feet/foot
0.0140
0.0294
0.0118
0.0235
channel slope
Schannel
feet/foot
0.0130
0.0258
0.0116
0.0228
sinuosity
K
1.13
1.14
1.02
1.03
belt width
Wblt
feet
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
meander width ratio
Wblt/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
meander length
Lm
feet
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
meander length ratio
Lm/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
linear wavelength
LW
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
linear wavelength ratio
LW/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
radius of curvature ratio
Rc/ Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/Al- Pattern data not applicable
N/AZ - Pool section not present in field
Carpenter Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 6

Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Notation
Units
Carpenter Reach
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Typical
Section
Values
Min
I
Max
I
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
Typical
Section
Values
Min
Max
stream type
C4
C4
C4
C4b
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.26
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.04
design discharge
Q
cfs
14
6
8
8
6
bankfull cross -sectional area
Abkf
SF
4.4
1.9
2.9
2.9
1.9
average velocity during
bankfull event
vbkf
fps
3.2
T
3.3
3.0
3.8
2.8
Cross-Section
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
7.5
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
maximum depth at bankfull
dmaX
feet
0.7 0.7 0.9
0.5 0.5 0.6
0.7 0.6 0.8
0.7 0.6 0.8
0.5 0.5 0.6
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf/dbkf
12.5
12.5
12
12
12.5
max depth ratio
dmaX/dbkf
1.2
1.25
1.4
1.4
1.25
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
floodprone area width
Wfpa
feet
26+
17
26
18+
11
18
21+
13
21
21+
13
21
18+
11
18
entrenchment ratio
ER
3.5+
2.2
3.5
3.5+
2.2
3.5
3.5+
2.2
3.5
3.5+
2.2
3.5
3.5+
2.2
3.5
Slope
valley slope
Svalley
feet/foot
0.0144
0.0220
0.0100
0.0270
0.0200
channel slope
Schnl
feet/foot
0.0120
0.0170
0.0080
0.0230
0.0100
Profile
riffle slope
Sniffle
feet/foot
---
0.0144
0.0300
---
0.0204
0.0425
---
0.0096
0.0224
---
0.0276
0.0644
---
0.0120
0.0250
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle/SchnI
---
1.2
2.5
---
1.2
2.5
---
1.2
2.8
---
1.2
2.8
---
1.2
2.5
pool slope
Sp
feet/foot
---
0.0000
0.0024
---
0.0000
0.0036
---
0.0000
0.0031
---
0.0000
0.0031
---
0.0000
0.0036
pool slope ratio
Sp/Schnl
---
0.0
0.2
---
0.0
0.2
---
0.0
0.2
---
0.0
0.2
---
0.0
0.2
pool -to -pool spacing
LP-p
feet
---
23
53
---
15
35
---
18
42
---
18
42
---
15
35
pool spacing ratio
Lp-p/Wbkf
---
3.0
7.0
---
3.0
7.0
---
3.0
7.0
---
3.0
7.0
---
3.0
7.0
pool cross -sectional area
Apool
SF
---
5.3
11.1
---
2.3
4.7
---
3.4
7.1
---
3.4
7.1
---
2.3
4.7
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
---
1.2
2.5
---
1.2
2.5
---
1.2
2.5
---
1.2
2.5
---
1.2
2.5
maximum pool depth
dpool
feet
0.9
2.1
---
0.6
1.3
---
0.7
1.7
---
0.7
1.7
---
0.6
1.3
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
1.1
1.5
---
1.5
3.5
---
1.5
3.5
---
1.5
3.5
---
1.5
3.5
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
feet
10.2
6.8
8.1
8.1
6.8
pool width ratio
Wpool/Wbkf
1.4
1.4
1.35
1.35
1.4
Pattern
sinuosity
K
1.20
1.30
1.25
1.17
---1
belt width
Wblt
feet
---
26
60
---
10
40
---
12
48
---
12
48
---1
meander width ratio
Wblt/Wbkf
---
3.5
8
---
2
8
---
2
8
---
2
8
---1
linear wavelength (formerly
meander length)LW
feet
---
23
101
---
15
68
---
18
81
---
18
81
1
linear wavelength ratio
(formerly meander length
ratio
LW/wbkf
---
3
13.5
---
3.0
13.5
---
3
13.5
---
3
13.5
---1
meander length
Lm
feet
---
49
105
---
33
70
---
39
84
---
39
84
---1
meander length ratio
Lm/Wbkf
---
6.5
14
---
6.5
14.0
---
6.5
14
---
6.5
14
---1
radius of curvature
feet
14
26
9.0
18.0
---
10.8
21
---
10.8
21
9.0
18.0
radius of curvature ratio
/R
Rc/ Wbkf
"'
1.8
3.5
---
1.8
3.5
---
1.8
3.5
---
1.8
1 3.5
1.8
3.5
1 Reach length less than 50'
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Appendix 6

100
99
98
97
F 96
0 95
a
94
93
92
91
90
Carpenters Branch - XS1
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -Water Surface
-Approximate Bankfull -Floodprone Width
BHR 4.2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.44
FP Width (feet) 13.2

100
99
98
97
F 96
0 95
a
94
93
92
91
90
Carpenters Branch - XS2
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -Water Surface
-Approximate Bankfull -Floodprone Width
BHR 4.3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.60
FP Width (feet) 12.8

100
99
98
97
F 96
0 95
a
94
93
92
91
90
Carpenters Branch - XS3
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -Water Surface
-Approximate Bankfull -Floodprone Width
BHR 3.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.81
FP Width (feet) 11.11

4
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
Carpenters Branch - XS4 Reference
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -Water Surface
-Approximate Bankfull -Floodprone Width
BHR 1.2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.50
FP Width (feet) 17

96
95
94
0 93
a
w 92
91
90
UT1 - XS 5
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
10 20
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -Approximate Bankfull -Floodprone Width
BHR 5.4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.37
FP Width (feet) 4

95
94.5
94
93.5
93
92.5
92
91.5
91
90.5
UT2 - XS 6
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20
Station (ft)
Existing Channel -Approximate Bankfull -Floodprone Width
BHR 1.8
Entrenchment Ratio 4.13
FP Width (feet) 16.5

i mac_

95
94.8
94.6
$ 94.4
0 94.2
a 94
W
93.8
93.6
934
XS Ditch 2
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
-Existing Ditch
50
BHR N/A
Entrenchment Ratio N/A
FP Width (feet) 10

95
94.8
94.6
94.4
$ 94.2
0 94
> 93.8
a
93.6
93.4
93.2
93
XS Ditch 2
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
-Existing Ditch
BHR N/A
Entrenchment Ratio N/A
FP Width (feet) 19

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Project Name:
C y
Data Collected By -
Location:
Data Collected On: 5 I
job #:
d
Reach:
Date:
lCross Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
Pool
...............
................
SILT�!GZAY: Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Very fine
Fine
0.062
0.125
0.125
0.250
Medium
Coarse
Ve Coarse
0.250
0.500
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
Fine
5.7
8.0
�1
4
Medium
8.0
11.3
Medium
11.3
16.0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
�' 1
Very Coarse
32
45
Very Coarse
45
64
Small
Small
L e
L e
64
90
90
128
128
180
180
256
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
Medium
512
1024
e/Ve e
1024
2048
................
::: EEpR6itK:::
Bedrock
2048
>2048
_
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
I\ " f
0�7- WAIT
R 3 ern y�rf
RS 1�N(W'i
Z:\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form 2/16/2018

PF.RRT.F. COUNT FTF.T.n FORM
Project Name:
O"V
Data Collected By: 1`
Location:
Data Collected On: S r(4
Job #:
Reach:
Date:
i
lCross Section #: r ��
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
SILT/CLAY
ISilt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5 9
Fine
0.125
0.250
Medium
0.250
0.500
Coarse
0.5
1.0
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
N1' 1l
Fine
4.0
5.7
1^ 1'WT � 1111
Fine
5.7
8.0�ff
1
III
Medium
8.0
11.3
1Y11
Medium
11.3
16.0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
Coarse
1 22.6
1 32
I
Very Coarse
32
45
Very Coarse
45
64
Cp
Small
64
90
Small
90
128
Large
128
180
180
256
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
Medium
Lar e/Very Large 1
512
1024
1024 1
2048
BEDROCK
I Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
jw
WT
JffT LK
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form 3/5/2019

Rural NC Mtn & Piedmont Regional Curve
(Stream Gage Sites)
1000
U)
100
L
Q
� 10
O
4a
Q 1
Cn 1 10 100 1000
O y = 18.695x0.6593 Drainage Area
U Rz = 0.9651 (sq. miles)
-----------------------------------------------------
square miles
Carpenter Branch
Reach 1 0.27
Carpenter Branch
Reach 2 0.28
UT1
0.03
UT2
0.05
UT3
0.08
UT4
0.04
XS area -
XS area -
Alan Walker
Regional Curve
7.89
8.13
8.08
8.32
1.85
1.93
2.59
2.70
3.54
3.67
2.24
2.33

square miles
Carpenter Branch
Reach 1 0.27
Carpenter Branch
Reach 2 0.28
UT1
0.03
UT2
0.05
UT3
0.08
UT4
0.04
Discharge (cfs)
Alan Walker
19.92
20.49
3.55
5.30
7.66
4.44
Discharge (cfs)
Regional Curve
19.90
20.48
3.58
5.33
7.70
4.48

NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve
(Stream Gage Sites)
low
,o
,
' y. nw>e-"O
R' - 0.7M
ii�i ' ' �'ii�'iii i i� 1�■ iii
Nal'alle";
■rr'�i .Ir so
10 b S° Fx 100 1000 I
Drninmp Area (sq.ml.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
square miles
BKF Width
Mean Depth
Carpenter Branch
Reach 1 0.27
10.74
0.76
Carpenter Branch
Reach 2 0.28
10.88
0.76
UT1
0.03
4.77
0.40
UT2
0.05
5.76
0.47
UT3
0.08
6.85
0.53
UT4
0.04
5.30
0.44
NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve
(Stream Gage Sites)

100%
90%
80%
70%
u_
50%
a�
U
L
a)
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Carpenter Branch Reach 1
Subpavement Particle Size Distribution
—*—Subpavement
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
m
U
L
a 50%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Carpenter Branch
Reach 1
Sieve Analysis Class Distribution
Particle Size Class (mm)

Carpenter Bottom Reach 1 - XS1
Pavement- Subp avement Particle Distribution
100
.dr- .
jr—
Silt/Clay
Sand
'
90
Gravel
*
Cobble
Boulder
'
Bedrock
80
,
70
Id
0
60
v
50
U
•A—
AM;
'
40
v
v
F�
30
20
'
10
lid
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--f-- Pavement Summary —r Subpavement Summary

