20140153 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20210105

ID#* 20140153 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/05/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/5/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140153
Existing 1W
Project Type: F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Owls Den Mitigation Site
County: Lincoln
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: OwisDen_95808_MY5_2020.pdf 13.09MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
C5vaell / c�c 't•

MONITORING YEAR 5 -'vL'S DEN MITIGATION SITE
Lincoln County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT DEQ Contract 005150
FINAL
DMS Project Number 95808
DWR No. 14-0153
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2010-00717
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050102
Data Collection Period: March - November 2020
Submission Date: December 21, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
1�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 21, 2020
Mr. Paul Wiesner
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Owl's Den Mitigation Site -Year 5 Monitoring Report
Final Submittal for DMS
Contract Number 005150, DMS# 95808
Catawba River Basin — CU# 03050102; Lincoln County, NC
Providing mitigation for CU#03050103 (Catawba ESA)
Dear Mr. Wiesner:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments and observations from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site Draft Year 5 Monitoring Report. The
report text has been revised for the final draft to reflect the most current condition of the site. The
following are your comments and observations from the report and are noted in Bold. Wildlands'
response to those comments are noted in Italics.
DMS Comment: Section 1.2.5 - Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan: Please update this
section to indicate when these dams were removed and beaver trapped or provide a scheduled
removal/ trapping date/s. DMS recommends removing beaver and beaver dams as soon as possible to
avoid potential irregular monitoring data, project damage and additional project maintenance.
Wildlands Response: The report and figures have been updated to reflect that the dams were removed in
early December of 2020. Wildlands is currently monitoring for continued beaver activity and will address
in Q1 of MY6, if needed.
DMS Comment: 1.2.5 Areas of Concern/ Adaptive Management Plan: "In MY5, low stem density areas
(0.1 Ac), previously noted in MY5, continue to persist/ have low stem density." Please review and
correct.
Wildlands Response: The text has been updated so that the low stem density area was first noted in
MY4.
DMS Comment: Section 1.3. Please update. This should be "Monitoring Year 5 Summary".
Wildlands Response: The heading for Section 1.3 has been updated.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
E N G I N EER I NO
DMS Comment: Project Components and Mitigation Credits and Report Text (Executive Summary &
Project Overview): A very minor rounding issue exists in the asset table (Table 1). Please make the
following update so the final MY5 report matches the DMS asset accounting system (CRM) and 2021
credit ledger. Please update Wetland A to 0.338 in the credit column. Please also update the Riparian
Wetland Credit Total at the top of the table to 8.938 WMUs. Please review and update the report text
as necessary. Please utilize the updated credit amounts in future reports as well.
Wildlonds Response: Table 1 and the report text hove been updated to reflect these changes. The
updated credits amounts will be used in future reports os well.
DMS Comment: Stream and Wetland Photographs & Cross Sections: The project photographs were
taken in March 2020 and the cross section data was collected in March 2020. In the future, it would be
helpful to take photographs and collect cross section data later in the applicable monitoring year so
the report better represents conditions later in the growing season.
Wildlonds Response: The photographs were collected in March so that vegetation would not block the
view of the channel. In future monitoring years Wildlonds will make o best effort to collect the stream
photographs and cross section survey later during the growing season, if workload scheduling allows.
DMS Comment: Cross Section 1 & Cross Section 2: The photographs for these cross sections show
what appears to be flooding or back water with no defined bed and bank; however, no beaver dams
were reported along this reach. Please explain and update the report text if necessary.
Wildlonds Response: There was o beaver dam present on the stream channel downstream of XS2 during
the time of survey. This contributed to the floodploin inundation present in the cross-section photos.
Soon after survey, the dam was cleared from the channel. The dam was not present on the channel
during the November 2020 Site walk, which is why it was not included on the CCPV mops. The dam has
been added to the CCPV mops for reference and text with o note that it was removed in March 2020.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies of the Year 5 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) CD with all
the final corrected electronic files for DMS distribution. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x101 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
s
Kristi Suggs
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Owl's Den Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) to restore 2,453 linear feet (LF) of
perennial streams, rehabilitate 2.82 acres of existing wetlands, and re-establish 6.77 acres of wetlands in
Lincoln County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 2,453.000 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and
8.938 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs) (Table 1).
The Site is located near the City of Lincolnton in Lincoln County, NC within the DIMS targeted watershed
for the Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102040040 and NCDWR Subbasin 03-08-
35 (Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103
within the expanded service area of this HUC. The project streams consist of two unnamed tributaries to
Howards Creek, HC1 and HC2 (Figure 2). Howards Creek eventually flows into the South Fork Catawba
River near the City of Lincolnton in Lincoln County. The adjacent land to the streams and wetlands is
maintained for agricultural purposes.
The Site is located in the Howards Creek watershed and is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
identified in NCDMS 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP). The Site is also
identified in the Indian Creek and Howards Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Project Atlas (DIMS, 2010).
The Indian and Howards Creek LWP identified stream channelization and dredging, incised channels and
unstable stream banks, deforested riparian buffers, drained and cleared wetlands, and nutrient inputs to
streams and wetlands as major stressors within this watershed. The LWP Project Atlas identified the
Owl's Den Mitigation Site as a restoration opportunity with the potential to improve water quality,
habitat, and hydrology within the Howards Creek watershed.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2014) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to address stressors
identified in the LWP. The following project goals established include:
• Correct hydrologic modifications to streams including stream incision and dredging, bank
erosion, lowering of the local water table, sedimentation, and loss of riparian buffer and
floodplain functions;
• Improve hydrology and function of previously drained and cleared wetlands;
• Re-establish riparian buffer and wetland vegetation communities;
• Reduce excess sediment to downstream waters by stabilizing streams and revegetating site; and
• Reduce nutrient loads to downstream waters by improving wetlands and buffers to treat runoff.
Secondary project goals include:
• Improve instream habitat by diversifying the stream bedform and introducing habitat structures
and wood debris.
• Reduce agricultural pollution from pesticides and herbicides used on adjacent fields by
improving wetland and buffers to treat runoff.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between May 2015 and August 2015. A
conservation easement is in place on 12.87 acres of the riparian corridors to protect them in perpetuity.
Monitoring Year (MY) five (5) assessments and Site visits were completed between March and
November 2020 to assess the condition of the project. Detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation
and channel cross -sectional dimensions, visual observation data, hydrology data, and management
practices are included in this report.
Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation, stream hydrology success criteria for MY5. Based on
the geomorphic survey, the stream channels have remained stable during MY5. The Site's vegetation
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL

assessment resulted in an average of 498 planted stems per acre, which exceeds the MY5 success
criteria of 260 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY7 success criteria of 210 stems per acre.
Consistent baseflow flow and multiple bankfull events were recorded on all streams during MY5. Beaver
dams have been identified and removed on the site throughout the monitoring year and will continue to
be addressed as needed. The majority of wetland gages (14 of 15) met the wetland hydrology success
criteria during MY5. While a few small issues are being monitored, it is anticipated the Site will meet all
success criteria at closeout.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL

