20140153 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20220106

ID#* 20140153
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/07/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/6/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
ID#:* 20140153
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Owls Den Mitigation Site
County: Lincoln
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: OwlsDen_95808_MY6_2021.pdf 22.54MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature: *

�c—
MONITORING YEAR 6
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
r+ i
OWL'S DEN MITIGATION SITE
Lincoln County, NC
DEQ Contract 005150
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 2021
Submission Date: January 3, 2022
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

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

kt�
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
January 3, 2022
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 6 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 6 Monitoring Report received
on December 20, 2021. The report text has been revised for the final submittal to reflect the most
current condition of the site. Your comments and observations from the report are noted below in Bold.
Wildlands' response to those comments are noted in Italics.
DMS' Comment: General/ Report Text and Table 1: Please continue to maintain Table 1 and do not
remove the potential "at risk" wetland credits from the table. DMS has entered the 0.103 potential
"at risk" WMUs into our internal accounting system (CRM) for tracking purposes. The potential "at
risk" wetland credits can be removed from the project's final credit ledger at proposed project
closeout as they do not exceed the final 10% wetland credit release.
Wildlands' Response: We acknowledge DMS'request and the "at risk" acreage and WMUs will not be
removed from Table 1.
DMS' Comment: Section 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity: This section notes;
"During a Site visit on October 18th, beavers were still active on the Site. Dams above and below the
crossing had been re-established, and an additional dam was built on HC1 Reach 1 at station 101+00."
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. As noted in the report text, beaver and beaver dams should be removed from the site
through project closeout.
Wildlands' Response: The report and figures have been updated to reflect that all dams inside the project
area were removed in early November of 2021 and not present during the final Site walk on November
101h, 2021. Wildlands is currently monitoring for continued beaver activity and will address re-established
and/or newly established dams in MY7.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANT)S
E N G I NEER I NC
DMS' Comment: Section 1.2.6 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity: Please continue
to treat marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) aggressively so it does not become established on the
project site.
Wildlands' Response: Wildlands will continue to aggressively treat marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak)
throughout MY7 to keep the species from becoming established on the Site.
DMS' Comment: Table 5 (a-c) & Table 6: Please include the date that the project was visually assessed
at the top of each table. This was an IRT request at the 2021 credit release meeting.
Wildlands' Response: Table 5 (a-c) and Table 6 have been updated to include dates the visual assessment
was conducted.
DMS' Comment: APPENDIX 6. Wetland Re -Establishment Addendum: DMS recommends titling the
Appendix "Supplemental Wetland Boring Data" rather than "Addendum" to avoid confusion.
Wildlands' Response: Appendix 6 is now titled "Supplemental Wetland Boring Data'; as requested.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies of the Year 6 Final Monitoring Report and one (1) USB with all
the final corrected electronic files for DMS distribution. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x101 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
�9s
Kristi Suggs
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

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 (DMS) 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). A wetland area "at risk" was defined in the
wetland re-establishment area during Monitoring Year 6 and would result is a loss of 0.103 acres of
wetlands and 0.103 WMUs. The "at risk" acreage has not been updated in Table 1.
The Site is located near the City of Lincolnton in Lincoln County, NC within the DMS 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 (DMS, 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.
• 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 six (MY6) assessments and Site visits were completed between March and November
2021 to assess the conditions of the project. Per the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) guidelines,
detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation and channel cross -sectional dimensions were omitted
during MY6. Visual observations, hydrology data, and stream and vegetation management practices are
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL

included in this report. To preserve clarity and continuity of reporting structure, this report maintains
section and appendix numbering from previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections within the
appendix are shown in gray.
Overall, the Site has met the required vegetation and stream hydrology success criteria for MY6. Based
on a visual assessment, vegetation performance appears to be on track to attain the success criteria of
210 stems per acre at the end of monitoring year seven. Consistent baseflow and multiple bankfull
events were recorded on all streams during MY6, and visual observations confirm that stream channels
have remained morphologically stable. Stream areas of concern include localized aggradation at the
confluence of HC1 and HC2 in the stream bed and persistent beaver dams that have been identified and
removed throughout the monitoring year. All wetland gages, except for GWG1, met the wetland
hydrology success criteria during MY6. Per request by the IRT at the previous year's MY5 credit release
meeting, a localized high area surrounding GWG1 was mapped to identify the area at risk of not meeting
performance standards. An area of 0.103 acres was identified, and Wildlands is no longer seeking
wetland re-establishment credit for the area. However, Table 1 has not been adjusted to reflect the
acreage or credit "at risk." Overall, the Site wetland and riparian corridors are stable, and the Site is on
track to meet the required MY7 success criteria.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL vi