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Carpenter Bottom Reach 1 - XS1
Shear Stress Analysis
subpav
Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft
7.0
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)
10.2
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf ft
0.7
Wetted Perimeter, WP-W+2D (ft)
11.6
Hydraulic Radius, R ft
0.6
Schan (ft/ft)
0.0130
Boundary/Bankfull Shear Stress, t b/s ft
0.49
d50 riffle 100 ct (mm)
5.8
d50 mm - bar sample, or subpavement
5.1
ratio - d50pve/d50subpave (valid range 3-7)
443
ratio - di/d50 pavement valid range 1.3-3
5..20
tci-equation 1
9-9'749
tci-e cation 2
9-9989
D100 bar/subpavement or measured largest particle from
lab sample (mm)
30.0
d bar large (ft)
0.10
Dcxit (ft) (equation 1)
0.9
Dcxit (ft) (equation 2)
94
Scxit (equation 1)
9-0i737
Scrit (equation 2)
9�989Fi
Las est moveable particle Shields/CO curves
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.0
Unit Stream Power (watts/ sq meter)
14.3
DIMENSIONAL SHEAR STRESS ANALYSIS
T - YdS
Movable particle size (min)
Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax
Predicted mean depth to move Dmax
Predicted slope required to initiate movement of Drn x
A for aggxadational, D for degxadational,
according to the curves
SHIELDS CURVE
ROSGEN CURVE
0.49
37.0
89.9
0.40
0.11
0.49
0.14
0.0092
0.0025
D
D
DESIGN CONDITIONS
Carpenter Bottom Reach 1 - XS1
subpav
4.4
7.5
0.60
7.8
0.6
0.0120
0.42
5.8
5.1
444
5 4-7
0.074
9410S9
30.0
0.10
4-0
9-4-2
0$2048
32
19.7
SHIELDS CURVE
ROSGEN CURVE
0.42
31.8
80.7
0.40
011
0.53
0.15
0.0107
0.0029
D
D

APPENDIX 7
Wetland Design Documents and Data

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Rzo m Ridge Ruad - Raleigh. Norih Carolina _2761.1 - Phony:: (910) X46-5900 • Fox: ioll)i 846-94(17
PRELIMINARY HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Carpenter's Bottom Project Site
Piedmont
Catawba River Basin
Lincoln County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Mr. Eric Neuhaus
Wildlands
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
L
t 4f
August 1st, 2018
1
FA
KEVIN C. MARTIN
000861

INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC, PA) was retained to perform a preliminary evaluation to
assess the presence and extent of hydric soils onsite. Most of the area evaluated is currently in pasture.
METHODOLOGY
On April 16th, 2018 Kevin Martin (LSS, PWS) of S&EC, PA performed a hydric soil evaluation at the site.
Hand auger borings were advanced on the property at locations as appropriate to approximately estimate
the location and extent of hydric soils within the project area (see attached Approximate Hydric Soil
Locations Map). Each soil boring was evaluated to assess the presence or absence of hydric soil
indicators. Hydric soil indicators were identified utilizing the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
Unities States -A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 8.1, 2017).
All areas evaluated are mapped as the Worsham soil series (Fine, mixed, active, thermic Typic
Endoaquults) by NRCS. Most hydric soils observed onsite were in fact most like the Worsham soil series.
RESULTS
Numerous soil borings were performed within the study area. Soil characteristics were evaluated
and all areas identified as containing hydric soils met the hydric soil criteria described below.
An X" on the map indicates approximate soil boring locations. Depth to hydric soil indicators,
were less than 10" and in most cases were less than 2" below land surface.
U- are non hydric soil areas
H- are hydric soils areas containing a depleted matrix.
Indicator F3: Depleted Matrix
Technical Description: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent
or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
(a) 2 in. (5 cm) if the 2 in. (5 cm) is entirely within the upper 6 in. (15 cm)
of the soil, or
(b) 6 in. (15 cm) starting within 10 in. (25 cm) of the soil surface.
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
While all of the borings performed within areas identified as hydric soils on the attached map
exhibited hydric soil indicators, many areas containing hydric soils did not exhibit Primary
Wetland Hydrology or Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators.

Approximate Hydric Soils Locations Map
W I L D L A N S 0 200 400 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I i i I Catawba River Basin 03050102
Gaston County, NC

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SandEC.com
HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Carpenter Bottom Project Site
Piedmont
Catawba River Basin
Gaston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Mr. Eric Neuhaus
Wildlands
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
August 11th, 2018
Revised May 8`", 2020
1

INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC, PA) was retained to perform a preliminary evaluation to
assess the presence and extent of hydric soils onsite. Most of the area evaluated is currently in pasture.
METHODOLOGY
On April 16th, 2018 and April 241", 2020 Kevin Martin (LSS, PWS) of S&EC, PA performed hydric soil
evaluations at the site. Hand auger borings were advanced on the property at locations as appropriate to
approximately estimate the location and extent of hydric soils within the project area (see attached
Hydric Soil Locations Map). Each soil boring was evaluated to assess the presence or absence of hydric
soil indicators. Hydric soil indicators were identified utilizing the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in
the Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 8.1, 2017) in 2018 and
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils
(Version 8.2, 2018) in 2020.
All areas evaluated are mapped as the Worsham soil series (Fine, mixed, active, thermic Typic
Endoaquults) by NRCS. Most hydric soils observed onsite were in fact most like the Worsham soil series.
RESULTS
Twenty four soil borings were performed within the study area. Borings 131-A to 131-M are all
from the 2018 soils evaluation. Borings 132-A to B2-K are from the 2020 soils evaluation. Soil
characteristics were evaluated and all areas identified as containing hydric soils met the hydric
soil criteria described below.
A circle with an "X" inside on the map indicates approximate soil boring locations. Green circles
are at locations that contained hydric soils while the gray circles are at non-hydric soil locations.
Depth to hydric soil indicators, were less than 10" and in most cases were less than 2" below
land surface. Hydric soils areas contain a depleted matrix.
Indicator F3: Depleted Matrix
Technical Description: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent
or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
(a) 2 in. (5 cm) if the 2 in. (5 cm) is entirely within the upper 6 in. (15 cm)
of the soil, or
(b) 6 in. (15 cm) starting within 10 in. (25 cm) of the soil surface.
Two of the borings within the hydric soil area in 2020 contained the F3a indicator (132-A and 132-
F) while all of the other borings performed in 2018 and 2020 within hydric soil areas contained
the F3b indicator. Typical soil profiles are attached for borings that were performed at B2-K and
132-F and are representative of the F3a and F3a hydric soil indicators respectively.
2

B1-D _
BUMGARNER BRIAN ONEIL B1-E
3621626176 B2-F ►®a
MAUNEY LU B1-m B2 C B2-A
36216129 oa B1 G p1 ►�1
1�1 ►�1
B2-D B2-B �
1i1 ►�1 B1-K ►�1
►i1 B1-L B2�
F,,. ►.1 ►.1 B2-K ►.1
OI
►�1 B1 J d
►�1 B24
/B2-G ♦ B2-J
B1-H r
614/�//�/ ►�1
B2
Bi-c
►�1
0
2019.Vrial Ph*graphy
POOLE ANNETTE
3621618033 4p
� a
-ter
i
B1-A CARPENTER WADE JR �,�"_ „ �■
►i1 3621701117
B1-B
1�1 1

Soil Profile #1 / Boring Location B2-K
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class: Worsham — Fine, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaquults
Horizon
Depth
(inches)
Horizon
Matrix
Color
(moist)
%
Redox Features
Texture
Notes
Color (moist)
%
Type
Location
0 to 8
A
2.5Y 3/2
97
7.5YR 4/6
3
Clay
Pore linings present, manganese
concentrations
8 to 14
Btg
2.5Y 4/1
90
7.5YR 5/8
10
Clay
Pore linings present, manganese
concentrations

Soil Profile #2 / Boring Location 132-F
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3a
Series and Taxonomic Class: Worsham — Fine, mixed, active, thermic Typic Endoaquults
Horizon
Depth
(inches)
Horizon
Matrix
Color
(moist)
%
Redox Features
Texture
Notes
Color (moist)
%
Type
Location
0 to 3
A
10YR 4/2
95
7.5YR 4/6
5
Clay Loam
Oxidized rhizospheres
3 to 12
Bt
7.5YR 4/4
70
10YR 4/3
30
Clay
Common manganese
concentrations
12 to 16
Btg
2.5Y 4/1
90
7.5YR 5/8
10
Clay Loam
Common manganese
concentrations

20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
d
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 L >? C - W O_ > U
7 v U1 O- m U O U1
LL a 5 a o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
m
1.5 zc
1.0
0.5
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. XXXXX)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2019
20
10
0
-10
d
.41 -20
d
M
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i >? C bb O_ +"' > U
N f0 O_ f0 7 U) U O U)
LL g a g Q � O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. XXXXX)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2019
20
10
0
-10
d
.41 -20
d
M
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i >? C bb O_ +"' > U
N f0 O_ f0 7 U) U O U)
LL g a g Q � O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
d
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 L >? C - W O_ > U
7 v U1 O- m U O U1
LL a 5 a o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
m
1.5 zc
1.0
0.5
0.0

Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Groundwater Gage #4
o
o
v
Monitoring Year 0 - 2019
V)Q,
,)rn
20
°�°0
W0
3.5
3 N
N
3
o
o �
10
rn
o
a
3.0
a
0
w
2.5
-10
— — — — — — —
—
— — — — —
— —
— — — — — — — —
— — — — — —
— —
— — — — — —
c
2.0
a -20
J
N
m30
1.5 z
-40
1.0
-50
0.5
-60
L
0.0
-70
C LL
ai
? C tlD Q
0-LL Q ai Q V)
> U
Z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. XXXXX)
Monitoring Year 0 - 2019
20
10
0
-10
d
.41 -20
d
M
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 i >? C bb O_ +"' > U
N f0 O_ f0 7 U) U O U)
LL g a g Q � O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
d
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 L >. C - W O_ > U
7 v U1 O- m U O U1
LL a 5 a V) o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
m
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Plot
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 10090
Pre -Construction - 2019 Year
Carpenter Bottom 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019
10
9
8
7 FP
c 6
c
0
m 6
.a
a` 4
3
2
1
0
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19
Date
�2019 _30th Percentile -70th Percentile
Rainfall
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from Gaston County, NC WETS Table
30%
Rainfall
70%
Rainfall
2019
Rainfall
Jan-19
3.08
5.31
4.36
Feb-19
2.60
4.45
7.34
Mar-19
2.64
5.18
3.29
A r-19
1.78
3.50
5.76
Ma -19
1 1.98
4.52
1 3.46
Jun-19
1.80
4.65
8.87
Jul-19
2.24
4.32
2.47
Au -19
2.59
5.09
5.01
Se -19
2.21
5.10
0.00
Oct-19
2.40
4.52
6.2
Nov-19
1.97
3.86
2.97
Dec-19
2.34
1 4.36
5.57
2019 Rainfall Data from Lincolnton 2W USCO0314997 NOAA Station

APPENDIX 8
Preliminary Design Plans

Crouse
I
Liucodu County
Gaston County
Lincolnton
�i
ebbs Chapel Rd
SITE
Gay oP,
r�
�A
Pf
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston County, North Carolina
for
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
BEFORE YOU DIG!
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ON E-CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
Environmental
Quarry
REVISED PRELIMINARY PLANS
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 4, 2020
FOR IRT MITIGATION
PLAN REVIEW
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
Project Overview
General Notes and Symbols
Typical Sections
Stream Plan and Profile
Carpenter Bottom
UT3
UT2
UT1
UT4
Wetland Overview
Planting Sheets
Erosion and Sediment Control
Details
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No.F-0831
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Eric Neuhaus, Project Engineer
828-774-5547
Surveying:
Turner Land Surveying
P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Elisabeth G. Turner, PLS
919-827-0745
2.1.1-2.1.7
2.2.1
2.3.1
2.4.1
2.5.1
3.0
4.0-4.4
Placeholder
6.0-6.9
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Ste 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Paul Wiesner
828-273-1673
DMS Project No. 100090
Catawba River Basin 03050102
USACE Action ID
No. SAW-2018-02062
USACE PM Todd Tugwell
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27587
I
= o
0�w v�w
20z xz�v
6�

SHEET 2.3.1
SHEET 2.1.2 ;
FA
SHEET 2.4.1
., ,
UTI
-POOL BMP
END STEP
BEGIN RESTORATION
BEGIN STEP -POOL BMP
ON
ME
l �
STA: 123+00
CARPENTER BRANCH
END RESTORATION
BEGIN PRESERVATION
lA
0' 100' 200' 300'
(HORIZONTAL)
STA:127+77
CARPENTER BRANCH
END PRESERVATION
I
Q
Cap
xv�=
w
�
�x

-
>`. -- _ '
0' 50' 100, 150'
_ (HORIZONTAL)
/ -r
- --"_' - -~
a
_ I
r
---
S ' r = / ---
,
\,
a D a D
Ajmoo.
S'
,
-- _ -__
/��j --------- ---_-- --
REPCN
,b
41
a D a Di i' D I.a D 4--»sl
leerl
/ ' �'�' 1'%> •� ° h ri '�° t''i' r i ,C,'�' '� Q FILL EXISTING WETLAND DITCHES >
TO GRADE (TYP) - ''%• ___ - �.f' �/ ' �� Y' _ ''--- --- ��
, -
/ REMOVE DEBRIS WITHIN
'CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP)
O
`_T
T i r
" D a
_- G ; � -� ' - T "' Wetland Re-establishment
o ,
_ --
,-- - rI''• --
REMOVE EXISTING FENCE WITHIN
Wetland Rehabilitation
CONSERVATION EASEMENT (TYP) i i '-�
_ _ -_ I , , - - -
. a
I. -
1- y
i

\
w
SHEET 4.2
100' 200' 300'
IHoaizoN—1
lk
.:.,,': ''r' �h::w �Ir „r ,p � rp' „r •I• � ,,r ,r � ,p..,�, ,I,. ,,r .,r . ;I,..,Ir .,I,. „�..,r ,,, ,p �,� �p �,� �,�' �,� �,� �,�—.I� ,,, ,,, ,, ,,, ,,, I \
l . r'C ' 'I'::'I! ' T: 11- ''r ' 9': }I! ' T � 'I( :'Y' ' !I'::'I'. ''I':.'I'::'Y' ' !I'; ''I!—
�I�:
SHEET 4.3
� � \'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' 'I' �• 403+85
.
0$+00' x F\
/
�� l
F r
0®9�� SHEET4.4
/ La 'sk. . . . F / gP�
/ 500
O\ A 2yOQ .
\ /
I
\ 6 �. .
c
BRgNcH
w
0 125+001-V— i
\z* 00
o � _
I

Z
�vNo
W
u x v
Z ti d
w
0' 50' 100, 150'
�
(HORIZONTAL)
Sheet Index

v
I
w I ,/
w
2 ' H
\ Iw
LU
z.r IN
1 Iw
U �z
\E
-=�— E — E — E — E — E E�E_E—E—E—E—E�
I 1
I
— E _E \ E — ESE _ E — E — E — E — E — E — E — E — II
_E
—E—E—E—E—E_E� E—E—E—ESE—E_E—E
E _ ESE _ E _ E — E _ ESE _ E — E — E — E — ESE _ E _ I
I E- I ,
+ I E — E — E — E — E — E — E — E — E I
+ +
+ + 1 �00 + °X + + + + + + + 2p�+ r 19
.47
+
+++ ++ ++ + ++ CARPEl'v ®+ + ++,000�
1-CA
+� PER BR ++ + ++ ++ oo+ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ +
V CH _ + + + koo + 2 + 12+00
+ + + + + + + +I + +
oo
ell,�
E
II
1
+ + +
I
Sheet Index
Sheet 3.2
Z She,
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
c
I
W'x v
�z 6 a
O ft
ft ft U
5 0

HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
A
L
FLOW
EXCAVATE LOW FLOW _
THALWEG IN RIFFLE
NOTES:
1. MATERIAL SIZING TBD BETWEEN
DRAFT AND FINAL SUBMITTAL.
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
r THALWEG
�TOPOFBANK NORMAL WATER
FLOW r 0.5' MAX.
[SURFACE
5' MIN. NONWOVEfY
(TYP) FILTER FABRIC
Profile View
A -A'
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
r--- B
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
B'
__T
RIFFLE BOTTOM
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
12" MIN. DEPTH
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
,✓f TOP OF BANK (TYP)
Constructed Riffle
6.0 Not toScale
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
ED MATERIAL POINT PER P
BURY INTO BANK 3' MIP
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
INSTALL BRUSH TOE OR
4 STONE BANK PROTECTION
TOP OF BANK TOE OF
SLOPE
5' MIN.
(TYP) 5' MIN.
(TYP)
Log Section
B-B'
NOTE:
1. BOULDER MATERIAL CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF ANGLED
LOGS WITH APPROVAL OF ENGINEER.
2. MATERIAL SIZING TBD BETWEEN DRAFT
AND FINAL SUBMITTAL.
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVA
POINT PER PR(
n Angled Log Riffle
6.0 Not to Scale
RIFFLE BOTTOM
WIDTH PER FLOW
TYPICAL SECTIONS
I
CR-CR
CR-WD
CR-ALR
CR-CH
B
Plan View
5° TO 650
(TYP)
BANKFULL
" DIAMETER OR
2EATER(TYP)
!D MATERIAL
EXCAVATE LOW FLOW
THALWEG IN RIFFLE
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
B
RIFFLE
L_►B'
MICRO POOL HABIT T
BEHIND LARG
WOODY DEBRIS
NOTES:
1. MATERIAL SIZING TBD BETWEEN
DRAFT AND FINAL SUBMITTAL.
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
FLOW
12" MIN. DEPTH
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY
SALVAGED ONSITE
DEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
SUBSTRATE
Cn
BED MATERIAL
Q
MICRO POOL HABITAT
'z 0
BEHIND LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
Z
o N N o
t
Z
�Z
6 a
NONWOVEN 6" SALVAGED ONSITE
Hw
r�
FILTER FABRIC COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
Section A -A'
J
EXCAVATE LOW FLOW �u
THALWEG IN RIFFLE /\
RIFFLE MATERIAL
TO EXTEND UP TOE
OF SLOPES
TOP OF BANK
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
n Woody Riffle
6.0 Not to Scale
TIE BOULDERS INTO TOE /
OF SLOPE OR PLACE J
MINIMUM OF V FROM
TOE OF SLOPE
12" MIN. DEPTH
SALVAGED ONSITE
CLASS 1 STONE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
OR SALVAGED
BED MATERIAL
ONSITE BOULDERS
FLOW MIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
3" MAX
NOTES:
1. MATERIAL SIZING TBD BETWEEN
DRAFT AND FINAL SUBMITTAL.
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
B'
Plan View
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
WORKED INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
TOE OF SLOPE
NONWOVEN
Section B-B' FILTER FABRIC
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3" ABOVE
FINISHED RIFFLE ELEVATION
EXCAVATE LOW FLOW
THALWEG IN RIFFLE
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN 0.5'x1'x1.5'
3" MAX TOP OF BANK (TYP)
4 Chunk Riffle
6.0 Not toScale
O
o
U
5
C
0
U
O
U�
7j',
N
Q

0° - 15°ANGLE
SILL ELEVATION PER
PER FIELD DIRECTION
PROFILE
A' B'
FLOW
POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE
12" - 15" DIAMETER
SILL ELEVATION
ADD BRUSH TOE
HEADER LOG
POOL DEPTH
a
>
a
MIXED STONE TOE OR BRUSH PACK
PER PROFILE (TYP)
OR TRANSPLANTS
RIFFLE BACKFILL
PER PROFILE
0.5' MAX
IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEER
AS DIRECTED BY
STREA
0.5' MAX
Z
IN THE FIELD
ENGINEER
m
O
FLOW
�POOLI
C� i=
O
3
l /
1
II IIIII
�1111-ll111-ll1..
—III�II II 11111=1i1—III�ii=hill IIII
-ll1.. -11 ll111-1ll� I1-1I I� I1=1I1=
0
,p
O LL
A
BACKFILL
I TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC
12' 15 DIAMETER
I
FOOTER LOG
5'
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
—
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
_
A
g
— =1
Profile View
g
g'
Plan View
A'
EXTEND FILTER
SILL ELEVATION
FABRIC 5' MIN.
PER PROFILE
UPSTREAM
HEADERLOG
.. .. .. .. :n.�
FOOTER LOG
EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION
3' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
Plan View
NOTE:
1. ONE LOG MAY BE USED (NO FOOTER) IF
DIAMETER IS AT LEAST 18".
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
0'-0.2'
PER PLANS OR
7EMBEDG
�i (�\����•�
FIELD DIRECTION
\SILLVATION
12" - 15" DIAMETER
.)
PER PROFILE (TYP)
1 Double Log Drop
6.1 Not to Scale
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
FILTER FABRIC
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
r�
i� HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION
3' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section A - A'
3 Log Sill
6.1 Not to Scale
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
CLASS 2 HEADER STONE
FOOTER BOULDER
CAN BE SUBSTITUTED WITH MIX OF
BALLAST,No. 57, CLASS A/B/I MATERIAL
WITH ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
LTER FABRIC
TOP OF BANK
SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE
. . . ,a ,a . .
ENSURE BOULDERS
-- 1' MIN OR ROCK BACKFILL
TRAVELS UP BANK SLOPE
--- -_ .,; EMBEDS. A MINIMUM OF 1'
BANKS SHALL BE RAKED, � � " INTO
SEEDED WITH A TEMPORARY MIX BANK (TYP)
OF PEARL HEADED MILLET AND Section B-B'
FESCUE, AMENDED WITH FERTILIZER
AND THAN MATTED OVER WITH
70OG EROSION CONTROL MATTING
CDCJD
D
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH V TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS.
NO GAP BETWEEN FOOTERS
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
FLOW
Y
NOTES:
1. BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE A
WELL -GRADED MIX OF STONE: SIZING
TBD
s Rock Sill
6.1 Not to Scale
TOP OF BANK
F�S
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
/ SCOUR
POOL
\ PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
A
B'
A' BACKFILL MATERIAL
VANE ARM
LENGTH OFFSET HEADER LOG
(X) 0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OFFOOTER LOG
4 Log J-Hook
6.1 Not to Scale
HEADER LOG —
FOOTER LOG
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
)G
'Ti
v
Q

SEED AND PLAN AS PER
PLANTING PLAN
COMPACTED
BE COMPOSEDD OFOF SOIL
OLDCHANNELTO �� j AND FREE OF DEBRIS AND BRUSH.
BEABANDONED.
6.0'
------------
zIM 6" MIN
- _- ----- MATANDSEED
3.0'
ADD RIFFLE MATERIAL
3' IMIN
Vernal Pool
62 Not to Scale
STEP POOL
A FB.
COARSE WOODY DEBRIS AND
FOREST LITTER TO BE INSTALLED
WITH VERNAL POOLS '
r r r r
r r r r r r r r
r r r r r r
r r r r r
r r r r r r
OUTLET CHANNEL SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN TO
NEAREST RIFFLE. LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
ADD LOG AS DIRECTED
TO PREVENT HEAD CUT.
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
KEY ROCKS
LOCK TOE BANK PROTECTION (TYP)
, 6
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
A' g' � BACKFILL AROUND AND
EXTEND SILL TO TIE BETWEEN ROCK WITH
INTO NATURAL GROUND WELL GRADED MIX
OF No.57, CLASS A,
CLASS B RIPRAP
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1. OVER -EXCAVATE CHANNEL BED TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO
TOTAL THICKNESS OF THE BOULDERS AND STONE BASE
_ 2. STONE BASE SHALL BE A MIXTURE OF 2"-12" STONE. ST
BASE DEPTH SHALL BE 15".
3. PLACE BOULDERS IN TRENCH ON TOP OF STONE BASE. I --
SHALL BE NO GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS.
4. MINIMUM SIZE FOR BOULDERS SHALL BE 2' x 2' x 1'.
5. PLACE BACKFILL MATERIAL BEHIND THE ROCKS AND FILTER
FABRIC.
6. FILTER FABRIC TO EXTEND 5'.
7. PLACE COARSE BACKFILL BEHIND ROCKS AND FILTER FABRIC
ENSURING THAT ANY VOIDS BETWEEN THE ROCKS ARE FILLED.
7 BANKFULL
Profile View Pool Section View B-B'
3 Step -Pool BMP (UT1)
62 Not to Scale
Q
i
�w
o�-o
--w
t
Q�
x>=
�_
6
�w
4`1sy
q�
a)
-j �r�y
�r • rl
? Q
U
z
C)
G� 0
U
0
UU