OWL'S DEN MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 3-1
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-c
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Wetland Photographs
Area of Concern Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stems (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 12a-c
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Gage Plots
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located in central Lincoln County within the Catawba River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
03050102) and is located off of Owl's Den Road northwest of Lincolnton, North Carolina. The Site is
located in in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project
watershed is dominated by agricultural and forested land. The drainage area for the Site is 152 acres.
(0.24 square miles).
The project streams include unnamed tributaries to Howards Creek (HC1 and HC2). Stream restoration
reaches included HC1 (Reach 1 and 2) and HC2 comprising 2,453 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel. The riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water
quality. Wetland components included rehabilitating 2.82 acres of existing wetlands and re-establishing
6.77 acres of wetlands.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in July 2015. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in January 2016. A conservation
easement has been recorded and is in place on 12.87 acres (Deed Book 2455, Page Number 864) within
a tract owned by Owl's Den Farm, LLC. The project is expected to generate 2,453.000 stream mitigation
units (SMU's) and 8.938 wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Annual monitoring will be conducted for
seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria are met.
Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site
background information for this project.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams on the Site had been straightened, widened, and deepened
to provide drainage for surrounding cropland. The adjacent floodplain areas had been cleared and
maintained to support agricultural activities. Table 10a and b in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration
conditions in detail.
The Site will help address stressors identified in the LWP and provide numerous ecological benefits
within the Catawba River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Owl's Den project area,
others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial
habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes
are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project goals established were completed with
careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and address stressors
identified in the LWP while also meeting the DIMS mitigation needs.
The primary objectives of the Owl's Den Mitigation Site address stressors identified in the LWP and
included the following:
Correct hydrologic modifications to streams including stream incision and dredging, bank
erosion, lowering of the local water table, sedimentation, and loss of riparian buffer and
floodplain functions. The project re -connected streams with a stable floodplain using Priority 1
restoration techniques. The Priority 1 restoration eliminated vertically incised channels on site.
Stream banks were stabilized with grading, in -stream structures, and planting. By stabilizing
stream banks on site, sediment loading should be reduced in the receiving watershed.
Improve hydrology and function of previously drained and cleared wetlands. The project
restored hydrologic connections to existing wetlands using Priority 1 stream restoration to raise
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

the local water table and increase overbank flooding. The project extended existing wetland
zones into adjacent areas and established wetland vegetation throughout the site.
• Re-establish wetland hydrology and function in relic wetland areas. Removal of historic
overburden uncovered relic hydric soils and should bring local water table elevations closer to
the ground surface. Disking and roughening of wetland re-establishment areas should increase
retention times and improve natural infiltrative processes.
• Re-establish riparian buffer and wetland vegetation communities. A native vegetation
community was planted on the site to revegetate the riparian buffers and wetlands and return
the functions associated with these wooded areas.
• Reduce excess sediment to downstream waters by stabilizing streams and revegetating site.
Stream banks were stabilized on all project reaches. The site was also revegetated with a native
forest community to prevent erosion and sedimentation from overland runoff of agricultural
lands and filter runoff from adjacent fields.
• Reduce nutrient and agricultural pollutant inputs to streams and wetlands. Increased retention
times along with reestablished vegetation in restored wetland areas will reduce fertilizers used
in blackberry and soybean agricultural production before runoff enters the streams.
Secondary project goal includes:
Improve instream habitat by diversifying the stream bedform and introducing habitat structures
and woody debris. Large woody debris, brush toe meander bends, other woody structures, and
native stream bank vegetation were installed to improve both instream and terrestrial habitat
value throughout the riparian corridor.
Reduce agricultural pollution from pesticides and herbicides used on adjacent fields by improving
wetlands and buffers to treat runoff. Restored wetland areas will provide treatment for
agricultural runoff from blackberry and soy bean fields that are sprayed with pesticides and
herbicides.
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY5 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success
criteria presented in the Owl's Den Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014). The following sections provide
detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation and channel cross -sectional dimensions, visual
observation data, hydrology data, and management practices observed during MY5.
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
A detailed morphological survey was conducted in March 2020. Three of the riffle cross -sections (XS)
along tributary HC1 (XS2, XS4, and XS6) show a slight 0.1 decrease in Bank Height Ratio (BHR) when
compared to the MYO bankfull area elevation. However, the stream in these areas is maintaining
channel form indicating that the channel is able to transport its sediment load and maintain stability. At
the downstream end of HC1 R2 riffle XS8's top of bank height has raised due to fine sediment deposition
from the main channel of Howard's Creek. In addition to elevated banks, this has resulted in a narrower
channel with an increased cross -sectional area. The overall increase in cross -sectional area from MYO to
MY5 is 1.3%. The MY5 low bank height for XS8 (765.1 ft) is 3 feet higher than the original low bank
height at MYO (762.1 ft), resulting in a BHR of 1.6. However, the bed of the riffle has maintained the
same elevation (760.8 ft) as MYO. Although the channel is impacted by backwater from Howard's Creek
and is experiencing deposition, the channel does not appear to be vertically or laterally unstable and is
not exhibiting signs of instability.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

The downstream pools along tributary HC1 have aggraded and reduced cross -sectional area in MY5. XS5
had a 37% reduction in cross -sectional area from 24.9 Win MYO to 15.5 Win MY5. XS7 had a 40%
reduction in cross -sectional area from 13.9 ft2 in MYO to 8.1 ft2 in MY5. The aggradation observed is
probably due to aggradation from Howards Creek backwater at the downstream end of HC1. At the time
of survey, these downstream pools most likely had not been flushed or scoured by a large rain event.
Overall, HC1 R1 and R2 are stable and the channels have maintained a stable pool -riffle sequence. All
riffles and pools on tributary HC2 remained stable during the monitoring year 5 survey. Based on field
observations, the majority of the project reaches within the Site appear stable and functioning as
designed, refer to Tables 5a-5c for Site walk data.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment tables, Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(CCPV) maps, and reference photographs.
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment
The stream hydrology success criteria were met within the first two years of monitoring on HC1 and
HC2. Both streams continued to record bankfull or greater events in MY5. The hydrographs for both
streams show prolonged floodplain inundation that is most likely due to beaver dam influence. The
automated stream gage on HC2 malfunctioned during early 2020 but was replaced in April 2020 and
functioning since. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic summary data and plots.
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
All vegetation plots individually met the MY5 success criteria of 260 stems per acre. The average planted
stem height in MY5 was 8.5 feet and is on track to meet the success criteria of an average planted stem
height of 10 feet in the planted riparian and wetland corridor by MY7. The individual stem density per
plot data is available in Appendix 3.
During the 2019 IRT Credit Release Meeting, it was discussed that vegetation plot (VP) 5 did not meet
criteria in MY3. During baseline monitoring, VP5 was inadvertently established in an area of low
elevation within the floodplain that consistently receives preferential flow from the surrounding
topography; thereby holding approximately 0.5-1 foot of water throughout most of the year, inhibiting
the establishment of woody vegetation. Upon direction from the IRT and DMS, Wildlands continued
collecting plot data within VP5, but also set up a mobile vegetation plot in a random area adjacent to
VP5. VP5 did meet success criteria in MY5 with 364 stems per acre, because planted stems that were
missing in MY3 were located and measured in MY5. In addition, the mobile VP5 also met success criteria
with 550 stems per acre and an average stem height of 7.4 feet within the mobile plot. Refer to
Appendix 3 for vegetation plot data.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
An on -site reference gage is used to compare the hydrologic response of the restored wetland areas on
the Site. Precipitation data is referenced from a local USGS gage station. Pressure transducers in each
groundwater gage (GWG) are linked to a barotroll logger on the site that records barometric pressure
data used in the calculations of the groundwater level within each gage. In December 2018 a soil probe
and an additional groundwater gage were installed at the Site. The soil probe was installed at least
twelve (12) inches below the ground next to GWG1.
In MY5, 14 of 15 groundwater gages met success criteria defined by a free groundwater surface within
12 inches of the ground surface for eighteen (18) consecutive days (8.1 percent) of the growing season
for Lincoln County (March 28 through November 5). The measured cumulative hydroperiod for the
monitoring gages on the Site ranged from 6.7% to 100% of the growing season. GWG1 met in MY4 but
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