OWL'S DEN MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity.........................................................1-3
1.2.3 Stream Hydrologic Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.2.5 Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-4
1.2.6 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity..................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section2: METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................2-1
Section3: REFERENCES....................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
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
Wetland Photographs
Area of Concern Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation survey and analysis not required in MY6
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 survey and analysis not required in MY6
Table 10a-b
Baseline Stream Data Summary*
Table 11a-b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional rarameters — 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
Table 14
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL vii

Stream Gage Plots
Table 15 Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix 6 Supplemental Wetland Boring Data
Figure 4.0 Soil Boring Map
Soil Profile Photographs
*Content not required for Monitoring year 6
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL viii

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. A wetland area "at risk" was defined in the wetland re-establishment area during
Monitoring Year 6 and would result is a loss of 0.103 acres of wetlands. The "at risk" acreage has not
been updated in Table 1.
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). A credit loss of "0.103" WMUs has not been
revised in the Project Components and Mitigation Credits table in Appendix 1. 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 DMS 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.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

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
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 include:
• 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 soybean fields that are sprayed with pesticides and
herbicides.
1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment
In accordance with the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014), no vegetative inventory and analysis nor
geomorphic surveys were conducted as a part of the Year 6 monitoring assessment. A visual assessment
of the site was emphasized this year, with the full vegetation and cross-section survey monitoring to
resume in Monitoring Year 7 in 2022. 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 visual observations, hydrology data, and management practices
observed during MY6.
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Detailed morphological survey and analysis is not required for this Monitoring Year 6 as mentioned in
Section 1.2. Therefore, Wildlands conducted a visual assessment of project reaches, noting geomorphic
conditions of the stream bed profile, both stream banks, and engineered in -stream structures. The
restoration reaches within the Site appear to be functioning as designed and stable. Stream riffle beds
are vertically stable, and the pools appear to be maintaining depth. Stream banks are generally stable
and vegetated, and in -stream structures are intact and functioning as designed. No areas of erosion or
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