DENSELY PACK BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
IN BETWEEN BASE LOGS
� F 6PN� �Pl
�01? 0
N CONTROL MATTING
BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW
ABASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOW
ELEV. 3" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE
INSTALLED FLUSH
WITH BANK
BASE LOG
4"-6" DIAMETER
3"
ELEV. 6" BELOW 2' MIN
POOL DEPTH
— 3' WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS —
BACKFILL IN 6" MIN. LIFTS
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
6"" MIN
FILTER FABRIC
6" MIN DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
6" MIN
TOE OF SLOPE
��.•\\/\\/\\//\\/�\i�\
wx" LOG
� % /� 6-12" DIAMETER
BACKFILL
NATIVE SOIL
Secti.. A=A'
Brush Toe - Carpenter Branch
6.3 Not to Scale
OF BANK
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL BASE LOGS PARALLEL TO FLOW AT TOE OF SLOPE. DIAMETER
6"-12".
3. INSTALL BASE LOGS PERPENDICULAR TO FLOW AT INTERVALS ALONG
BANK, RESTING ON TOP OF PARALLEL BASE LOGS. BASE LOGS SHALL
BE 6"-12" DIAMETER.
4. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON -SITE AND
SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY
DEBRIS LAYER.
5. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND
IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
6. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
7. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING
TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
8. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK
STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
3' WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
BACKFILL IN 6" MIN. LIFTS
OIL MATTING 3" EROSION CONTROL MATTING TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
ELEV.3" ABOVE FILTER FABRIC
DOWNSTREAM DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
RIFFLE INVERT / //\//•
LY PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
i MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED ELEV. 6" BELOW J NATIVE SOIL
I WITH BANK POOL DEPTH
Secti.. A=A'
z Brush Toe - UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4
6.3 Not to Scale
NOTES:
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON -SITE AND
SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY
DEBRIS LAYER.
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND
IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
4. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING
TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK
STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
Q
z�
i
�8
�w
o�-o
-, --w
t
Q�
x>=
Hw
T
v
Q

3' MAX.
SPACING
ECO-STAKE(TYP)
RIFFLE MA
RUN MATTING UNDER
RIFFLE MATERIAL
STAKE(TYP)
SUPPORTLOG
12" 4 MIN.
Section View
Erosion Control Matting
6.4 Not to Scale
MUD MATS
X�
1.25"
/\\i r
F
6" MIN
L
Eco-Stake
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
Y
'FILTER FABRIC
CLASS B
STONE
FILTER OF 1" DIA. TOP OF SILT FENCE
WASHED STONE MUST BE AT LEAST 1' END OF FILTER FABRIC
STEEL FENCE POST ABOVE THE TOP OF Cn
WIRE FENCE HE WASHED STONE SILT FENCE
HARDWARE CLOTH p'
FILTER OF 1" DIA.
WASHED STONE u w
FILTER FABRIC
ON GROUND w
Z x=�
3' Q� m��
BURY WIRE FENCE w �"
SILT FENCE AND HARDWARE CLOTH e ~
END OF FILTER FABRIC STEEL FENCE POST rBURYIRE FENCE, FILTER FABRIC,
AND HARDWARE CLOTH IN TRENCH
Plan View Section View SET MAX 2' APART Front View
INSTALLATION:
FOR A SILT BARRIER:
REFER TO THE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS. DURING INSTALLATION OF
JUST BELOW THE GAP IN THE BARRIER, PLACE
THE SILT BARRIER OR SILT FENCE, INSPECT THE INSTALLATION TO DETERMINE IF OUTLETS
A LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC ON THE GROUND
ARE NEEDED ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
TO PROTECT THE SOIL FROM EROSION BY
BARRIER AND FENCE. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS WITH THE LOCATION,
OUTFLOW FROM THE OUTLET; PLACE 6 INCHES
EXTENT, OR METHOD OF INSTALLATION, CONTACT THE ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, OR
OF THE UPPER EDGE IN THE TRENCH. STAKE
RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL ON THE SITE FOR ASSISTANCE. EROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL
THE REMAINING EDGES OF THE FABRIC TO
HAVE COPIES OF INSTRUCTIONS AND MAY HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERLY INSTALLED
HOLD IT IN PLACE.
OUTLETS AS AN AID TO INSTALLATION.
ALONG THE GAP WHERE THE OUTLET WILL GO,
IF THE SILT FENCE OUTLET IS NOT INSTALLED CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME, IT WILL HAVE
PLACE STEEL FENCE POSTS FOR STRENGTH. THE
TO BE REBUILT.
POSTS MUST BE A MAXIMUM OF 2 FEET APART
DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION ON THE GROUND BEFORE COMPLETING INSTALLATION
AND DRIVEN INTO SOLID GROUND AT LEAST 18
OF THE SILT FENCE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:
INCHES.
INSTALL THE OUTLET AT THE LOWEST POINT (S) IN THE BARRIER OR FENCE WHERE
PLACE HARDWARE CLOTH (WELDED
WATER WILL POND.
GALVANIZED SCREEN WITH SQUARE 1/4 -
INSTALL THE OUTLET WHERE IT IS ACCESSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
1/2-INCH HOLES) ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE
REMOVAL.
POSTS TO HOLD THE WASHED STONE IN PLACE.
ALLOW AT LEAST:
PUT 6 INCHES OF THE BOTTOM OF THE CLOTH
15 FEET BETWEEN THE BARRIER OR FENCE AND SINGLE -STORY BUILDINGS.
IN THE TRENCH AND FASTEN IT TO THE POSTS
25 FEET FOR FORK LIFTS BETWEEN THE BARRIER OR FENCE AND MULTIPLE -STORY
WITH LENGTHS OF WIRE.
BUILDINGS.
BURY THE BOTTOM OF THE HARDWARE CLOTH
10 FEET BETWEEN THE BARRIER OR FENCE AND THE TOE OF FILL SLOPES.
AND THE UPPER EDGE OF THE FILTER FABRIC
PLACE THE OUTLET SO THAT WATER FLOWING THROUGH IT WILL NOT CREATE AN
BELOW THE OUTLET IN THE TRENCH AND
EROSION HAZARD BELOW: AVOID STEEP SLOPES BELOW THE OUTLET AND AREAS
COMPACT THE FILL.
WITHOUT PROTECTIVE VEGETATION. USE SLOPE DRAINS IF NECESSARY.
PLACE A FILTER OF 1-INCH DIAMETER WASHED
DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF THE OUTLET: FOR A SILT BARRIER, WHEN THE TRENCH IS
STONE ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE OUTLET.
DUG TO BURY THE BOTTOM OF THE FABRIC BECAUSE THE BARRIER WILL BE OMITTED AT
PILE THE STONE UP TO THE TOP OF THE
THE OUTLET; FOR A SILT FENCE, WHEN THE WIRE FENCE IS IN PLACE BECAUSE THE FILTER
HARDWARE CLOTH AND OVER THE JOINT
FABRIC WILL BE OMITTED AT THE OUTLET.
BETWEEN THE OUTLET AND THE BARRIER.
REFER TO THE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE OUTLET IN THE PLAN.
CLEAR STUMPS AND ROOTS FROM THE LOCATION OF THE OUTLET. CLEAR ADEQUATE
FOR A SILT FENCE:
JUST BELOW THE GAP IN THE BARRIER, PLACE
A LAYER OF FILTER FABRIC ON THE GROUND
TO PROTECT THE SOIL FROM EROSION BY
OUTFLOW FROM THE OUTLET; PLACE 6
INCHES OF THE UPPER EDGE IN THE TRENCH.
STAKE THE OTHER EDGES OF THE FABRIC TO
HOLD IT IN PLACE.
ALONG THE GAP WHERE THE OUTLET WILL
GO, PLACE ADDITIONAL STEEL FENCE POSTS
FOR STRENGTH. THE POSTS MUST BE A
MAXIMUM OF 2 FEET APART AND DRIVEN
INTO SOLID GROUND AT LEAST 18INCHES.
PLACE HARDWARE CLOTH (WELDED
GALVANIZED SCREEN WITH SQUARE 1/4-
1/2-INCH HOLES) ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE
POSTS TO HOLD THE WASHED STONE IN
PLACE. PUT 6 INCHES OF THE BOTTOM OF THE
CLOTH IN THE TRENCH AND FASTEN IT TO THE
POSTS WITH LENGTHS OF WIRE.
BURY THE BOTTOM OF THE HARDWARE
CLOTH, THE UPPER EDGE OF THE FILTER
FABRIC BELOW THE OUTLET, AND THE WIRE
FENCE IN THE TRENCH AND COMPACT THE
FILL.
PLACE A FILTER OF 1-INCH DIAMETER WASHED
STONE ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE OUTLET.
PILE THE STONE UP TO THE TOP OF THE
HARDWARE CLOTH AND OVER THE JOINT
BETWEEN THE OUTLET AND THE SILT FENCE.
ACCESS FOR THE EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND 2 Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Outlet
REMOVAL. 6.4 of to cae
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
(6' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE)
MIDDLE AND
VERTICAL WIRES
SHALL BE 12 'GAGE
MIN. FILTER FABRIC
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN.
WIRE
'Ti
v
Q
NOTE:
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
EXISTING GROUND
1.
CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN
FLOW IS AT NORMAL BASEFLOW.
2.
MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION
OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE
�8"
CHANNEL BOTTOM.
3.
INSTALL STREAM CROSSING
NOTES:
-
PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
q��
STEEL POST
-
4.
MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
p y g
1. USE WIRE A MINIUM OF 32" IN WIDTH
EXTEND FABRIC
2'-0" DEPTH
THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT 3
AND WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF
INTO TRENCH
ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL. 6.4 Not
WIRES WITH 12" STAY SPACING.
P
5.
STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36"
STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT.
IN WIDTH AND FASTEN ADEQUATELY TO
6.
CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN
THE WIRES AS DIRECTED BY THE
Silt Fence
APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING
ENGINEER.
4
TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
3. PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE
Not to Scale
\ n
v�
SELF -FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
O
E m
Z _
c
3
O u

NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENTTO
ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ATALL POINTS
OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED.
PROVIDE FREQUENTCHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND
TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH
WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD
ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH
STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
7. ANY MATERIALTRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY
MUST BE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.
8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
Construction Entrance
6.5 Not to Scale
IMPER
(SEE
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED
"J" TYPE SEAMS.
BAG PLACED ON
;ATED OR STRAW.,
SEWN IN SPOUT EXISTING TERRAIN DE WATERING BAG
HIGH STRENGTH STRAPPING
10 DEWATERING NOPLACEDING HOSE
BAG
WATER FLOW
FROM PUMP
15 8" of CLASS B RIPRAP
FLEXIBLE
DISCHARGE HOSE FILTER FABRIC
Inset "A" 15'to20'
NOTE:
Dewatering
BQCI 1. PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLETTO
STREAM BE D.
�SAND BAG
(24" X 12" X 6")
OR
OR STONE.
1 IMPERVIOUS SHEETING
FLOW
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
ILIZED OUTLET
B RIPRAP AND
2 FILTER FABRIC.
(SEE INSET "C")
To be included with final plans
1'3-'\ Permanent Culvert Crossing
6.5 Not to Scale
(-,--)Pump Around System
\,L5J Not to Scale
Q
Z
wi W
oNew
U"'w
j Z
0Q
STREAM BED
N
m > v
I —I Z
v
hK� w
Inset ��B�� STABILIZED OUTLET USING CLASS B
RIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EXISTING
Impervious Dike GROUND A MINIMUM OF 6". SIZE AND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
10' MIN. / PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.
ILTER FABRIC
Inset "C"
'Ti
v
Q

PLANTING PLAN
Section View
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL
BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
THICK AT CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED
TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH
TO PREVENT 1-ROOTING.
NOTES:
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
PLANTING AREA SHALL BE
DISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR
TO PLANTING.
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE
PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION TO INSURE
SURVIVAL.
O O O O O O
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT SHOVEL, DOWN TO HANDLE TO CLOSE THE SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND
DOWN INTO THE SOIL SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO INCHES IN FRONT OF THE FULL DEPTH OF BOTTOM OF THE FIRM UP THE OPENING
TO THE FULL DEPTH OF THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL THE SEEDLING AND THE BLADE. PLANTING HOLD. THEN WITH YOUR HEEL. BE
THE BLADE AND PULL THE SEEDLING BACK UP TO PUSH THE BLADE PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE CAREFUL TO AVOID
BACK ON THE HANDLE THE CORRECT PLANTING HALFWAY INTO THE THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
TO OPEN THE PLANTING DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH POCKETS AROUND THE
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK SHOULD BE 1 TO 3 INCHES THE HANDLE FORWARD ROOT.
THE SHOVEL BACK AND BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE). TO CLOSE THE TOP OF
FORTH AS THIS CAUSES GENTLY SHAKE THE THE SLIT TO HOLD THE
SOIL IN THE PLANTING SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE SEEDLING IN PLACE.
HOLE TO BE ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN
COMPACTED, OUT. DO NOT TWIST OR
INHIBITING ROOT SPIN THE SEEDLING OR Bare Root Plant
GROWTH. LEAVE THE ROOTS bb m
1-ROOTED. Not to Scale
3' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK
4' SPACING FOR JUNCUS PLUGS
Plan View - UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4
LIVE STAKE (TYP)
EROSION CONTROL 3- SEE PLAN VIEW
MATTING I r 1� . FOR SPACING
(SEE DETAIL)
JUNCUS PLUG (TYP) \ < TOP OF BANK
RIFFLE TOE OF SLOPE
MATERIAL
_ Section View - UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4
JUNCUS PLUG (TYP)
RIFFLE TOE OF SLOPE
MATERIAL
EROSION CONTROL
LIVE STAKE (TYP) MATTING
SEE PLAN VIEW (SEE DETAIL)
FOR SPACING TOP OF BANK
20'
20'
Y > f
0
NO. 57STONE 1
CLASS B
RIPRAP
INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THREE
CHECK DAMS LOCATED AT
DOWNSTREAM LIMITS OF PROJECT.
Plan View
2'MIN. SPILLWAY CREST
NO. 57 STONE 4 INCHES
WIDE ON UPSTREAM FACE
FLOW CLASS B RIPRAP
3'
5' MIN.
Section A -A'
I� TOP OF BANK Zf STREAM
WORK 20 20
FLOW WIDTH 1
AREA 6„�
CLASS B RIPRAP 3
CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE
Profile View SEDIMENT WHEN DEPTH
REACHES 12". TOE OF SLOPE Section B-B'
2 Tem orar Rock Sediment Dam
6b Not to Scale
z�
i
�8
�w
o��o
t
Q�
x>�
Hw
ct U
y
0
z
0
0
U
O
UU
T,
N
Q
4' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES ­7 i44Ai 'A' 5'',?,v­
4' SPACING FOR JUNCUS PLUGS
3' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES Section View -Carpenter Branch
Plan View - Carpenter Branch
1/2" TO 2" 2' TO 3' LIVE STAKE s /•�
DIAMETER TAPERED AT BOTTOM mil•/
NOTE: 1 (2) Streambank Plantin •
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS 6.6 Not to Scale
SHOWN ON DETAIL AND DIRECTED BY THE Live Stake Detail
ENGINEER.
o I o` u m

MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
PHYSICAL PROPERTY
TESTS
REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL
N/A
POLYETHYLENE
RECOMENDED COLOR
N/A
"INTERNATIONAL ORANGE"
TENSILE YIELD
ASTM D638
AVE. 2000 LBS. PER T WIDE
ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH
ASTM D638
AVE. 2900 LBS. PER T WIDE
ELONGATION AT BREAK (%)
ASTM D638
GREATER THAN 1000%
CHEMICAL RESISTANCE
N/A
INERT TO MOST CHEMICALS AND ACIDS
6' MAX. WITH WIRE
ATTACH SAFETY FENCE
TO METAL POSTS USING
METAL WIRE TIES
ZORANGESAFTY
FENCE
"T" OR "U" POST DRIVEN
MINIMUM OF 18" INTO GROUND
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4' MIN.
El El El El El El El El El El El El El El El I I
Safety Fence
6.7 Not toScale 18"MIN.
To be included with final plans
(2)Structure Sizing
6.�
REMOVE
DEBRIS FROM
Section View
2 Tree Protection
67 Not to Scale
COIR MATTING
OJJ1j�j�jy�.
CHANNELBE
AP
KEY IN • •
.:vv
4 Rock Toe
6 7 Not to Scale
TOP OF BANK (BANK
1ALL BE
-REE
Q
ttiQlc
x>�
I —I Z
w
hK�

GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING PRACTICES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NCG01 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
Implementing the details and specifications on this plan sheet will result in the construction
activity being considered compliant with the Ground Stabilization and Materials Handling
sections of the NCG01 Construction General Permit (Sections E and F, respectively). The
permittee shall comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control plan approved by the
delegated authority having jurisdiction. All details and specifications shown on this sheet
may not apply depending on site conditions and the delegated authority having jurisdiction.
Required Ground Stabilization Timeframes
Stabilize within this
Site Area Description
many calendar
Timeframe variations
days after ceasing
land disturbance
(a) Perimeter dikes,
swales, ditches, and
7
None
perimeter slopes
(b) High Quality Water
7
None
(HOW) Zones
(c) Slopes steeper than
If slopes are 10' or less in length and are
3:1
7
not steeper than 2:1, 14 days are
allowed
-7 days for slopes greater than 50' in
length and with slopes steeper than 4:1
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales,
(d) Slopes 3:1 to 4:1
14
ditches, perimeter slopes and HOW
Zones
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales,
(e) Areas with slopes
ditches, perimeter slopes and HOW Zones
flatter than 4:1
14
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed unless
there is zero slope
Note: After the permanent cessation of construction activities, any areas with temporary
ground stabilization shall be converted to permanent ground stabilization as soon as
practicable but in no case longer than 90 calendar days after the last land disturbing
activity. Temporary ground stabilization shall be maintained in a manner to render the
surface stable against accelerated erosion until permanent ground stabilization is achieved.
GROUND STABILIZATION SPECIFICATION
Stabilize the ground sufficiently so that rain will not dislodge the soil. Use one of the
ues in uie td Die Ueiuw:
• Temporary grass seed covered with straw or
other mulches and tackifiers
• Hydmseeding
• Rolled erasion control products with or
without temporary grass seed
• Appropriately applied straw or other mulch
• Plastic sheeting
• Permanent grass seed covered with straw or
other m ulches and tackifiers
• Geotextile fabrics such as permanent sail
reinforcement matting
• Hydroseeding
• Shrubs or other permanent plantings covered
with mulch
• Uniform and evenly distributed ground cover
sufficient to restrain erosion
• Structural methods s uch as concrete, aspha It or
retaining walls
OLYACRYLAMIDES (PAMS) AND FLOCCULANTS
1. Select flocculants that are appropriate for the soils being exposed during
construction, selecting from the NCDWR ListofApproved PAMS/Flocculants.
2. Apply flocculants at or before the inlets to Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
3. Apply flocculants at the concentrations specified in the NC DWR ListofApproved
PAMS/Flocculants and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
4. Provide ponding area for containment of treated Stormwater before discharging
offsite.
5. Store flocculants in leak -proof containers that are kept under storm -resistant cover
or surrounded by secondary containment structures.
EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
Maintain vehicles and equipment to prevent discharge of fluids.
Provide drip pans under any stored equipment.
Identifyleaks and repair as soon as feasible or remove leaking equipment from the
P g
project.
Collect all spent fluids, store in separate containers and properly dispose as
hazardous waste (recycle when possible).
Remove leaking vehicles and construction equipment from service until the problem
has been corrected.
Bring used fuels, lubricants, coolants, hydraulic fluids and other petroleum products
to a recycling or disposal center that handles these materials.
ITTER, BUILDING MATERIAL AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
1. Never bury or burn waste. Place litter and debris in approved waste containers.
2. Provide a sufficient number and size of waste containers (e.g dumpster, trash
receptacle) on site to contain construction and domestic wastes.
3. Locate waste containers at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface
waters unless no other alternatives are reasonably available.
4. Locate waste containers on areas that do not receive substantial amounts of runoff
from upland areas and does not drain directly to a storm drain, stream or wetland.
5. Cover waste containers at the end of each workday and before storm events or
provide secondary containment. Repair or replace damaged waste containers.
6. Anchor all lightweight items in waste containers during times of high winds.
7. Empty waste containers as needed to prevent overflow. Clean up immediately if
containers overflow.
8. Dispose waste off -site at an approved disposal facility.
9. On business days, clean up and dispose of waste in designated waste containers.
PAINTAND OTHER LIQUID WASTE
1. Do not dump paint and other liquid waste into storm drains, streams or wetlands.
2. Locate paint washouts at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface
waters unless no other alternatives are reasonably available.
3. Contain liquid wastes in a controlled area.
4. Containment must be labeled, sized and placed appropriately for the needs of site.
5. Prevent the discharge of soaps, solvents, detergents and other liquid wastes from
construction sites.
PORTABLE TOILETS
1. Install portable toilets on level ground, at least 50 feet away from storm drains,
streams or wetlands unless there is no alternative reasonably available. If 50 foot
offset is not attainable, provide relocation of portable toilet behind silt fence or place
on a gravel pad and surround with sand bags.
2. Provide staking or anchoring of portable toilets during periods of high winds or in high
foot traffic areas.
3. Monitor portable toilets for leaking and properly dispose of any leaked material.
Utilize a licensed sanitary waste hauler to remove leaking portable toilets and replace
with properly operating unit.
EARTHEN STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT
1. Show stockpile locations on plans. Locate earthen -material stockpile areas at least
50 feet away from storm drain inlets, sediment basins, perimeter sediment controls
and surface waters unless it can be shown no other alternatives are reasonably
available.
2. Protect stockpile with silt fence installed along toe of slope with a minimum offset of
five feet from the toe of stockpile.
3. Provide stable stone access point when feasible.
4. Stabilize stockpile within the timeframes provided on this sheet and in accordance
with the approved plan and any additional requirements. Soil stabilization is defined
as vegetative, physical or chemical coverage techniques that will restrain accelerated
erosion on disturbed soils for temporary or permanent control needs.
ONSITE CONCRETE WASHOUT
STRUCTURE WITH LINER
BELOW GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE
CONCRFTF WASHOt1T5
0 0
0
0 0 � e sro ou e-H
H�E
ABOVE GRADEp WASHOUT STRUCTURE
1. Do not discharge concrete or cement slurry from the site.
2. Dispose of, or recycle settled, hardened concrete residue in accordance with local
and state solid waste regulations and at an approved facility.
3. Manage washout from mortar mixers in accordance with the above item and in
addition place the mixer and associated materials on impervious barrier and within
lot perimeter silt fence.
4. Install temporary concrete washouts per local requirements, where applicable. If an
alternate method or product is to be used, contact your approval authority for
review and approval. If local standard details are not available, use one of the two
types of temporary concrete washouts provided on this detail.
5. Do not use concrete washouts for dewatering or storing defective curb or sidewalk
sections. Stormwater accumulated within the washout may not be pumped into or
discharged to the storm drain system or receiving surface waters. Liquid waste must
be pumped out and removed from project.
6. Locate washouts at least 50 feet from storm drain inlets and surface waters unless it
can be shown that no other alternatives are reasonably available. At a minimum,
install protection of storm drain inlet(s) closest to the washout which could receive
spills or overflow.
7. Locate washouts in an easily accessible area, on level ground and install a stone
entrance pad in front of the washout. Additional controls may be required by the
approving authority.
8. Install at least one sign directing concrete trucks to the washout within the project
limits. Post signage on the washout itself to identify this location.
9. Remove leavings from the washout when at approximately 75% capacity to limit
overflow events. Replace the tarp, sand bags or other temporary structural
components when no longer functional. When utilizing alternative or proprietary
products, follow manufacturer's instructions.
10. At the completion of the concrete work, remove remaining leavings and dispose of
in an approved disposal facility. Fill pit, if applicable, and stabilize any disturbance
caused by removal of washout.
HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND RODENTICIDES
1. Store and apply herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in accordance with label
restrictions.
2. Store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in their original containers with the
label, which lists directions for use, ingredients and first aid steps in case of
accidental poisoning.
3. Do not store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in areas where flooding is
possible or where they may spill or leak into wells, stormwater drains, ground water
or surface water. If a spill occurs, clean area immediately.
4. Do not stockpile these materials onsite.
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
1. Create designated hazardous waste collection areas on -site.
2. Place hazardous waste containers under cover or in secondary containment.
3. Do not store hazardous chemicals, drums or bagged materials directly on the ground.
NCGOI GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING I EFFECTIVE: 04/01/191
n Ground Stabilization and Materials Handling
6s Not to Scale
A
T,
N
Q