did not meet this year in MY5 (GWG1 had 15 days meeting or 6.7%). GWG8 malfunctioned at the
beginning of the growing season, but was replaced in April and still met success criteria for 24.7% of the
growing season. GWG6, GWG7, and GWG13 malfunctioned prior to the Q3 gage download in July but
had all met criteria for 47.4% of the growing season prior to the malfunction. Overall, 2020 was a very
wet year compared to the 30-70 percentile graph for rainfall in 2019 in Lincolnton, NC. With the
exception of GWG1, all 14 gages that met this year are expected to continue meeting success criteria in
subsequent monitoring years. All three groundwater gages that stopped recording data this year will be
replaced before the MY6 growing season. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and
Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan
Stream areas of concern are minimal. Floodplain deposition has continued at the downstream extent of
HC1 Reach 2. However, stream stability and conveyance have not been affected and the channel has
maintained a stable pool -riffle sequence.
Three beaver dams were removed from the Site removed by USDA/APHIS on December 11, 2019.
Wildlands walked the Site on January 7, 2020 and no dam was present on the Site. However, during the
time of survey in Q1 2020, a beaver dam was mapped on HC1 directly above the easement crossing as
well as another just below HC1 R1. The floodplain inundation from the dam on HC1 R1 is present in the
XS1 and XS2 photos taken in March. However, the dam was removed after the cross -sectional survey
was completed in March 2020.
USDA/APHIS have monitored the Site throughout the year. The most recent trip to the Site by
USDA/APHIS was September 28, 2020. There is a corresponding drop in water level on both stream
hydrographs associated with removal. The stream channel appeared stable from visual assessment after
the dam removal. No monitoring features or data were affected except for the floodplain inundation,
which was recorded for HC1 R2 and HC2, as shown on the stream gage plot in Appendix 5. During a Site
visit on November 6, 2020, the dam above the crossing had been re-established as well as another small
dam below the crossing. Photos of both are available in the Area of Concern photos in Appendix 2. In
early December 2020, both dams were removed from the Site. Wildlands is currently monitoring for
continued beaver activity and if noted will address in the first quarter of MY6.
The vegetation areas of concern continue to be monitored and treated in MY5. Invasive species that
have undergone treatment include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Chinese and Japanese
privet (Ligustrum sinsense and japonicum). The areas previously identified as morning glory (family
Convolvulaceae), have been updated in MY5 to climbing hempvine (Mikania scadens), which is native to
North Carolina. Vine strangulation by the climbing hempvine is occurring in vegetation plot 1, but the
plot is still meeting criteria although the trees have reduced height and vigor relative to the rest of the
vegetation plots. Treatment of the climbing hempvine is scheduled to occur before the MY6 growing
season. In total, invasive species are affecting approximately 2% of the site. As needed, herbicide
applications will be applied in accordance with state regulations to control these invasive species in
future monitoring years.
Supplemental planting in the area surrounding VP11 was completed in March of 2019. The
supplemental planting area has been visually monitored throughout the MY5 growing season and the
new stems are responding well, both in and surrounding vegetation plot 11. In MY5, low stem density
areas (0.1 Ac), previously noted in MY4, continue to persist with low stem density.
This area will continue to be visually assessed in subsequent monitoring years to see if volunteer species
become established or if additional planting is needed. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition
assessment table and Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Visual assessments indicate that all streams above the HC1-HC2 confluence are geomorphically stable
and functioning as designed. Beaver dams have been identified and removed on the Site above the HC1
R2 easement crossing. Multiple bankfull events have been documented within the restored stream
reaches and the Site met the final (MY7) stream hydrology success criteria during MY2. The vegetation
on the Site is on track to meet the MY7 success criteria. The majority of groundwater monitoring gages
(14 of 15) met the success criteria for MY5. Invasive vegetation will continue to be monitored and
treated as necessary to support the establishment of native vegetation.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter
accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross -
sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring
methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards.
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et
al., 2008).
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities.
http://nceep.net/services/restplans/RBRPCatawba2007.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), 2010. Indian and Howards Creek Local Watershed
Plan. www.nceep.net/ervices/lwps/Indian Howards Creek/INDIAN HOWARD CREEKS.html
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) and Interagency Review Team (IRT) Technical
Workgroup, 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Email 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring
Parameter.
United States Department of Agriculture. Lincolnton, NC Weather Station NC4996.
http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2014). Owl's Den Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

:reek
' ,� Project Location
s 03050102040010
T'«., 030501020400200 Greg Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
ot%
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
s �
d ¢
�® s
'�� ►.. ►Fr Rio,:
Creep Ca per
� 1
►' 03050102030020, Church ftd
wards C y rra 1
- }io retrk 1
03050102040040 '� ► 03050102040030 32f`
a + sr �
- _ t o
♦ 'a .
♦ � Io �. Walker gian�►'.
`f 1 ►
�a I '•
Rock
�! 27 i + 1 Int❑ r
� A A
i
►
►
1
t..awrl
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
_ the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
�Q§
is �a
m
M �3
to COunfry C�rJ4 R
1 ry
1a-
Move Chu llnl
�' iCtr7 f 4 s"ri
03050102060010'%r
�l
Directons to Site:
From Charlotte, NC, take US-85 South approximately 18 miles to
US-321 in Gastonia, NC. Take exit 17 for US-321 North and
continue approximately 14 miles. Take exit 24 for NC 27 North / NC
150 toward Lincolnton. Continue onto Main Street in downtown
Lincolnton, which will go through a roundabout at the Lincoln
County Civil Court. Continue on US 27 N/ Main Street by taking
the 3rd exit on the roundabout. Main Street becomes Riverside
Drive. In approximately 3 miles, turn right onto Rock Dam Road at
St. Dorothy's Catholic Church and Kid's Dome. After 0.6 miles, turn
right onto Owls Den Road. The entrance to the Owl's Den Farm is
on the left in approximately 2 miles.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 95808
W I L D L A N D 5 nk� Monitoring Year 5- 2020
F.-P
Nr-I i r i
Lincoln County, NC

- - Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Non -Project Streams
Wetland Re-establishment
- Wetland Rehabilitation
® Internal Culvert Crossing
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 95808
W I L D L A N D 5 nk� I I Monitoring Year 5- 2020
ENGINEFRING
Lincoln County, NC

•Y�, tip. `1 � ,' � , � � �� 4 •_'•y����ti �'�,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
A • Y a`
a6kA
-•1\['�'
1
Beaver Dam Removed
December 2020
5 VP fs I ♦,
Beaver Dam Removed
March 2020 Xsq 10
Wetland
�, \xq 15140.40.11**
16 �.
�.� 00 .. s
y�I
still
.I.
.:f-.-•-usar......r,.....-^.:rr_..._.._.. .cai _uu:s�.ilik, - �;..�....
Beaver Dam Removed
December 2020
I• Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
= Wetland Rehabilitation
® Internal Culvert Crossing
Stream Restoration
Non Project Streams
----- Bankfull
Structure
w Cross -Section (XS)
OReach Break
Reference Gage
Stream Gage (SG)
Barotroll
Soil Temperature Probe
Groundwater Gages (GWGs)- MY5
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Beaver Dam
Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Critieria MY5
® Supplemental Planting Area March 2019
Vegetation Problem Areas- MY5
Climbing Hempvine
Japanese Honeysuckle
Pb Chinese Privet
r
Low Stem Density
1-
-. e•l,
I.
1
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project
i i i I Monitoring Yearr 5 5- 2020 2020
Lincoln County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 3)
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project
W I L D L A N D 5 ' 0 25 50 Feet r 5 2020
FNGINFCRING I i i i I Monitoring Year 5- 020
Lincoln County, NC

Beaver Dam Removed
March 2020
0
+s9
c�a -
5 MVP5 •
Wetland
G .
17
104'`90 13d
q ,♦%.�-
1 ---F8 - •
x
'�� ",✓
Cp♦ = t
W
WiLDLANDS nk�
ENGkNFFtRINC�
0 25 50 Feet
I I I
I;. GVVG8
GWG10 :•
L— Conservation Easement
O
Reach Break
LVegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria MY5
- Wetland Re-establishment
Photo Point
® Supplemental Planting Area March 2019
- Wetland Rehabilitation
Reference Gage
Vegetation Problem Areas- MY5
Stream Restoration
+
Stream Gage (SG)
Climbing Hempvine
`
----- Bankfull
Groundwater Gages (GWGs)- MY5
Japanese Honeysuckle
Structure
♦
Criteria Not Met
Chinese Privet
♦�
Cross -Section (XS)
Criteria Met
Low Stem Density
♦`
Beaver Dam
`
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 3)
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Lincoln County, NC