scour were observed on restoration reaches. Several beaver dams on Site have resulted in sediment
deposition downstream of the dams, but dam removal will allow deposition to move through the
system. Refer to Tables 5a-5c for Site assessment 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 Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Even with the prolonged floodplain inundation from the downstream beaver dams, over 90% of the Site
is functioning as designed. Localized aggradation was observed at the confluence of HCl R1 and HC2.
Some in -stream vegetation was also noted in this area, and it consisted of mostly native vegetation, but
marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) was also observed. Live stakes were installed along the stream
banks where additional shading of the stream was needed to limit the growth of in -stream vegetation.
Additionally, beaver dams have been removed several times this monitoring year, increasing stream
flow and facilitating sediment transport through the system. Backwater deposition from recurring
beaver dams and bankfull events on Howards Creek have resulted in floodplain aggradation and
increased bank height at the lower section of HCl R2 near the confluence. However, overall channel
form and sediment conveyance have not been affected. Silky willow and black willow live stakes have
been added to the banks to help stabilize channel walls.
To help control beaver activity within the Site, Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) has been
actively monitoring the Site throughout the year. On January 10th, 2021, APHIS removed two beaver
dams on HCl Reach 2, above and below the culvert. During the Site assessment survey in the second
quarter (Q2) of 2021, another beaver dam was mapped on HCl directly above the farm road crossing.
During a Site visit on October 18th, beavers were still active on the Site. Dams above and below the
crossing had been re-established, as well as an additional dam was built on HCl Reach 1 at station
101+00. These dams were removed during the first week of November 2021. During the final Site visit
on November 10th, no on -site beaver dams were noted; however, a large dam directly outside of the
project area was observed slightly downstream of the confluence of Howard's Creek and HCl Reach 2.
No monitoring features or data were affected by dams except for the floodplain inundation. The
floodplain inundation is visible on the stream gage data plots for HCl R2 and HC2 in Appendix 5.
Wildlands will continue to monitor and remove beaver dams on the Site.
The current beaver dam location and stream areas of concern are depicted on the CCPV Figures in
Appendix 2, along with the visual stability assessment tables and reference photographs.
1.2.3 Stream Hydrologic Assessment
The stream hydrology success criteria were met within the first two years of monitoring on HCl and
HC2. In MY6, both streams show prolonged floodplain inundation during multiple times of the year
along restoration reaches. As expected, there is a corresponding drop in water level on both stream
hydrographs associated with dam removal. Once removed and stream flow returned to normal, there
were at least 2 bankfull events on both restoration reaches. The barotroll recorded abnormal
atmospheric pressure readings from 7/3/2021 to 7/17/2021 and from 10/10/2021 to 11/10/2021,
however the cause of these abnormal readings is unknown. Data for these date ranges were calibrated
from the Henry Fork Mitigation Site, which is in Catawba County approximately 15 miles from the Owl's
Den Mitigation Site. Data from both barotrolls were plotted over time and confirmed that both Sites
recorded nearly identical atmospheric pressure readings throughout the year. The current barotroll will
continue to be used but will be replaced if malfunctions or anomalies continue. Refer to Appendix 5 for
hydrologic summary data and plots.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
Following construction, groundwater gages (GWGs) were distributed so that the data collected would
provide a reasonable indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland components on the Site.
A gage was established in an adjacent reference wetland and is being utilized to compare with the
hydrologic response within the restored wetland areas at the Site. Rainfall data is collected from an
existing NC CRONOS station (Lincolnton 2 NW, NC). All monitoring gages were downloaded on a
quarterly basis and maintained on an as -needed basis. In December 2018, an additional gage (GWG15)
was added to define the wetland re-establishment area near GWG1. A soil temperature gage was also
installed during December 2018. The soil probe was installed at least 12 inches below ground, adjacent
to GWG1. Wildlands is using the soil temperature probe data to confirm the dates of the 2021 growing
season, March 28th to November 5th (223 days in 2021). The final performance standard established for
wetland hydrology are a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 18
consecutive days (8.1%) of the defined growing season under typical precipitation conditions.
In MY6, 14 of 15 (93%) GWGs met the hydrologic wetland success criteria defined for Lincoln County.
The measured cumulative hydroperiod, where the water level was above the criteria threshold for the
monitoring gages on the Site, ranged from 7%to 100% of the growing season. In MY6, GWG1 failed to
meet wetland success criteria by 2 days. Since construction, GWG1 has failed to meet criteria 5 out of 6
years of annual monitoring, suggesting GWG1 was installed on the edge of a localized high area within
the proposed wetland re-establishment boundary; therefore, at the MY5 credit release meeting, the NC
IRT requested that Wildlands reassess the wetland re-establishment area near GWG1 (Wildlands, 2020).
To determine the extent of the wetland re-establishment area represented by GWG1, Wildlands staff
took several soil borings in this area to map the extent of the hydric soils and delineate the wetland
boundary. A localized high area "at risk" and totaling 0.103 acres within the Wetland Re-establishment
area was identified. Refer to Figure 4.0 in Appendix 6 for soil boring locations and typical soil profile
photos.
Core 2, mapped within the "at risk" area, had a high chroma matrix of 5YR4/6 (95%) in the first 11 inches
and 10YR5/3 (95%) with prominent redox concentrations of 7.5YR 4/6 (5%) from 11-17 inches. There
were no hydrologic or hydric soil indicators that would support wetland re-establishment in this area,
and 0.103 acres were determined to be "at risk." Wildlands is no longer seeking credit for this area.
Excluding the mapped area "at risk", this project will still provide 8.835 riparian wetland mitigation units
(WMUs), which exceeds the contract amount of 8 WMUs. Therefore, removing this area from the
wetland re-establishment credit request will not affect Wildland's delivery of the required WMU credits
for this project. Neither the wetland acreage nor credit value have been updated in Table 1.
Overall, wetlands on site are well vegetated, and remain well saturated throughout the year. Refer to
Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations, and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and
plots.
1.2.5 Vegetation Assessment
As per the Mitigation Plan and DMS Monitoring guidance for this project, detailed vegetation inventory
and analysis is not required for Monitoring Year 6. Visual assessments during MY6 indicated that
vegetation on the Site overall is performing well and the planted vegetation is on track to meet the final
density requirement of the survival of 210 planted stems per acre, and the average height requirement
of 10 feet of the planted riparian and wetland corridor in MY7.
1.2.6 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
The vegetation areas of concern continue to be monitored and treated in MY6. Overall, herbaceous
cover has become well -established throughout the site. There are no bare areas on Site; however, an
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