I
PART III
SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
SECTION A: SELF -INSPECTION
Self -inspections are required during normal business hours in accordance with the table
below. When adverse weather or site conditions would cause the safety of the inspection
personnel to be in jeopardy, the inspection may be delayed until the next business day on
which it is safe to perform the inspection. In addition, when a storm event of equal to or
greater than 1.0 inch occurs outside of normal business hours, the self -inspection shall be
performed upon the commencement of the next business day. Any time when inspections
were delayed shall be noted in the Inspection Record.
Frequency
Inspect
(during normal
Inspection records must include:
business hours)
(1) Rain gauge
Daily
Dairy rei cited amounts.
maintained in
If no daily rain gauge observations are made during weekend or
good working
holiday periods, and no individual day rainfall information is
order
wil,bl,, record the cumulative rain measurement for those un-
rasite
attended days (and this will determine if inspection is
eeded). Days on which no rainlall occurred shall he recorded as
"zero." The permittee may use another rain monitoring device
approved bythe Division_
(2) E&SC
At least once per
1. Identification of the measures inspected,
Measures
7 calendar days
2. Data and time of the inspection,
and within 24
3. N ante ofthe person perfonningihe Inspection,
hours of ra In
4. Indication of whether the measures we re operating
event> 1.0 inch In
property,
24hours
5. Description of maintenance needs forthe measure,
6. Description evidence,and date of corrective actions taken.
(3)Stortnweter
At least once per
1. Identification of the discharge outfalls inspected,
discharge
7 calendar days
2. Date and time of the Inspection,
outfalls SDOs
( }
and within 24
3. Name ofthe a performing the Inspection,
person p g p ,
hours ofa ra in
4. Evidence of indicators of stormwate r pollution such as ail
event a 1.0 inch in
sheen, floating or suspended solids or discoloration,
24hours
5. Indication ofvisiblesadimentleavmgthesite,
6. Description evidence, and date of corrective actions taken.
(4) Perimeter of
At least once per
If visible sedimentation is found outside site limits, then a record
site
7calendar days
ofthe following shall be made:
and within 24
1. Actions taken to clean up or stabilize the sediment that has left
I of a rain
the site limits,
vent > 1.0 inch in
2. Description, evidence, and date of corrective actionstaken, and
24hours
3. An explanation as tothe nedonstaken to control future
releases.
(5)Streams or
At least once per
If the stream or wetland has Increased visible sedimentation or
wetlands onste
7calendar days
stream has visible increased turbidity from the cansto ion
r c ite
and within 24
activity, then a record of the following shall be made:
(where
hours of a rain
1. Description evidence and date of corrective actions taken, and
accessible)
event a 1.0 inch In
2. Records ofthe required reports to the appropriate Division
24hours
Regional Office per Part III, Section C, Item (2)(a) of this permit
of this permit.
(6) Gmund
After each phase
1. The phase of grading (Installation of perimeter E&SC
stabilization
of grading
measures, clearing and grubbing, installation of storm
measures
drainage facilities, completion of all land -disturbing
activity, construction or redevelopment, permanent
ground cover).
2. ❑ocumentation that the required ground stabilization
measures have been provided within the required
timetrame or an assurance that they will be provided as
seen as possible.
NOTE: The rain inspection resets the required 7 calendar day inspection requirement.
PART III
SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
SECTION B: RECORDKEEPING
1. E&SC Plan Documentation
The approved E&SC plan as well as any approved deviation shall be kept on the site. The
approved E&SC plan must be kept up-to-date throughout the coverage under this permit. The
following items pertaining to the E&SC plan shall be documented in the manner described:
Item to Document
Documentation Requirements
(a) Each E&SC Measure has been installed
Initial and date each E&SC Measure on a copy
and does not significantly deviatefrom the
ofthe approved E&SC Plan or complete, date
locations, dimensions and relative elevations
and sign an inspection report that lists each
shown on the approved E&SC Plan.
E&SC Measure shown on the approved E&SC
Plan. This documentation is required upon the
initial installation ofthe E&SC Measures or if
the E&SC Measures are modified after initial
installation.
(b) A phase of grading has been completed.
Initial and date a copy ofthe approved E&SC
Plan or complete, date and sign an inspection
report to indicate completion ofthe
construction phase.
(c) Ground cover is located and installed
Initial and date a copy ofthe approved E&SC
in accordance with the approved E&SC
Plan or complete, date and sign an inspection
Plan.
report to indicate compliance with approved
ground cover specifications.
(d) The maintenance and repair
Complete, date and sign an inspection report.
requirements for all E&SC Measures
have been performed.
(e) Corrective actions have been taken
Initial and date a copy ofthe approved E&SC
to E&SC Measures.
Plan or complete, date and sign an inspection
report to indicate the completion ofthe
corrective action.
2. Additional Documentation
In addition to the E&SC Plan documents above, the following items shall be kept on the site
and available for agency inspectors at all times during normal business hours, unless the
Division provides a site -specific exemption based on unique site conditions that make this
requirement not practical:
(a) This general permit as well as the certificate of coverage, after it is received.
(b) Records of inspections made during the previous 30 days. The permittee shall record the
required observations on the Inspection Record Form provided by the Division or a similar
inspection form that includes all the required elements. Use of electronically -available
records in lieu of the required paper copies will be allowed if shown to provide equal access
and utility as the hard -copy records.
(c) All data used to complete the Notice of Intent and older inspection records shall be
maintained for a period of three years after project completion and made available upon
request. [40 CFR 122.41]
PART III
SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
1. Occurrences that must be reported
Permittees shall report the following occurrences:
(a) Visible sediment deposition in a stream or wetland.
(b) Oil spills if:
• They are 25 gallons or more,
• They are less than 25 gallons but cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours,
• They cause sheen on surface waters (regardless ofvolume), or
• They are within 100 feet of surface waters (regardless ofvolume).
(a) Releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities under Section 311 of
the Clean Water Act (Ref: 40 CFR 110.3 and 40 CFR 117.3) or Section 102 of CERCLA (Ref: 40
CFR 302.4) or G.S. 143-215.85.
(b) Anticipated bypasses and unanticipated bypasses.
(c) Noncompliance with the conditions of this permit that may endanger health or the
environment.
2. ReportingTimeframes and Other Requirements
After a permittee becomes aware of an occurrence that must be reported, he shall contact the
appropriate Division regional office within the timeframes and in accordance with the other
requirements listed below. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be reported to
the Division's Emergency Response personnel at [phone], [phone] or (919)
733-3300.
Occurrence
Reporting Timeframes {After Discovery) and Other Requirements
(a)Visible sediment
• Within 24hours, an oral orelectronic notification.
deposition ina
• Within7cotendardays, a reportthat contains a description ofthe
stream or wetland
sediment and actions taken toaddressthe cause ofthe deposition.
Division staff may waivethe requirement fora written report on a
case -by -case basis.
• If the stream is named on the NC 303(d) list as impaired for sediment -
related causes, the permittee may be required to perform additional
monitoring, inspections or apply more stringent practices if staff
determine that additional requirements are needed to assure compliance
with the federal or state impaired -waters conditions.
(b) Oil spills and
• Within 24hours, an oral orelectrc nic notification. The notification
release of
shall include information about the date, time, nature, volume and
hazardous
location ofthe spill or release.
substances per Item
1(b)-(c) above
(c)Anticipated
• A report at least ten days before the date of the bypass, ifpassible.
bypasses [40 CFR
The report shall include an evaluation ofthe anticipated quality and
122.41(m)(3)]
effect ofthe bypass.
(d) Unanticipated
• Within 24hours, an oral crelectronic notification.
bypasses [40 CFR
• Within 7colendardays, a reportthat includes an evaluation ofthe
122.41(m)(3)]
quality and effect ofthe bypass.
(e) Noncompliance
• Within 24hours, an oral crelectronic notification.
with the conditions
• Within 7 calendar days, a report that contains a description of the
ofthis permit that
noncompliance, and its causes; the period of noncompliance,
may endanger
including exact dates ancitimes, and f the noncompliance has not
health orthe
been corrected, the anticipatedtime noncompliance is expected to
environmeni
continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
CFR 122.41(I)(7)]
prevent reoccurrence ofthe noncompliance. [40 CFR 122.41(I)(6).
• Division staff may waivethe requirement fora written report on a
case -by -case basis.
NCGOI SELF -INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING EFFECTIVE: 04/01/191
n Self -inspection, Recordkeeping and Reporting
6.9 Not to Scale
zZ "�,�
�w