J3
1f
117
~ Beaver Dam Removed
` r .
December 2020
.0
'% fib_- - . � - ♦ .
�`
3
Beaver Dam Removed
December 2020
mom,
13 ♦�♦
% Q XS 6 �•�
,`%
12 ./ •
%
� 1
Conservation Easement Q Reach Break Vegetation Plots Meeting Criteria MY5
Wetland Re-establishment Photo Point ® Supplemental Planting Area March 2019
Wetland Rehabilitation + Stream Gage (SG) Vegetation Problem Areas- MY5
%� �/ � Internal Culvert Crossing + Barotroll
Climbing Hempvine
%/ Groundwater Gages GWGs MY5 Japanese Honeysuckle
i Stream Restoration g ( )
i' 11
------- Bankfull T Criteria Not Met Chinese Privet
Structure Criteria met Low Stem Density
�.
Cross -Section (XS)
Beaver Dam
W
WILDLANDS rk� FNGI N E E RING
0 25 50 Feet
I I I
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 3)
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Lincoln County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen Nutrient
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R
RE R
RE R RE
Totals 2,453.000
N/A 8.938
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
As -Built Stationing
Existing Footage/
t
Credits'
Reach ID
t
Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage /Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
/ Location
Acreage
(SMU / WMU)
STREAMS
HCl Reach 1
99+94 - 108+09
609
P1
Restoration
815
1:1
815.000
108+09 - 115+35
P1
Restoration
726
1:1
726.000
HC1 Reach 2
994
115+65 - 117+79
Pi
Restoration
214
1:1
214.000
HC2
200+00 - 206+98
1 444
Pi
Restoration
698
1:1
698.000
WETLANDS
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.44
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.44
1.3:1
0.338
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.13
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.13
1.3:1
0.100
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
1.03
improvement to
Rehabilitation
1.03
1.3:1
0.792
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.81
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.81
1.3:1
0.623
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.13
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.13
1.3:1
0.100
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.13
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.13
1.3:1
0.100
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.15
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.15
1.3:1
0.115
wetland functions
Planting,
Wetland Re -Establishment Area
N/A
n/a
hydrologic
Re -Establishment
6.77
1:1
6.770
improvement
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,453
-
Enhancement
-
Enhancementl
-
Enhancement II
-
Wetland Re -Establishment
6.77
-
Wetland Rehabilitation
-
2.82
-
The 301inear feet associated with the stream crossing on HC1 Reach 2 were excluded from the computations.
'Stream Mitigation Credits were adjusted in My2 to reflect credits proposed in the mitigation plan using centerline alignment.
Wetland Re-Establilishment credits were revised during the as -built as a result of an eaasement adjustment after mitigation plan was approved.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Comple7ellompletion
July 2013
or Scheduled Delivery
April 2014
Final Design - Construction Plans
March 2015
April 2015
Construction
May 2015 - July 2015
July 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
May 2015 - July 2015
July 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
June 2015
July 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
January 2016
January 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
June 2015
February 2016
Vegetation Survey
January 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2016
November 2016
Vegetation Survey
September 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
July 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey
September 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Supplemental Planting
March 2019
December 2019
Stream Survey
N/A
Vegetation Survey
N/A
Beaver Removal
N/A
December 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
March 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
July 2020
Invasive Species Treatment
Ongoing
Beaver Removal
Ongoing
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey
2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Emily Reinicker, PE
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Live Stakes
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
EM...
Project Information
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Project Name
County
Lincoln County
Project Area (acres)
12.87
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°29'33.22" N, 81" 18'45.95" W
Project
Physiographic Province
Watershed Summary Information
Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03050102
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03050102040040
D W R Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)
152
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
93%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 7%— Forested/Scrubland
Parameters
HC1 Reach 1
HC1 Reach 2
HC2
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
815
940
698
Drainage area (acres)
62
152
27
NCDWR stream identification score
31.5
37.5
31.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
IV
IV
IV
Underlying mapped soils
Chewacla Loam, Helena sandy loam, Riverview loam, Worsham fine sandy loam
Drainage class
---
Soil hydric status
---
Slope
0.0061
1 0.0075
1 0.0059
FEMA classification
AE*
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
(Action ID# SAW-2013-00717) and
DWQ401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Owl's Den Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Lincoln County listed
endangered species. May 18, 2015
email correspondence from
USFWS indicating no effect on the
northern long-eared bat.
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found
to be impacted (letter from SHPO
dated 4/30/2013).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
EEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Floodplain development permit
issued by Lincoln County.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Nc
N/A
N/A
'The project site reaches do not have regulated floodplain mapping, but are located within the Howards Creek floodplain.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5- 2020
HC1 Reach 1 (820 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Shallow and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Shallow Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
300%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
300%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
4
4
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
300%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in channel category.

TableSb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
HC1 Reach 2 (940 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Shallow and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Shallow Condition
Texture/Substrate
14
14
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
15
15
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
15
15
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
15
15
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
11
11
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance ofgrade acrossthe sill.
5
5
300%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
5
5
300%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
300%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5- 2020
HC2 (708 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Shallow and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Shallow Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2.Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance ofgrade acrossthe sill.
B
B
300%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
B
B
300%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
5
5
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Planted Acreage 13
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
1
0.1
o
0.8/
criteria.
Total
1
0.1
0.8%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
o
0/
year.
Cumulative Total
1 1
1 0.1
1 0.8%
Easement Acreage 35
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
7
0.71
2.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%

Stream Photographs

I Photo Point 1—HC1Reach lview upstream (mAo2020) 1 Photo Point 1—HC1Reach lview downstream (mAo2o $ I
I Photo Point 2— HCIRm+ lview upstream (o A0/2 2) 1 Photo Point 2— HCIRe+ lview downstream @32 GO q 1
I Photo Point a—HC1Reach lview upstream (o A0/2 2) 1 Photo Point a—HC1Reach 1view downstream (o A0/202$ 1

1. r�
K�
s i
[r
a 'C
TW
4-3
1�
Photo Point 4 — HC1 Reach 1 view upstream (03/20/2020)
Photo Point 4 — HC1 Reach 1 view downstream (03/20/2020)
yy
y
v�.
-
+ � y z�IS•xe`�IY�
r
k
Photo Point 5 —
HC1 Reach 1 & HC2 view upstream (03/20/2020)
Photo Point 5 — HC2 view upstream (03/20/2020)
Tq
Photo Point 5 — HC1 Reach 1 view downstream (03/20/2020)

Photo Point 6 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 6 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1
Photo Point 7 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 7 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1
Photo Point 8 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 8 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1

Photo Point 9 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 9 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1
Photo Point 10 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 10 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1
Photo Point 11— HC2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 11— HC2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1

Photo Point 12 — HC2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 12 — HC2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1
Photo Point 13 — HC2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 13 — HC2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1
pf�fhyl•Y
Photo Point 14 — HC2 view upstream (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 14 — HC2 view downstream (03/20/2020) 1

Wetland Photographs

�k
r
y
-
iJ
,
a y K 1 ` • `5
A
WO
i a
y'
f
1 I
^5,12
7. ", . �a�j
+���Jf
�31 lusi`ar�r bsr i t�.rP' �°p
"•;�1
,
ri�"
R
4
Al,
Photo Point 17 —
looking north (03/20/2020)
•
a 1 I
r
i
•t N
N�
t
'y
_
Photo Point 18 —
looking northwest (03/20/2020)
Photo Point 18 —
looking southwest (03/20/2020)