area of 0.08 acres continued to experience low stem vigor in MY6. A seed mix consisting of various
native riparian species was distributed in this area in the spring of 2021.
Several invasive species continue to be monitored and treated throughout the monitoring year.
Floodplain species that have undergone targeted treatment include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese and Japanese privet (Ligustrum sinsense and
japonicum). While native to North Carolina, vine strangulation by the climbing hempvine (Mikania
scadens) is occurring in vegetation plot 1. The plot is still meeting stem density criteria although the
trees have reduced height and vigor relative to the rest of the vegetation plots on Site. Treatment of the
climbing hempvine on Site is scheduled to occur every few weeks in MY7 to prevent stem strangulation.
Cattails (Typha latifolia) and marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) found growing in a few isolated areas
on Site were treated during the summer of 2021 and will continue to be treated as needed through MY7
to keep the species from becoming established on the Site. Live stakes were added along the banks of
HC1 Reach 1 and HC2 to shade out these species over time. In total, over 98% of the Site is free of
invasive and undesirable species. As needed, nuisance species will be treated throughout the post -
construction monitoring period.
1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary
Visual assessments indicate that all streams are geomorphically stable and functioning as designed, and
that vegetation on the Site is on track to meet the MY7 success criteria for density and vigor. The Site
met the final (MY7) stream hydrology success criteria during MY2. Fourteen out of the fifteen
groundwater monitoring gages met the wetland hydrologic success criteria for MY6. Approximately
0.103 acres of proposed wetland re-establishment area was determined to be "at risk," and wetland
credit will not be sought. Invasive vegetation will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary to
support the establishment of native vegetation. Beaver activity will continue to be monitored and
managed by Wildlands and APHIS.
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 can be found in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014) document available on DMS website.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 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. Stream gages to detect bankfull events were
installed in surveyed riffle cross -sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2005) standards,
and monitoring with IRT's Stream and Wetland Mitigation Update (2016). Vegetation monitoring
protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 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 Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Lincolnton 2 NW. Accessed
November 2021.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities.
littp://nceep.net/services/restplans/RBRPCatawba2007.pdf
North Carolina DMS. 2010. Indian and Howards Creek Local Watershed Plan.
www.nceep.net/ervices/lwps/Indian Howards Creek/INDIAN HOWARD CREEKS.html
North Carolina DMS 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 (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
USACE. 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites. Wetlands
Regulatory Assistance Program, ERDC TNWRAP-05-2,
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1327/ML13276AO40.pdf.
USACE. 2016. Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA,
and NCWRC.
USACE. 2018. Email: 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.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2015. Owl's Den Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
Baseline Report. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2020. Owl's Den Mitigation Site Monitoring 5 Annual Report. NCEEP, Raleigh,
NC.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

03050102040010
0305010204002P8� C(0
1
{ 1
ti 1
r
Flovrards Crete
03050102040030�r
03050102040040
,71
� _ 1
O
� � r
r �
= Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
030501020300vV
Walker grancl� .
321
Rd
Rack afi 1 1
27j ��yy L111C��11tOfi�i� j c
r t + e m
Al` 1 r
1 �
r r
s �
a e
IL
41
v
a
a
l.7
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.
��Wv
WILDLANDS 1 rNc,iNrr�iNr
.W.
W
rVto ti
150 coZI
u171/Y
� Gb Ra
1
p
' ChurC'r`
dfr a6a�� V1CWVI
a+yb4 40 � P ��.
% 030501020606ft) Rey
I
Directors 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 a
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
i i I Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Lincoln County, NC

Conservation Easement
Wetland Re-establishment
' Wetland Rehabilitation
® Internal Culvert Crossing
Stream Restoration
Non -Project Streams
I
i
I
i
Wetland E
i
Jr4ft
OW
WILDLAND', rk�
ENGINEERING
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 95808
i i I Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Lincoln County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
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
t N/A
N/A
As -Built Statio ning
Existing Footage/
r
Credits'
Reach ID
r
Approach
Restoration or Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage/ Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
/ Location
Acreage
(SMU / WMU)
STREAMS
HCl Reach 1
99+94 - 108+09
609
PI
Restoration
815
1:1
815.000
108+09 - 115+35
PI
Restoration
726
1:1
726.000
HCl Reach 2
994
115+65 - 117+79
PI
Restoration
214
1:1
214.000
HC2
200+00 - 206+98
1 444
Pl
Restoration
698
1:1
698.000
WETLANDS
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.44
improvementto
Rehabilitation
0.44
1.3:1
0.338
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.13
improvementto
Rehabilitation
0.13
1.3:1
0.100
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
1.03
improvementto
Rehabilitation
1.03
1.3:1
0.792
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.81
improvementto
Rehabilitation
0.81
1.3:1
0.623
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland E
N/A
0.13
improvementto
Rehabilitation
0.13
1.3:1
0.100
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.13
improvementto
Rehabilitation
0.13
1.3:1
0.100
wetland functions
Significant
Wetland
N/A
0.15
improvementto
Rehabilitation
0.15
1.3:1
0.115
wetland functions
Wetland Re -Establishment
Planting,
N/A
n/a
hydrologic
Re -Establishment
6.77
1:1
6.770
Area '3
improvement
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(s uare feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,453
-
Enhancement
-
Enhancement I -
Enhancement 11 -
Wetland Re -Establishment
6.77
-
Wetland Rehabilitation -
2.82
-
The 30 linear feet associated with the stream crossing on RC1 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 easement adjustment after mitigation plan was approved.
' Wetland Re-Establilishment acreage and credits were not revised to reflect the area determined to be "at risk".