APPENDIX 9
Invasive Vegetation Treatment Plan

Appendix 9 Invasive Vegetation Treatment Plan
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. If, during the
monitoring period, invasive species threaten the survivability of planted woody vegetation in an area
that exceeds 1% of the planted easement acreage, the invasive species shall be treated. Smaller areas
may be treated at the discretion of the project engineer and biologist, if deemed in the best interest of
the Site. Generally, the treatment plan shall follow the below guidelines in Table 1 for common invasive
species found in riparian areas; however, the treatment may be changed based on the professional
judgement of the project engineer and biologist. For invasive species not listed in the below table that
threaten the survivability of the planted woody vegetation, Wildlands shall notify DIMS of the invasive
species observed and the plan for treatment prior to treating the species. All invasive species treatment
will be reported in the following year's monitoring plan.
Table 1. Invasive Species Treatment — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Invasive Species
Recommended Treatment Technique
Small infestations of L. japonica can be pulled by hand. Monitor to remove any re -sprouts.
Care should be taken to bag and remove the plants, including mature fruits to prevent re -
Japanese
establishment. Large infestations of L. japonica will usually require a combination of cut
Honeysuckle
stump and foliar herbicide treatments. Where vines have grown into the tree canopy, cut
(Lonicera
stems as close to the ground as possible. Treat the freshly cut surface of the rooted stem
japonica)
with a 25 percent solution of glyphosate or triclopyr. Remove the twining vines to prevent
them from girdling and killing desirable vegetation. Groundcovers of L. japonica can be
treated with a foliar solution of 2 percent glyphosate or triclopyr plus a 0.5 percent non-
ionic surfactant to thoroughly wet all the leaves.
Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a surfactant: a
glyphosate herbicide as a 3-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) in the late fall or
early winter when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, or elsewhere, Arsenal AC*
as a 1-percent solution (4 ounces per 3-gallon mix). Backpack mist blowers can broadcast
glyphosate as a 3-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) or Escort XP* at 1 ounce
per acre (0.2 dry ounces per 3-gallon mix and 10 gallons per acre) during winter for safety
to dormant hardwoods. Summer applications of glyphosate may not be as effective as
other times and require a higher percent solution. The best time for Arsenal AC* and Escort
XP* is summer to fall. For stems too tall for foliar sprays and when safety to surrounding
vegetation is desired, apply a basal spray of Garlon 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per
3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or
Chinese Privet
fuel oil or diesel fuel (where permitted); or undiluted Pathfinder II. Elsewhere, apply
(Ligustrum
Stalker* as a 6- to 9-percent solution (1.5 to 2 pints per 3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil
sinense)
product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant to young bark as a basal spray making
certain to treat all stems in a clump; or cut and immediately treat the stump tops with
Arsenal AC* as a 5-percent solution (20 ounces per 3-gallon mix) or Velpar L* as a 10-
percent solution in water (1 quart per 3-gallon mix) with a surfactant. When safety to
surrounding vegetation is desired, immediately treat stump tops and sides with Garlon 3A
or with a glyphosate herbicide as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon mix) in water
with a surfactant. ORTHO Brush-B-Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are effective undiluted for
treating cut -stumps. For large stems, make stem injections using Arsenal AC* or when
safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, Garlon 3A or a glyphosate herbicide using
dilutions and cut -spacings specified on the herbicide label (anytime except March and
April). An EZ-Ject tree injector can help to reach the lower part of the main stem;
otherwise, every branching trunk can be hack -and -squirt injected.
Carpenter Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 1 September 2020

Invasive Species
Recommended Treatment Technique
Asian spiderwort
Foliar treatment of large populations requires 2% aquatic label glyphosate with non-ionic
(Murdannia
surfactant. Avoid not mechanically remove. Species can spread through fragmentation.
keisak)
Treat upon emergence in early summer into early fall before seed set.
Foliar treatment of large populations requires 4% glyphosate solution or Garlon 3A
Hardy orange
(triclopyr) with non-ionic surfactant. Cut treatment with 25% aquatic label glyphosate or
(Poncirus
Garlon 3A (triclopyr). Saplings treatment require Garlon 4 (3A for aquatic) with 20% in oil
trifoliata)
with penetrant or Pathfinder II undiluted (non -aquatic). Treat year round, avoid spreading
fruits in fall.
Multiflora rose
Foliar treatment of large populations with 4% glyphosate solution. Cut stump treatment is
(Rosa multiflora)
time consuming, though effective. Treat in spring/summer.
Carpenter Branch Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 2 September 2020

APPENDIX 10
Maintenance Plan

Appendix 10 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be visited semi-annually and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Table 1. Maintenance Plan — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Component/
Maintenance through project close-out
Feature
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations
of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel — these shall be conducted
where success criteria are threatened or at the discretion of the Designer. Areas where
Stream
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head -cutting. Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams
on project streams will typically be removed, at the discretion of the Designer, during the
monitoring period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this
type of influence.
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations of
Wetlands
target vegetation within the wetland. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows
intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour that adversely and
persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
Vegetation
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Invasive plant species requiring treatment per the
Invasive Species Treatment Plan (Appendix 9) shall be treated in accordance with that plan
and with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site boundary
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as -needed basis.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Appendix 10
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 1 September 2020

APPENDIX 11
Credit Release Schedule

Appendix 11- Credit Release Schedule and Supporting Information
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently
to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards
have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may
be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the
specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as
follows:
Table A: Credit Release Schedule — Stream Credits — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Credit
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Year
Release
Released
Milestone
1
0
Site Establishment
0%
0%
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
0
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan — see requirements below
30%
30%
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
3
1
interim performance standards have been met
10%
40%
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
4
2
interim performance standards have been met
10%
50%
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
5
3
interim performance standards have been met
10%
60%
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
65%
6
4 *
interim performance standards have been met
o
5%
(75%**)
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
75%
7
5
interim performance standards have been met
o
10%
(85%**)
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
80°%
8
6*
50�
interim performance standards have been met
(90%**)
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
90%
9
7
interim performance standards have been met
10%
(100%**)
*Vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless
otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met
Table B: Credit Release Schedule — Wetland Credits — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Credit
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Year
Release
Released
Milestone
1
0
Site Establishment
0%
0%
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
0
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan — see requirements below
30%
30%
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
3
1
10%
40%
standards have been met
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Appendix 11
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 1 September 2020

Credit
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Year
Release
Released
Milestone
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
4
2
standards have been met
10%
50%
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
65%
5
3
standards have been met
o
15/
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
6
4*
5%
70%
standards have been met
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
7
5
15%
85%
standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
8
6*
5%
90%
standards have been met
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
9
7
standards have been met
10%
100%
*Vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless
otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
For this NCDMS project, no initial release of credits is provided. To account for this, the 15% credit
release typically associated with the site establishment is held until completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan. In order for NCDMS to receive the 30%
release (shown in Tables A and B as Milestone 2), they must comply with the credit release
requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS instrument.
1.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
The following conditions apply to credit release schedules:
a. A reserve of 10% of site's total stream credits will be release after four bankfull events have
occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards
are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period,
release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.
b. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with
Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of this document, and that the monitoring report
demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other concerns
have been identified on -site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written
approval from the USACE.
c. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in
the Mitigation Plan.
As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the DMS will submit a request for credit
release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release
to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Appendix 11
DMS ID No. 100090 Page 2 September 2020

APPENDIX 12
Financial Assurances

Appendix 12 - Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service's In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Appendix 12
DMS ID No.100090 Page 1 September 2020

APPENDIX 13
Meeting Minutes

Wk.*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
CREDITING UPDATE AND IRT MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit
CARPENTER BOTTOM Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050103 (expanded service area); Gaston County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7731
Wildlands Project No. 005-02179
DATE: Wednesday, January 16, 2019, 9:30 am
LOCATION: Gaston-Webbs Chapel Road
Lincolnton, NC 28092
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Paul Wiesner, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Matthew Reid, NCDMS
Melonie Allen, NCDMS
Kirsten Ullman, NCDMS
Mac Haupt, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal 8/10/2018 in response to NCDMS RFQ 09132018
Meeting Notes
1. Wildlands gave a brief site overview before the walk which discussed stream and wetland approach and
general site conditions.
2. The group entered the proposed wetland re-establishment area from the northeast field adjacent to
Ditch 3 as shown on the attached concept map. Wildlands was asked about plans for Ditch 3 and it was
noted that the ditch would be filled within the proposed wetland re-establishment area. Upstream of
the proposed wetland re-establishment area, drainage from Ditch 3 will be directed into the wetland to
support hydrology.
3. Soil borings were taken towards the eastern edge of the proposed wetland re-establishment area. The
consensus from the group was that site soils were depleted with a low chroma, consistent with the
Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS) investigation included with the proposal. Site soils were deemed suitable for
the proposed wetland restoration at the surface.
4. The walk continued into the proposed wetland rehabilitation area, where two headwater ditches were
observed, and soils were double checked for consistency. A rehabilitation approach was discussed
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
CARPENTER BOTTOM mitigation site

including plugging of the existing drainage ditches, treatment of invasive vegetation (including but not
limited to hardy orange, Chinese privet, and white pine trees), wetland plantings, and cattle exclusion.
IRT members noted that a jurisdictional delineation will need to be done to verify the wetland
rehabilitation boundary, but overall, they agreed with the approach. Soils observed within the
rehabilitation area were consistent with previous soil borings taken within the re-establishment area.
5. Fish and Wildlife noted that there is potential habitat for a stream specific crayfish and dwarf flowered
heartleaf species on -site. Neither of these species was observed during the site walk but Wildlands
noted that they would look for these specific species as part of the categorical exclusion and threatened
and endangered species walks.
6. A soil boring was taken within the wetland re-establishment area west of Ditch 2 shown on the attached
concept map. Soils were consistent with other observations on site and were deemed appropriate for
wetland re-establishment at the surface.
7. Overall, IRT members agreed with the proposed wetland restoration approach and proposed ratios of
1:1 for areas of wetland re-establishment and 1.5:1 for areas of wetland rehabilitation.
8. Wildlands will prioritize getting the jurisdictional delineation completed within the proposed wetland
rehabilitation area. Additionally, Wildlands will install groundwater gages throughout the wetland
restoration area prior to the 2019 growing season.
9. The walk continued south toward the headwater tributaries of Carpenter's Branch. IRT and NCDMS
representatives were shown the approximate location of intermittent and perennial stream calls based
on field mapping. It was discussed that these calls would be further refined as the project moved
forward, but generally intermittent and perennial calls presented in the proposal were agreed upon.
10. Ditch 1 shown on the attached concept map was discussed in detail. Wildlands current proposed
approach was to install channel plugs at various locations upstream of the intermittent call to redirect
drainage back into the adjacent proposed wetland area. It was noted that if the channel was deemed
jurisdictional above the current field call, Wildlands would either restore or enhance the channel and
include it within the proposed conservation easement.
11. The site walk continued to the headwaters and ultimately down the entire length of Carpenter's Branch.
Wildlands originally proposed all streams on -site including headwater tributaries, the entire length of
Carpenter's Branch, and UT1 for an enhancement II approach at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. After field
observations and discussions with the IRT, it was determined that the streams on -site need to be fully
restored using a priority I approach until an existing bedrock portion of the channel, which will be
proposed for a preservation approach. The change in approach results in an increase in proposed stream
credits from 1,224 in the proposal to 3,370. A re -issued concept map and detailed credit table is
included with these meeting minutes.
12. It was noted that a current culvert crossing over an unnamed tributary from the right floodplain (now
UT4 on the attached concept map) will be removed as part of the project. The portion of UT4 within the
proposed conservation easement will be restored and tied to the proposed alignment of Carpenter's
Branch as part of the project.
13. IRT members noted that a flow gage will need to be installed along UT1 to document continuity of flow
for the project reach, regardless of stream approach.
14. In addition to restoring Carpenter's Branch with a Priority I restoration approach, Wildlands agreed that
they would discuss putting the additional property (approximately 5.7 acres) on the right floodplain of
Carpenter's Branch within the proposed conservation easement with the property owner. This would
allow for an extended buffer along the right floodplain of Carpenter's Branch and allow Wildlands to
eliminate the proposed 30' internal culvert crossing shown in the proposal.
15. The IRT noted that the site could be a prime candidate for benthic and water quality monitoring with a
potential associated 2% to 4% credit bonus if property monitoring was carried out.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
CARPENTER BOTTOM mitigation site