Photo Point 19 — looking northeast (03/20/2020) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking southeast (03/20/2020) 1
Photo Point 20 — looking northwest (03/20/2020) 1Photo Point 20 — looking southeast (03/20/2020) I

Area of Concern Photographs

Beaver Dam above Culvert (7/2/2020) 1 Re -built Beaver Dam above Culvert (11/5/2020) 1
Re -built Beaver Dam below Culvert at XS7 (11/5/2020) 1 Mobile Vegetation Plot adjacent to VP5 (7/2020) 1

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Plot
Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Report Prepared By
Jeffrey Turner
Date Prepared
9/21/2020 13:23
Database Name
Owls Den MY3 cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02140 Owls Den\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5 (2020)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
JEFF-PC
File Size
61108224
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent oftotal stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix ofthe count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
95808
Project Name
Owls Den Mitigation Site
Area (sq m)
50585.71
Required Plots (calculated)
13
Sampled Plots
13

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
Vegetation
Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation
Plot 4
Vegetation
Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation
Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
2
Acerrubrum
Red maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
18
2
2
2
Alnusserrulata
Hazel alder
Shrub
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
6
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
Common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
8
2
2
2
6
6
31
4
4
159
Platanusoccidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
Rhus
Sumac
Shrub
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black locust
Tree
1
Salix nigra
IBlack willow
Tree
1
4
Sambucuscanadensis
lCommon Elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra
JEuropean black elderbi
Shrub
Stem count
10
10
10
12
12
15
13
13
20
13
13
13
9
9
1 9
12
12
16
8
8
27
15
15
43
15
15
170
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5 5
5
6
6
7
1 7
7
9
1 5 5
5
3 3
3
4
4
5
4
4
5
5 5
5
5 5
5
Stems per ACRE
405
405
486
486
607
1 526
526
809
1 51111111111111111 526
526
1 361111111111111 364
364
486
486
647
324
324
1093
61111111111111111 607
1 1740
607
1 6880
Current Plot Data (MY5 2020)
Annual Summaries
Species
Vegetation
Plot 10
Vegetation
Plot 11
Vegetation
Plot 12
Vegetation
Plot 13
MY5 (7/2020)
MY3 (9/2018)
MY2 (7/2017)
MY1 (9/2016)
MYO (1/2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
25
27
30
16
Acerrubrum
Red maple
Tree
1
2
2
2
7
8
8
34
8
8
29
7
7
20
8
8
16
9
9
10
Alnusserrulata
Hazel alder
Shrub
4
3
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 27
27
31
25
25
38
27
27
27
27
27
27
33
33
33
Diospyros virginiana
Common persimmon
Tree
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
13
11
11
19
14
14
19
16
16
18
21
21
21
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
8
5
5
11
4
4
4
51
51
243
42
42
124
49
49
69
51
51
59
50
50
55
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
6
1
1
1
32
32
40
29
29
48
30
30
33
33
33
35
45
45
45
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
13
17
17
17
Quercus nigra
Water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
22
22
22
22
22
22
27
27
27
31
31
31
33
33
33
Rhus
Sumac
Shrub
9
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black locust
Tree
5
1
1
1
sambucuscanadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
4
15
4
2
Sambucus nigra
European black elderbi
Shrub
25
25
Stem count
11
11
13
14
14
17
14
14
32
14
14
64
160
160
449
144
144
335
162
162
239
180
180
205
208
208
216
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
13
13
13
13
13
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Species cou;iI
6 1 6
1 7
1 5
5
1 5
1 6
1 6
1 7
1 5
1 5
1 7
1 8
1 8
12
8
8
13
8
8
13
8
8
30
7 7
8
Stems per ACRE
445
1 526
1 567
1 567
1 688
1 567
1 567
1 1295
1 567
1 567
1 2590
1 498
1 498
1 1398
1 448
448
1 1043
504
504
744
560
560
638
647
672
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Mobile Vegetation Plot 5
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Total Stems
Acer negundo
Boxelder
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
Diospyros virginiana
Common persimmon
Tree
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
Stem count
11
Size (ares)
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
Species count
6
Stems per ACRE
550
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Volunteers included

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Owl's Den-HC1 Reaches 1 and 2
Parameter
Gage
HC1 Reach 1
HC1 Reach 2
Vile Preserve
UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Catawba River
UT to Lake Wheeler
Westbrook
Design
HC1 Reach 1
HC1 Reach 2
As-Built/Baseline
HC1 Reach 1
HC1 Reach 2
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min
I Max
Min
I
Max
I Min
Max
Min
I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
8.9
10.4
5.4
12.7
4.5
6.2
15.2
13.8
10.6
9.7
9.0
13.0
8.9
10.7
11.8
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
25
15
181
200+
38+
53+
N/A'
100+
23 T 46
31 1 130
200+
60
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.5
0.9
0.5
1.5
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.3
1.0
2.4
1.4
1.4
2.0
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftz
2.7
7.2
7.9
9.7
4.5
5.3
7.3
20.8
17.4
8.0
6.2
9.8
6.1
10.3
10.5
Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
19.1
3.7
16.6
4.5
7.4
31.7
9.1
6.5
12.0
13.2
17.2
13.0 1 19.0
13.4
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1
2.8
1.2
16.1
30+
2.5+
5.8+
15.7
2.2+
2.6 5.1
2.4 10.0
19+
4.4
17+
Bank Height Ratio
1.9
2.2
1.7
5.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.206
Shallow Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
8.2
25.4
7.9
32.5
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0094
0.0005
0.0053
0.0063
0.0055
1
0.0597
0.0110
1 0.0600
0.0430
N/A'
0.0022
1 0.0130
0.0022 1 0.0130
0.0004
0.0193
0.0023
0.0227
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
18.8
62.2
21.5
69.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.7
2.9
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2
2.2
2.0
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
83
165
100
215
45
15
28
31
60
42
16 59
14
90
21
130
32
74
36
91
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
19
21
55
26
64
14
20
16
38
23
55
21
45
17
62
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
27
50
19
32
31
56
8
34
15
27
16
41
23
59
16
27
22
50
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.5
8.1
1.3
2.1
2.2
4.1
0.8
3.2
1.5
2.8
1.8
4.5
1.8
4.5
1.5
3.0
1.6
4.2
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
29
45
39
44
65
107
40
191
50
38
66
55
95
58
92
82
155
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
3.1
4.2
1.3
4.0
6.0
11.0
1.4 1 2.1
1.8
4.2
1.8
4.2
1.9
5.1
1.2
5.3
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
0.0062 / 0.089 / 0.206 / 0.790 / 1.5 / 4.8
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/2.0/9.0
-/0. 1/0. 2/0.5/4.0/8. 0
0.3/0.4/1.8/12.8/25/90
d50 : 2.6
d50 : 0.7
N/A
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competenc Ib/ft2
0.11
1
0.18
0.147
0.15
---
---
0.07
1
0.09
0.13
1 0.15
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/M21
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1.8
1
2.6
1 1.8
2.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.10
0.24
1.09
0.25
1.60
0.40
0.90
0.10
0.24
0.10
0.24
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
---
---
---
---
---
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
Modified G5c
Modified C5
E5
C5
E5
E4
E/C5
C/E
C/E
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.3 1 1.6
1.5 F 1.8
2.5
1.9
3.5
N/Al
N/A'
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.3 1 1.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8
14
12
14
73
N/A3
N/A'
8
14
8
14
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
35
62
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
4
8
Q-Mannings
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
601
797
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
609 994
---
---
---
---
---
815
940
820
940
Sinuosity
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.7
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.1 1 1.3
1.1 1 1.3
1.4
1.2
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
---
---
---
0.0020
0.0020
0.0023
0.0031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
0.0020
0.0020
0.0021 1 0.0026
0.0026 1 0.0029
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
N/Al: Data not provided in reference reach report (Lowther, 2008)
N/AZ: Data not provided in Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream Mitigation Bank Westbrook Lowgrounds Site Specific Mitigation Plan (Environmental Banc Exchange, 2002)
N/A3: Lowther reported a range of possible discharges from 46.8 to 108.9 cfs based on different Mannings'n' estimation techniques (Lowther, 2008)