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Activity or Report
h� MkIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=
Mitigation Plan
Data
July 2013
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 areal
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
March 2020
Beaver Removal
October 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
N/A
December 2021
Vegetation Survey
N/A
Live Stake Installation
June 2021
Invasive Species Treatment
June 2021 - September 2021
Beaver Removal
November 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table3. Project Contact Table
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
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.
Monitoring, POC
Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Project Name
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
County
Lincoln County
Project Area (acres)
12.87
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°29'33.22" N, 81° 18'45.95" W
W_ Project
Physiographic Province
Watershed Summary Information EL
Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03050102
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03050102040040
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)
152
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1Y
CGIA Land Use Classification
93Y —Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 7% —Forested/Scrubland
Reach Summary Information
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
0.0075
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
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
Floodplain development permit
issued by Lincoln County.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
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

� o
o
E
E m
c
E a E E E
mm ¢ n m U U> U 2 [o
V
O
rv1
N
m
LZ
5
O

5
F—.

u
u
N
o
su
O60. tY c x
T.v —
% o Y
o �
z
Z6 SX
�53 . D0 ••
E o
�iiiiiii�. Y w o
0 oil'
MENNENMEMEMEr
1 v -
NONR E
�iim , -
° o
0 0
Gz \
a
of sk ;
,�L
iiiiiiii�
oono�ae-
0000`�
m

5
Ft

\
\
){0
}/;f
}o
oo
>
}o
E
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
)o
o
o o
:
_
_
_
_
_
E
)
kis
o
k}}
/_
o
-
®
.
!
_
\
:
)\/
®
!
[
o
:
(_)
- -
E
J\)
_-
\r
:
§ ;
lo
§)|)a
^
-
\)
\}\}
o
((t
}[7§:
}
�-
\\§
!
-
-
` -
Ic
f
��
{\\\
\[]{]
-3[
){;
)\t{
\$;${
-
)
){
$
)#
)\
))\
z%!;
)/)!
!/!"E
o
!}oc
_)
i
o
o
o
f
§
\m
/
)o
{
~
15
\
`
_
Im
z
\}
\
\\
j
\
\
}
\
\
\
_
5
— |o
)Im
} i�
/,

\
\
){0
}/;f
}o
oo
>
}o
E
(
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
)k)
o
o o
,
_
_
_
_
_
E
o
o
k}}
:
\
/_
Iq
a
{
o
_:
-
®
.
!
_
\
:
)\/
®
!
[
:
- -
�2}
o
()
J\)
_-
\r
:
lo
§)|)a
^
-
\)
o
\}u
(E
umE mo
}
�-
_
-:
;/
\\§
!
-
-
` -
f
��
{o
\[]{]
-32
){;
)\t{
\$;${
-
)
){
$
)#
)\
))\
z%!;
)/)!
!/!!!
[
\
!=
.
:
_
_
41
_
E
_]
f
c
e
\m
/
c
{
~
\
`
_
Im
_
\}
\
\\
j
\
\
}
\
\
\
_
5
— |o
)Im

\
\
){0
}/;f
}o
oo
>
}o
E
§
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
)k)
o
o o
;
_
_
_
_
_
E
ois
o
k}}
:
\
/_
Iq
a
{
o
_:
-
®
.
!
_
\
:
)\/
®
!
[
:
- -
�2}
o
o"()
\r
:
§ ;lo
§)|)a
^
-
\)
\}\}
(2
}[7§:
}
�-
_
-:
;/
\\§
!
-
-
` -
f
{\\\
§
\
/
)
\
\
[]{]
--a
cc
\$;E
-
)
){
$
)#
)\
zx
)/)!
!/!!!
mm
mmx
o
\
!=
.
:
_
_
41
_
E
_]
c15
c
e
\�
/
)!
{
~
\
`
_
Im
\}
\
\\
j
\
\
}
\
\
_
9 �
``