Stream Credits
Proposal
Revised
Length
Mitigation
Mitigation
1
Reach
Management Objectives
Mitigation
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
Credits
Approach
pp
Approach
(feet)
(No Expanded Buffer)
(With Expanded
Buffer)
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
Carpenter's
increase bedform diversity through the
Branch Reach 1
installation of instream structures, and
Enhancement II
Restoration
2,400
1:1
2,400
2,506
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community. Eliminate an existing
culvert crossing along the proposed reach.
Carpenter's
Exclude cattle, treat invasive vegetation, and
Enhancement II
Preservation
431
5:1
86
96
Branch Reach 2
plant a native riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
UT1
increase bedform diversity through the
Enhancement II
Restoration
120
1:1
120
120
installation of instream structures, and
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
UT2
increase bedform diversity through the
Enhancement II
Restoration
372
1:1
372
372
installation of instream structures, and
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
UT3
increase bedform diversity through the
Enhancement II
Restoration
216
1:1
216
216
installation of instream structures, and
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
increase bedform diversity through the
UT4
installation of instream structures, and
Enhancement II
Restoration
60
1:1
60
60
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community. Eliminate an existing
culvert crossing along the proposed reach.
3,254
3,370
Total
3,599
_ _ _
Stream
Stream
Credits
Credits
(Cool)
(Cool)
1Stream mitigation credit adjustments were for non-standard buffer widths were estimated based on 2016 Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Update.
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
CARPENTER BOTTOM mitigation site

Wetland Credits
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach
Management Objectives
Acres
Ratio
Approach
Credits
Restore wetland hydrology by eliminating drainage
ditches. Re-establish appropriate wetland
Wetland Re-
community by planting native tree species.
Re-
Wetland Re -
establishment
Increase ponding by eliminating vegetative
establishment
6.7
1:1
6.7
maintenance and increasing surface roughness
throughout the proposed wetland area. Reduce
sediment and nutrient inputs via cattle exclusion.
Restore wetland hydrology by eliminating drainage
ditches. Further promote appropriate wetland
Wetland
community through supplemental planting of
Wetland Re
Rehabilitation
native tree species and through elimination of
habilitation
2.1
1.5:1
1.4
invasive species. Reduce sediment and nutrient
inputs via cattle exclusion.
Total
8.8
8.1 Riparian
Wetland Credits
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 4
CARPENTER BOTTOM mitigation site

F
MR : 47f ' M
Gr'Flow to be
Directed in Wetland
Rehabilitation Area
O
+ S,
ram• - k
POOLEANNETTE
U%¢ J 362161803340
Existing Culvert'
to be Removed
CARPENTER WADE JR
3621701117 t ; • _
wc� -
•r .
Existing Culvert
�* /to be Removed
K
pelf art►
Bea
2015 Aerial Photography�-
Addtional CE for
Extended Buffer
r

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
March 13, 2019
Ms. Kristie Corson
NCDEQ-Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Contract Amendment Request — Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston County
DEQ Contract Number 7731
NCDMS Project Number 100090
RFQ #09132018
Located in Catawba 03050102 for mitigation credit in Catawba 03050103 (within the expanded service area)
Federal Tax ID 56 0651376
Dear Ms. Corson:
Wildlands proposes to amend the existing contract for Stream and Wetland Credits on our Carpenter Bottom
Mitigation Site (Site) based on the NC DMS and Interagency Review Team (IRT) walk on 1/16/2019. Included
with this letter is a proposed concept map, revised credit table with current stream approach, the proposed
amount to be added to the contract based on additional crediting, an updated Task/Project Milestone Table,
and the post contract IRT meeting minutes. The below table details the existing and proposed contract assets
and values.
Based on the change in stream crediting and previous contract pricing, Wildlands anticipates the Carpenter
Bottom Mitigation Site contract will total $1,758,875.00, of which $15,000.00 has already been paid based on
the Task A invoice submitted by Wildlands on 11/20/2018.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Existing and Proposed Contract Assets and Values
Original Contract
Current Contract
Proposed Contract
Stream Credits
1,224
1,224
3,229
Cost/Stream Credit
$375
$375
$375
Wetland Credits
8.2
8.2
8.2
Cost/Wetland Credit
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
'Contract Amendment No 1
N/A
$15,000
$15,000
Total Contract Value
$992,000
$1,007,000
$1,758,875
1. Amendment No. 1 increased the original contract by $15,000 to cover payments for Task A: Technical Approach/Signed
Option Agreement(s) Suitable Real Property Documentation
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
The below table reflects the revised task/project milestone deliverable schedule.
Proposed Completion Date
Proposed
Project Milestone
(Original NTP issued on
Payment
Contract
Contract Value
7/25/2017)
Payment
Task A: Technical Approach/Signed Option
Agreement(s)/Suitable Real Property
Invoiced — November 20, 2018
$15,000
$15,000
Documentation
Task 1. Categorical Exclusion Document
June 1, 2019
5%
$87,193.75
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on
May 1 2020
y
20%
$348,775.00
the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial
May 1, 2020
15%
$261,581.25
Assurance
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
December 1, 2020
15%
$261,581.25
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting & Installation of
February1 2021
10%
$174,387.50
Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report (Including As-
April 1, 2021
10%
$174,387.50
Built Drawings) Approved by DMS
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS*
December 31, 2021
5%
$87,193.75
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS*
December 31, 2022
2%
$34,877.50
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS*
December 31, 2023
2%
$34,877.50
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS*
December 31, 2024
2%
$34,877.50
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS*
December 31, 2025
2%
$34,877.50
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS*
December 31, 2026
2%
$34,877.50
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS* and
December 31, 2027
10%
$174,387.50
complete Close -Out Process
Total
$1,758,875.00
*Meets success criteria (schedule progression and payment values have been developed assuming that the site credits meet success criteria each
monitoring year)
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence, please contact me at [phone] x
102.
Sincerely,
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal
swilkersonPwildlandseng.com, 704-332-7754 ext. 100
CC: Paul Wiesner, NCDEQ-DMS
Enclosures: Concept Figure
Post Contract IRT Meeting Minutes from 1/16/2019

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Stream Credits
Proposal
Revised
Length
Mitigation
Reach
Management Objectives
Mitigation
Mitigation
(feet)
Ratio
Credits
Approach
Approach
(No Expanded Buffer)
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
Carpenter's
increase bedform diversity through the
Branch Reach 1
installation of instream structures, and
Enhancement II
Restoration
2,375
1:1
2,375
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community. Replace an existing
culvert crossing along the proposed reach.
Carpenter's
Exclude cattle, treat invasive vegetation, and
Enhancement II
Preservation
431
5:1
86
Branch Reach 2
plant a native riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
UT1
increase bedform diversity through the
Enhancement II
Restoration
120
1:1
120
installation of instream structures, and
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
UT2
increase bedform diversity through the
Enhancement II
Restoration
372
1:1
372
installation of instream structures, and
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
UT3
increase bedform diversity through the
Enhancement II
Restoration
216
1:1
216
installation of instream structures, and
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community.
Restore with Priority 1 restoration including
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile.
Reconnect stream to its relic floodplain,
increase bedform diversity through the
UT4
installation of instream structures, and
Enhancement II
Restoration
60
1:1
60
stabilize bed and banks. Exclude cattle, treat
invasive vegetation, and plant a native
riparian community. Eliminate an existing
culvert crossing along the proposed reach.
3,229
Stream
Total
3,599
_ _ _
Credits
(Cool)

APPENDIX 14
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculation Results

Site Name:
Carpenter Bottom
USACE Action ID:
SAW-2018-02062
NCDW R Project Number:
100090
Sponsor:
DMS
County:
Gaston
Minimum Required Buffer Width':
50
Mitigation Type
Restoration (1:1)
Enhancement 1(1.5:1)
Enhancement 11(2.5:1)
Preservation(5:1)
Other(7.5:1)
Other(10:1)
Custom Ratio 1
Custom Ratio 2
Custom Ratio 3
Custom Ratio 4
Custom Ratio 5
Totals
Buffer Zones
Max Possible Buffer (square feet)°
Ideal Buffer (square feet)'
Actual Buffer (square feet)°
Zone Multiplier
Buffer Credit Equivalent
Percent of Ideal Buffer
Credit Adjustment
Mitigation Ratio Creditable Stream
Baseline Stream Credit
3023.71
95A2
3119.13
Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator
Buffer Width Zone (feet from Ordinary High Water Mark)
less than 15 feet
>15 to 20 feet
>20 to 25 feet
>25 to 30 feet
>30 to 35 feet
>35 to 40 feet
>40 to 45 feet
>45 to 50 feet
>50 to 75 feet
>75 to 100 feet
>100 to 125 feet
>125 to 150 feet
105023.82
35007.94
35007.94
35007.94
35007.94
35007.94
35007.94
35007.94
175039.7
175039.7
175039.7
175039.7
105376.00
33648.88
32313.25
31358.06
30771.38
30457.71
30255.64
29861.67
147136.81
147047.05
149066.10
151790.40
102937.89
32445.85
30957.93
29666.70
28573.82
27886.62
27404.64
26730.66
43767.71
1094.17
587.20
0.00
50%
10%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
7%
5%
4%
4%
1559.57
311.91
311.91
311.91
155.96
155.96
155.96
155.96
218.34
155.96
124.77
124.77
98%
96%
96%
95%
93%
92%
91%
90%
30%
1%
0%
0%
-36.08
-11.15
-13.08
-16.82
-11.14
-13.17
-14.70
-16.35
64.95
1.15
0.49
0.00
Total Baseline Credit Credit Loss in Required Credit Gain for Net Change in Total Credit
Buffer Additional Buffer Credit from Buffers
3119.13-132.49 66.59 -65.90 3053.23
'Minimum standard buffer width measured from the top of bank (50 feet in piedmont and coastal plain counties or 30 feet in mountain counties)
2Use the Custom Ratio fields to enter non-standard ratios, which are equal to the number of feet in the feet -to -credit mitigation ratio (e.g., for a perservation ratio of 8 feet to 1 credit, the multiplier would be 8).
'Equal to the number of feet of stream in each Mitigation Type. If stream reaches are not creditable, they should be excluded from this measurement, even if they fall within the easement.
'This amount is the maximum buffer area possible based on the linear footage of stream length if channel were perfectly straight with full buffer width. This number is not used in calculations, but is provided as a reference.
'Maximum potential size (in square feet) of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas outside of the easement. The inner zone (0-15') should be measured from the top of the OH W M or the edge of the average stream width if OH W M is not known. Non -creditable stream
reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.
°Square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS, excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement exceptions, open water, areas failing to meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. Additional credit is given to 150 feet in buffer width, so areas within the easement that are
more than 150 feet from creditable streams should not be included in this measurement. Non -creditable stream reaches within the easement should be removed prior to calculating this area wtih GIS.

i Proposed Conservation Easement
50'
- 75'
- 100'
- 125'
Proposed Internal Crossing
® Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Reach Breaks
0
.�l� jk
td * , 3cif
J
.1f 'JO
................ , *c
Figure 8 Concept Map
WILDLANDS
kv ENGINEERING
0 100 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Gaston County, NC