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year S - 2020
Owl's Den-HC2
Parameter
Gage
HC2
See Table 10a.
HC2
HC2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.4
8.9
See Table 10a.
6.5
6.8
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
9
14
35 110
200+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area(ft')
2.9
3.5
3.3
2.1
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
10.0
22.3
13.2
16.1
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
5.4 1 16.9
23+
30+
Bank Height Ratio
3.3 1 4.1
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.047
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 10a.
---
8.5
26.7
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0046 1 0.0120
0.0053 1 0.0160
0.0044
0.0294
Pool Length (ft)
10.6
48.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
90 148
10
65
29
72
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
See Table 10a.
12
27
16
41
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
12
29
11
26
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.8
4.5
1.3
3.8
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
27
48
46
80
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
1.8
4.2
1.8
6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 10a.
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.002/0.012/0.05/0.26/0.43/5
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
---
---
0.11
0.15
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
3.6
3.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.04
See Table 10a.
0.04
0.04
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
Modified G6c
C/E
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.4 1 1.7
1.6
1.3 1
2.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
5
5
5
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
20
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr)
2
Q-Mannings
---
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
574
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
444
698
708
Sinuosity
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ftz
---
0.0043
0.0098
0.0061
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
0.0043
0.0098
0.0059
0.0062
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
N/A4: No pool Cross -Section taken on HC2

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Dimension and Substrate ' ' '
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
765.9
765.9
765.9
766.07
766.0
765.9
765.9
765.9
765.9
765.9
765.5
765.5
765.5
765.53
765.51
765.0
765.0
765.0
765.1
765.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
765.9
765.9
765.9
765.92
766.0
765.9
765.9
765.9
765.9
766.0
765.5
765.5
765.5
765.51
765.51
765.0
765.0
765.0
765.1
765.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.5
13.9
13.4
12.6
10.2
10.7
9.7
10.4
11.4
11.9
16.4
15.4
14.6
15.4
14.2
8.9
8.5
9.4
12.6
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
50.3
53.0
---
---
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
79.8
80.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.6
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
11.6
9.6
11.1
11.6
10.2
6.1
4.7
6.5
6.6
7.2
14.8
13.7
14.6
14.8
6.1
4.7
5.5
6.3
4.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.6
20.2
16.3
13.8
10.2
19.0
20.0
16.6
19.7
19.5
18.2
17.2
14.7
15.9
M
17.9
15.5
15.8
25.1
16.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
19+
20+
19+
4.4+
4.5
---
---
---
---
19+
24+
21+
6.3+
9.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
1.1
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
Dimension and substrate -Base
MYS Cross
-Section MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS •
MY7
Base
Cross-section
MY1
r
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
r
MY6
MY7
Base
MYlt Cross
MY2,
,MY3 •
MY4 each
•
•
MY6
MY7
Base
Cross
MY 1t
-Section
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
•MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
763.7
763.7
763.7
763.78
MY4
763.73
763.6
763.6
763.6
763.72
r
MY4
763.92
762.4 762.6 762.6 763.06 762.89 762.1 762.3 762.3 763.1 763.41
762.4 762.6 762.6 762.44 762.89 762.1 762.3 762.3 763.11 765.06
14.7 10.5 10.6 8.7 12.8 13.9 12.5 12.8 14.0 11.7
--- --- --- --- --- 61 47 44 73.0 79.6
0.9 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 2.1
2.2 2.4 2.1 2.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 2.2 4.2
24.3
13.9 12.1 11.1 13.9 8.1 10.5 9.7 9.0r5.
15.6 9.2 10.0 5.5 2a 2 18.5 16.1 18.0 5.7
--- --- --- --- --- 4.4 3.7 3.4 6.8
--- --- --- --- --- 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.7
Base MYl rMY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
766.6 766.6 766.6 766.59 766.64
766.6 766.6 766.6 766.59 766.59
7.5 7.7 7.7 7.9 9.0
200+ 200+ 200+ 45.3 45.7
0.5 0.4 1 0.4 0.4 0.4
1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0
3.4 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4
16.1 19.2 18.8 17.7 24.1
27+ 26+ 26+ 6+ 5.1
1.0 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
763.7
763.7
763.7
763.73
763.73
763.6
763.6
763.6
763.72
763.84
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.5
16.0
16.5
16.4
15.6
11.8
11.1
11.1
12.6
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
79.9
81.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
1 2.5
1 2.5
2.7
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fte)
24.9
23.5
24.0
24.9
15.0
10.3
8.8
8.4
9.2
8.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
10.8
11.4
10.8
16.3
13.4
14.1
14.7
16.2
15.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
17+
18+
18+
6+
6.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate''2'aA
---
Base
---
MYl
---
MY2
---
MY3
---
MYS
MY6
MY7
1.0
Base
1.0
MYl
10
MY2
10
MY3
0.9
MYS
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
767.8
767.8
767.8
767.72
12, HC2
MY4
767.78
767.5
767.5
767.5
767.6
HC2 (Shallow)
MY4
767.46
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
767.8
767.8
767.8
767.72
767.72
767.5
767.5
767.5
767.54
767.46
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.8
6.1
5.9
4.6
4.0
12.2
11.1
11.3
11.2
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
51.1
51.1
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
1 0.5
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1 0.8
1 0.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft?)
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.3
7.0
5.9
5.3
7.0
4.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
21.5
19.9
20.0
10.9
12.4
21.0
20.8
24.1
17.8
17.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
30+
33+
34+
11+
12.7
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate''2'aA
1.0
Base
1.0
MY1
1.0
Cross -Section
MY2
1.0
MY3
1.0
(Pool)
MY5
MY6
MY7
---
Base
---
Cross
MY1
---
-Section
MY2
---
13,
MY3
---
MYS
MY6
M
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
766.7
766.7
766.7
766.78
766.64
765.1
765.1
765.1
765.1
765.18
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
766.7
766.7
766.7
766.74
766.64
765.1
765.1
765.1
765.1
765.12
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.1
12.2
11.5
12.4
9.4
8.8
9.3
9.1
10.6
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
200+
200+
200+
48+
49.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft?)
8.9
8.5
8.2
8.9
5.2
3.8
2.7
3.3
3.5
3.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.4
16.0
17.2
17.2
20.7
32.2
25.3
31.9
16.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
23+
21+
22+
5+
6.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
'MY3- MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement ofthe BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
The remainder of the cro-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
'ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
4MY1 The bankful elevation was adjusted +0.13 fit to componsate for the natural floodplain deposition associated with Howards Creek at the lower extent of HC1 Reach 2.