rl
ao N
O O
ao N
rn Lo
w
m
H
c
w
E
N
N
w
N
N
a
0
C
O
U
C
O
m
w
tw
w
ai
N
0
GmD
2
w
a 16
0
0
0
i
O
O
O
O
N
O Q
N
c
Ow0
a -I
O
O
O
0
O
u
O
O
O
O
O
0
o Q
N
00
\
O
a -I
w O
_a 00
O
O
O
-1
O
£ T
3 a
E
Z
IA
N
H
Q
H
O
O. t U
w Q
c-I
ci
CCm
O
O
N
O
C
m
0
3
bD
U
c
�
D
O
O
y
u
E
v
E
N
w
Ln
+�
O
�
cri
a0
E
m
C
�
-
O
>
w
Dv
7
E
O_
IA
7
N
O
c
O
O
ai
w
w
N
w
ha
m
t
0
3
O
>
O
N
O
2-
+
0
o
�
N
E
�
�
w
v
�
�
>
O
w
0
u
O
�
E
3
w
w
s
O
>
0
u
Q
O
00
w
m
U
N
m
O
i
�
O
y
w
o0
00
w
m
w
w
>
w
3
`
N
a
O
a
m
E
J
w
O
Q
++
(n
N
m
0
a
m
Q
� w
O £
oho
o
o N
O
`..�
N
U
LU Q
c4
O
N
Ow0
N
_
a y
w
O
O
O
U a
N
coi
\
O
a -I
w O
_a to
l0
O
£ T
w
E
N
3 aw
Z
N
N
00
Q
O
O
Q t LL
O y Vf
O
O
O
ai
c
O
to
C H
0
m
m
0
O_
0
O_
E
+
m
E
m m
N
O
�
C
�
C
C
O
O
O_
O_
w
0
N
m
N
m
w
w
c
c
O
O
E
0
E
0
O
O
0
:t
0
:t
c
0
c
0
n
n
0
0
N
m
v
m
v
M
Q
Q
O
m
`
w
Q
to
w
w
Ln
M
0
U
O
w
£
G1to
m
U
s
U
R
w
0
m0
w
to
N
i
Q
>
to
w
LU
C
w
w
C
N
to
to
LU
>
IwA
W

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— HC1 Reach 1 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 1— HC1 Reach 1 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1
Photo Point 2 — HC1 Reach 1 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 2 — HC1 Reach 1 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1
Photo Point 3 — HC1 Reach 1 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 3 — HC1 Reach 1 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1

Photo Point 6 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 6 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1
Photo Point 7 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 7 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1
Photo Point 8 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 8 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1

Photo Point 9 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 9 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1
r�
r
a
Photo Point 10 — HC1 Reach 2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 10 — HC1 Reach 2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1
Photo Point 11— HC2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 11— HC2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1

Photo Point 12 — HC2 view upstream (04/15/2021) Photo Point 12 — HC2 view downstream (04/15/2021)
y 7..n
CXI
Photo Point 13 — HC2 view upstream (04/15/2021) Photo Point 13 — HC2 view downstream (04/15/2021)
Photo Point 14 — HC2 view upstream (04/15/2021) 1 Photo Point 14 — HC2 view downstream (04/15/2021) 1

Wetland Photographs

a£
4 �b A._ yy 1 ! y.N.
£
/rf
.:�. �� Ada �
� js, '�y, �•. e ' 6'
�'
x`
v
• • Point 20 —
4
looking southeastI4
• • Point 20
— looking northwestI4I

Area of Concern Photographs

Floodplain inundation from beaver dam at station 101+00
(11/10/2021)
Floodplain inundation from removed beaver dam at station
115+00(10/18/2021)
Floodplain inundation from removed beaver dam at station
116+00(10/18/2021)
Dam outside of project on Howard's Creek; downstream of
confluence(11/10/2021)

Aggradation on HC2; extends from station 205+50 to station Vertical left bank on HC1 Reach 2; extends from station 117+50
207+08(11/10/2020) to station 117+79(10/18/2021)
Climbing hempvine in Vegetation Plot 1 (6/24/2021) I Area of Low Vigor (10/18/2021) I

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetative surveys and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 6

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Morphological surveys and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 6