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Owl's Den-HC1 Reach 1
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min Max
Min
I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow1,2,3
Bank -full Width (ft)
8.9 10.7
8.5
9.7
9.4
10.4
11.4
12.6
8.6
11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
50.3
79.8
53.0
80.7
Bank -full Mean Depth
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bank -full Max Depth
1.2
1 1.3
1.0
1 1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
Bank -full Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.1
4.7
5.5
6.5
6.3
6.6
4.6
7.2
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0 1 19.0
15.5
21.0
15.8
16.6
19.7
25.1
16.2
19.5
Entrenchment Ratio
19+
20+
24+
19+
21+
4.4+
6.3+
4.5
9.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
D50 (mm)
N/A
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
8
25
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0004
0.0193
Pool Length (ft)
19
62
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
32
74
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
21
45
JI
Radius of Curvature (ft)
16
27
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.5
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
58
92
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
5.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bank -full Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
C5
820
1.4
0.0023
0.0021 1 0.0026
---
N/A
N/A
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
1Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
2MY3 - MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by
the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's bank height.
3ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Owl's Den-HCI Reach 2
Min I Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1,2,3
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
13.9
11.1
12.5
11.1
12.8
4.6
10.9
11.7
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
200+
47
200+
44
200+
45.3
51.1
79.6
81.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.7
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.9
3.5
1.5
4.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
10.3
10.5
7.6
9.7
8.4
9.0
9.2
11.6
8.7
24.3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.4
18.5
14.1
16.1
14.7
18.0
10.9
31.9
5.7
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
17+
3.7
18+
3.4
18+
5.0
11+
6.8
6.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.7
D50 (mm)
N/A
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
8
33
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0227
Pool Length (ft)
22
70
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.0
3.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
36
91
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
17
62
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
50
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
4.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
82
155
Meander Width Ratio
1.2
5.3
Additional Reach Parameters
IL
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
940
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0026 1 0.0029
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
N/A
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
1Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
2MY3 - MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by
the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's bank height.
3ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Owl's Den-HC2
Min Max
I Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min Max Min
I Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle1,z,3
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.8 8.8
6.1
9.3
5.9
9.1
5.7
11.2
4.0
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
200+
200+
200+
200+
45.7
51.1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.7
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
2.1
3.8
1.9
3.1
1.7
3.3
2.1
3.8
1.3
3.9
Width/Depth Ratio
16.1
21.5
19.2
32.2
18.8
25.3
15.5
32.8
12.4
24.1
Entrenchment Ratio
23+
30+
21+
33+
22+
34+
17+
35+
5.1
12.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
N/A
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
9 27
0.0044 0.0294
11 49
1.0 2.0
29 72
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
16
11
1.3
46
1.8
41
26
3.8
80
6.0
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
C5
708
1 0%
0%
0%
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0061
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0. 0059 0.0062
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
N/A
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
N/A
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
2MY3 - MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document profivded by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's bank height.
3ER in MY3 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 1, HC1 Reach 1
101+44 Pool
768
767
L_
766
-
c
-
0
765
v
w
764
763
10
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) —MY2 (03/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) —4—MY5 (03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
11.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 2, HC1 Reach 1
101+64 Shallow
768
767
766
0
---
--
------
--
-
--
--
------
--
-
------
-
v
w
765
764
5 15 25 35 45
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) — MY2 (03/2017) MY3 (04/2018) +MYS (03/2020)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
7.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.9
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
19.5
width -depth ratio
53.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.5
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 3, HC1 Reach 1
105+58 Pool
767
766
765
c
0
764
>
v
w
763
762
25
35 45 55 65 75
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) —MY2 (03/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) —4—MY5 (03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
15.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 4, HC1 Reach 1
105+95 Shallow
767
766
--
— —
——
—
— —
——
—
--
—
—
----
—
—
� 765
0
v
w
764
763
25 35 45 55 65 75
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) MY2 (03/2017) MY3 (04/2018) MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
4.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
80.7
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 5, HC1 Reach 2
113+11 Pool
766
765
764
763
0
v 762
w
761
760
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) —MY2 (03/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) —4—MY5 (03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
16.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 6, HC1 Reach 2
113+41 Shallow
766
765
764
— ---
--
--
----------
--
c
0
763
>
v
w
762
761
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) — MY2 (03/2017) ! MY3 (04/2018) + MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
8.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.8
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
15.9
width -depth ratio
81.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 7, HC1 Reach 2
116+53 Pool
766
765
764
763
$
c
° 762
v
u 761
760
759
20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) —MY2 (03/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) —4—MY5 (03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.8
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
13.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
20.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 8, HC1 Reach 2
117+28 Shallow
770
768
766
0
764
w
762
760
15 25 35 45 55 65
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) MY2 (03/2017) MY3 (04/2018) +MY5 (03/2020)
— Bankfull — Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
24.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.7
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.2
max depth (ft)
15.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
5.7
width -depth ratio
79.6
W flood prone area (ft)
6.8
entrenchment ratio
1.6
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 9, HC2
201+53 Shallow
769
768
------
-
-
-
-- -
--
-
c
0
v 767
gi
w
766
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) MY2 (03/2017) MY3 (04/2018) MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.0
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
4.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.3
hyd radi (ft)
12.4
width -depth ratio
51.1
W flood prone area (ft)
12.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 10, HC2
201+85 Pool
769
768
� 767
0
v
w
766
765
10
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) —MY2 (03/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) —4—MY5 (03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.5
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
17.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 11, HC2
204+32 Shallow
768
767
c
0
766
77
v
w
765
0 10 20 30 40
Width ft
MY1 (4/2016) MY2 (03/2017) MY3 (04/2018) MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.0
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
9.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
24.1
width -depth ratio
45.7
W flood prone area (ft)
5.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 12, HC2
204+54 Pool
768
767
F
766
0
v
w
765
764
10
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) —MY2 (03/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) —4—MY5 (03/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.4
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
17.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross Section 13, HC2
206+43 Shallow
767
766
765
�
0
60
v
w
764
763
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MY1 (4/2016) MY2 (03/2017) MY3 (04/2018) MY5 (03/2020)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
8.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
16.9
width -depth ratio
49.3
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Reach
HC1
Monitoring Year
MY1
D. • of Occurrence
1/16/2016
Stream Gage
2/3/2016
5/1/2016
5/3/2016
5/20/2016
7/4/2016
HC2
MY1
1/16/2016
Stream Gage
5/3/2016
7/4/2016
HC1
MY2
5/21/2017
Stream Gage
7/1/2017
9/5/2017
10/9/2017
10/23/2017
HC2
MY2
1/23/2017
Stream Gage
2/9/2017
2/26/2017
4/24/2017
5/21/2017
7/1/2017
9/5/2017
10/9/2017
10/23/2017
10/29/2017
HC1
MY3
2/3/2018
Stream Gage
2/7/2018
4/24/2018
5/18/2018
5/30/2018
10/11/2018
10/26/2018
HC2
MY3
2/7/2018
Stream Gage
4/24/2018
5/18/2018
10/11/2018
10/26/2018
HC1
MY4
2/18/2019
Stream Gage
4/14/2019
6/8/2019
7/9/2019
HC2
MY4
2/18/2019
Stream Gage
4/14/2019
6/8/2019
7/9/2019
HC1
MY5
1/3/2020
Stream Gage
1/24/2020
2/6/2020
2/11/2020
2/13/2020
HC2
MY5
4/30/2020
Stream Gage
5/21/2020
6/1/2020
7/27/2020
8/13/2020

Recorded Stream Flow Events
Owls Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Owls Den Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for HU R2 (XS 6)
DMS Project No. 95808
768
6.0
Beaver dam
767
influence
766
5
.0
765
4.0
764
a
—
_
>
763
3.0
c
3 762
761
2.0
760
1.0
759
0.0
758
C 4 T C b0 O_ > u
m w Q 5 Q v�i O Z
LL
Rainfall HU R2 (XS 6) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation • Bankfull

Recorded Stream Flow Events
Owls Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
767
766
x 765
w
w
J
d
3 764
763
762
Owls Den Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for HC2 (XS 13)
DMS Project No. 95808
6.0
5.0
4.0
2
3.0 m
C
2.0
1.0
0.0
Q T C to O_ > u
LL Q g Q O Z
Rainfall HC2 (X513) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation • Bankfull

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)1
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Year 6 (2021)
Year 7
Gage
(2022)
No/4 Days
No/14 Days
No/16 Days
Yes/19 Days
No/15 Days
1
(2%)
(6%)
(7%)
(9%)
(6.7%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/142 Days
Yes/113 Days
Yes/223 Days
2
(100%)
(100%)
(64%)
(51%)
(100%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/218 Days
Yes/222 Days
Yes/223 Days
3
(100%)
(100%)
(98%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/75 Days
Yes/94 Days
Yes/143 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/109 Days
4
(34%)
(42%)
(64%)
(22%)
(48.9%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/176 Days
Yes/222 Days
Yes/223 Days
5
(100%)
(100%)
(80%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/20 Days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/87 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/97 Days
6
(9%)
(24%)
(39%)
(27%)
(43.5%)
Yes/39 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/63 Days
Yes/97 Days
7
(18%)
(31%)
(43%)
(28%)
(43.5%)
No/10 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/34 Days
Yes/55 Days
8
(5%)
(22%)
(21%)
(15%)
(24.7%)
Yes/30 Days
Yes/51 Days
Yes/83 Days
Yes/36 Days
Yes/106 Days
9
(14%)
(23%)
(37%)
(16%)
(47.4%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/217 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
10
(100%)
(100%)
(98%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/89 Days
Yes/52 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/113 Days
Yes/100 Days
11
(40%)
(23%)
(43%)
(51%)
(44.8%)
Yes/39 Days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/82 Days
Yes/58 Days
Yes/111 Days
12
(40%)
(24%)
(37%)
(26%)
(49.8%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/217 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/97 Days
13
(100%)
(100%)
(98%)
(100%)
(43.5%)
Yes/192 Days
Yes/218 Days
Yes/222 Days
Yes/223 Days
14
---
(87%)
(98%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/54Days
Yes/76 Days
15
---
---
(24%)2
(34.1%)
Reference
Yes/83 Days
Yes/124 Days
Yes/157 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Gage
(37%)
(56%)
(71%)
(100%)
(100%)
15uccess Criteria: Water table within 12 inches of ground surface for 8.1% of growing season (3/28 - 11/4)
z GWG 15 installed December 2018
*GWG 6, 7, and 13 MY5 data from July 2020- Nov 2020 not available due to probe malfunction

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
30
20
10
c
0
a
J
-10
5
-20
-30
-40
c n
� LL
�
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #1
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
_ o
N
�0
0 0
6 �
0
15 Consecutive Days
t=
Y
N
=L�E,Mcmm �=
Q c75 W 0_ +
Q Q n O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
G
W
2.0
1.0
0.0
o (U
Z 0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
30
20
10
c
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #2
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
o �
11
6.0
C,
0
C7
o m
223 Consecutive Days
o
5.0
Y
I
4.0
c
3.0
C
M
W
10� —_ ___i--V— L. _ _ I___ _� ___ I' _'__ ___ __ I11 I___ I_______ I2.0
_
20
Q c75 on n +
Q Q n O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 _ _ Criteria Level
1.0
0.0
o v
z �

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #3
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
30
0�
��
0
6.0
-
0
223 Consecutive Days
0
20
I
w
5.0
n
10 4.0
c
v =
0 3.0
c
M
m a
10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.0
20
30 it .�} a_ u 1- i 11 _ .. a....n i 4 _. _ �_ ��_ 1 n ten__ 1, u _ 1 1 J 1_ m ..— — ■ ■ .,_1
C i T C75 W Qai +'
g Q � Q v°'i O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
— 1.0
0.0
0 N
Z �

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
C
O
C
O
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #4
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
c o
30
0
0�0
0 u�i
C7 �
o�'
109 Consecutive Days
20
M
10
c
v
v 0
J
MILL' J
10J
_ _ _ _ L
20
30 FE . _ 1 a_ u " i 11 _ .. a....n 1 4 1 _. _ '11_ 1 1 "'Ell 1 1 y u _ 1 1.11_ m .1- — L L ■ ■''_I n_ !
NtC Q tTv 3 N U O
Q Q v1 O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
M
W
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
30
20
10
c
v
v 0
J
cc
10
No
30 R. 101
C Q
� LL
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #5
n
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
c o
0 �
11
C,
0
C7
0
223 Consecutive Days
0
I
�
Y
f6 Q. T C 5 bD Q U
Q Q N O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
M
W
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 N
z �

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Rehabilitation
40
30
20
= 10
v
J 0
G!
(9
-10
-20
-30
-40
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #6
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Y
N tC Q m - 7 N U O N
LL g ¢ -a Q O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
G
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
40
30
20
= 10
v
J 0
G!
(9
-10
-20
-30
-40
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #7
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Y
N tC Q M - 7 N U O N
LL g ¢ -a Q O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
G
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
30
20
10
= 0
v
-10
a
m
-20
-30
-40
-50
N fa O_ M - 3 N O N
Q -a Q N O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
C
C
O
O
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #9
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
30
0
0�0
0 Ln
C7 �
° en
106 Consecutive Days
o
t=
20
10
c
v
v 0
J
-10
-20
-30
t6
O. tT6
3 N U
O N
LL g
¢ 2!
Q O
z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
M
W
2.0
1.0
M

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Rehabilitation
30
20
10
c
10
No
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #10
n
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
000
w
223 Consecutive Days
0 Ln
0
0
30 it .�} a_ u 1- i 1' _ .. `01 i 0_. _ �_ ��_ 1 n ten__ 1, u _ 1 1 J 1_ - ■ ■ .,_1
c n c75 W 0_ +
O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
m
W
2.0
1.0
0.0
o a
z o

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
0
0
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #11
n
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
30
0�
��
6.0
0
0 m
0
20
,t�
m
100 Consecutive Days _
0
LL,
5.0
10
4.0
c
v
�=
0
3.0
M
-10
2.0
-20
1.0
-30
0.0
LL
t6 O. tTC
g ¢ g
3 N U
Q m O
O N
z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Re-establishment
30
20
10
c
v
a, 0
J
A
-10
-20
-30
c
n
�
LL
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #12
n
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
a,
' o
o
c o
0 �
11
C,
0
C7
o M
o
Y111
Consecutive Days
> c75 W 0_ + >
Q Q va'i O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level
aaii
0
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Rehabilitation
C
O
C
O
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #13
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
30
2
3
0000
0 Ln
C7 �
m
97 Consecutive Days
o
t=
20
10
c
v
J 0
10
Gage Malfunction from
7/2/2020
-20
L i i.- , ,
:"
I -.
-30
t6
O. tC
Y
7 N U
O
LL g
¢ g
Q O
z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
2.0
1.0
M

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Rehabilitation
30
20
10
c
10
No
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #14
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
v
o
c o
0 �
11
C,
0
C7
M
223 Consecutive Days
o
t=
Y
�
N
W
30 it .�} a_ u 1- i 1' _ .. `01 i 0_. _ �_ ��_ 1 n ten__ 1, u _ 1 1 J 1_ - ■ ■ .,_1
c n c75 W 0_ +
�i Z Q Q n 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
C
m
W
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 N
z o

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Rehabilitation
30
20
10
0
a
v
J
-10'
-20
-30
C
0 0
v Owl's Den Groundwater Gage #15
n Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
cz o c o
76 Cons
IL
11�1l�R■11■I�I�IIIR�win
511�
-40 r
n L L c on n
�i Q Q n O
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
i
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wetland Number
C
0
C
0
v
Owl's Den Reference Gage
to
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
c
o
30
00
-
6.0
0
2
(7
�
25
0 en
0
Y223
Consecutive Days
0
5.0
20
^
"'
15
4.0
�-.
10
=
5
3.0
R
a
0
2.0
-5
-10
_ _ _ _
_
_
_
_ _
_ _
_ _ _ _ _
1.0
-15
20ill---rA
L
A
L
L
L
A
0.0
t6 O.
t6
7 N
O N
LL Q
Q Ln O
z
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Plot
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Owl's Den 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Lincolnton, NC
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
m 5 _
'u
v
a` 4
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
USGS 02143040 Jacob Fork at Ramsey, NC -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station NC4996, in Lincolnton, NC (USDA, 2000).