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

7
w
Y
C
m
m
w
O � iy
O
O N
i+ C c
V .2
w N O f6
i 0p
W = z }
M
N C
O
H O O
v
fu
E
fu
v
i+
w00
rlI
n
n
n
n
^
^
00
00
00
W
W
m
m
OlO
O
O
O
O
ci
�N--�
ci
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OOOOO
N
O
OO
NN
OO
O
O
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
ON
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
\
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
\
ci
\
N
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
ci
m
\
z
\
cn
N
Ol
\
N
N
N
N
N
N
c-I
\
lfl
\
p�
\
O
N
N
\
N
N
\
I-
\
N
00
-1
`�
\
N
\
W
c-I
�
ci
W
\
2
\
O
m
N
N
\
N
N
m
c-I
N
ci
\
\
ci
^
\
ci
N
\
N
\
�
\
lfl
^
ci
O
�
O
�
N
\
�
\
lfl
O
�
O
�
\
N
\
�
ip
^
\
�
\
lfl
ip
\
Il
\
W
\
l0
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
2
2
2
2
2
U)
0U
f0
E
f0
U/
i+
10
w
w
w
W
w
^
n
n
^
"
00
00
00
00
00
-1
�
O�
O�
al
O�
O
O
O
O
O
ci
O
O
0
O
O
ci
O
O
ci
O
0
O
O
ci
O
O
N
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
0
0
O
O
N
O
N
0
O
ci
O
0
O
O
0
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
\
m
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
\
�
\
1O
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
�
ci
m
\
c-I
\
cn
\
O
N
\
N
ci
\
lfl
\
\
O
N
\
m
\
n
\
A
N
W
c-I
O
cn
`�
\
N
\
4
00
\
Ol
\
M
\
N
l0
\
'1
m
N
\
\
ci
N
lfl
lfl
\
lfl
I�
\
lfl
n
Ol
ci
O
�
N
N
\
�
\
lfl
\
lfl
O
�
O
�
\
N
\
�
l0
I�
ci
\
c-I
N
\
N
\
N
Ol
ci
U
ci
U
ci
U
ci
U
ci
U
ci
U
2
2
2
2
2
2

N
C
N
W
3 v C4
O N
U- W ON
E ° m o
R
i Q Z am
Vf * >
v to
N C
� O
O N
O
w O o 2
O O
Ln
NO ue;idea
O O O O O
7 M N c O
(�y) lanai as;eM

v
in oN
O
O 00 N
O m
O O `
Z a°i
� v to
° c
al o
0 a` °
N 'E
O
O 0 :5
NO ue;urea
O o 0 0 0 0 0
to Ln M N
�aQ
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
nON
I
I
I
I
I
100
I
I
I
I
daS
m
�
I
I
I
N
U
>
v
2
I
w
on
o
I
I
Sny
3
m
I
I
(D
I
I
E o
I
I
I
woo
Ln
i Ol
�+
s
N °
I
Inr
v
+y. z
'0
3
00
I
ti
x
Una
N
I
S
o
I
I
I
N
I
I
o
=
I
I
II
I
AV
I
I
I
I
I
I
JeW
I
I
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
(�y) lanai as;eM

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95808
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage) i
Gage
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Year 6 (2021)
7
Y ea
No/4 Days
No/14 Days
No/16 Days
Yes/19 Days
No/15 Days
No/16 Days
1
(2%)
(6%)
(7%)
(9%)*
(6.7%)
(7.2%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/142 Days
Yes/113 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
2
(100%)
(100%)
(64%)
(51%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/218 Days
Yes/222 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/222 Days
3
(100%)
(100%)
(98%)
(100%)
(100%)
(99.6%)
Yes/75 Days
Yes/94 Days
Yes/143 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/109 Days
Yes/60 Days
4
(34%)
(42%)
(64%)
(22%)**
(48.9%)
(26.9%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/176 Days
Yes/222 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
5
(100%)
(100%)
(80%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/20 Days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/87 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/97 Days
Yes/57 Days
6
(9%)
(24%)
(39%)
(27%)
(43.5%)
(25.6%)
Yes/39 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/63 Days
Yes/97 Days
Yes/61 Days
7
(18%)
(31%)
(43%)
(28%)
(43.5%)
(27.4%)
No/10 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/34 Days
Yes/55 Days
Yes/34 Days
8
(5%)
(22%)
(21%)
(15%)
(24.7%)
(15.2%)
Yes/30 Days
Yes/51 Days
Yes/83 Days
Yes/36 Days
Yes/106 Days
Yes/50 Days
9
(14%)
(23%)
(37%)
(16%)*
(47.4%)
(22.4%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/217 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/113 Days
10
(100%)
(100%)
(98%)
(100%)
(100%)
(50.7%)
Yes/89 Days
Yes/52 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/113 Days
Yes/100 Days
Yes/54 Days
11
(40%)
(23%)
(43%)
(51%)
(44.8%)
(24.2%)
Yes/39 Days
Yes/53 Days
Yes/82 Days
Yes/58 Days
Yes/ 111 Days
Yes/53 Days
12
(40%)
(24%)
(37%)
(26%)
(49.8%)
(23.8%)
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/217 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/97 Days
Yes/223 Days
13
(100%)
(100%)
(98%)
(100%)
(43.5%)
(100%)
Yes/192 Days
Yes/218 Days
Yes/222 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
14
---
(87%)
(98%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Yes/54Days
Yes/76 Days
Yes/54 Days
15
---
---
(24%)2
(34.1%)
(24.2%)
Reference
Yes/83 Days
Yes/124 Days
Yes/157 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/223 Days
Yes/100 Days
Gage
(37%)
(56%)
(71%)
1 (100%)
(100%)
(44.8%)
1Success Criteria: Water table within 12 inches of ground surface for 8.1% of growing season (3/28 - 11/5)
2 GWG 15 installed December 2018

M)
uejuiea
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Ln
m
I
I
r-4
r
o
I
I
I
ua4
izoz/s/ii
uoseaS 2uimoa9 }o pu3
I
I
I
"O N
I
Po
I
I
daS u
I
I
�
I
v
0°1,o
I
On
m
I
c
G1 N
I
3 L
c w
I
y
Ind C
O aao
V
C
U
0
C
w
unr a,
z
�
I
0
N
7
U
N
AeA
�
p
�
C
0
�
I
c-I
AV
izoz/sz/F
uoseas 2uimoa9 }o gels
I
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uer
O O O O O O O O O l00
(ui) 19n93 aa;eM
v

c
+� N N
N 0 N
W t
o
ao O m
Y z
} 4%
u aao (b
O 0
M) ue;uiea
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Ln
m N
r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseOS 2uimoa9 10 pu3
I
AON
I
I
I
po
I
I
daS u
I
I
N
�
I
N
u
v
bb
I
Ony 0
m
N >
L p fo
m U/
m
m 7
V
c w a,
Oaao
Inr o
(7 c U
i
to
t
O m
w N
o
0
w
unr4a,
z
O-M
I
I
I
I
Aew
C
II
AV
TZOZ/SZ/F
u0seas 2uimoa9 10:Pels
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
O O O
m N
O O
O O
N m
(ui) 19n91
aa;eM
c-I
0
N
O
N
O
00
00
C
O
O
0
N
m
E
O
v
0
u
7
E
0
Y
0
m
v
N

c
N 0 N
W t
O Ln
GO O 16 +
Y z
} 4%
u aao 1v
s= .v
N 0 'L -0
o 0 c
1n c +
O o 2 3:
M) uejuiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseOS 2uimoa9 10 pu3
I
I
I
"O N
I
po
I
I
daS u
I
I
M
� I
u
v
0°1,o I
Ony 0'
L
N o
3 L >
m I
c w
75
Inr o
O aao
"�
c O I
'i u
+0+ N
N
N I
� N
O
0
N
unr D a,
3 I
z
� I
I
I
I
Aew
II
AV
TZOZ/SZ/F
u0seas 2uimoa9 10:Pels
N
0 � I
aew
m
=N
7 \
v0
to r-4 I
qa3
C7 �
I
I
I
uer
O O O O O O
O
(ui) 19n93.l91eM
O
N
O
0
N
O
00
C
O
\
O
0
m
E
O
v
O
u
7
E
0
Y
O
m
v
N

c
N 0 N E
W t
O In N
h0 O 16 Y
Y z
} 4%
u aao (b
N O -0
0 0 c
N � Y
o o 2 3:
M) uejuiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseOS 2uimoa9 10 pu3
I
"O N
I
I
lu0
I
daS u
I
I
v
I
�
I
v
o0D1
OnV
m
� N
N N
41
m
m
c w
3 }
s
CL
Inr o
O aao
V
C
0 0
°'
a �
--��
I
w
a,
u n fPIL
z
�
I
T
0
I
V
�
c
O
U
I
�
I
AV
TZOZ/SZ/F
u0seas 2uimoa9 10:Pels
I
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uer
O O O
O O
O
O
(ui) 19n93
aa;eM
c-I
0
N
O
0
O
•Y
c�
G
C
v
0
J,
3
O
v
YC
E
O
N
E
Ln
T
v
E
O
Q
Q
T
7
0
C.)
3
Y

c
+w N w
N 0 N
W t
O Ln
ao O m
z w
} w
u aao (b
w O -p
0 0 c
cn c +
o o 2 3:
M) Ile}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
izoz/s/ii
I
uoseOS 2ulmoa9 }o pu3
I
"O N
I
I
I
po
I
I
I
u daSLn
I
L
�
v
I
W
I
2ny 0
m
� N
w N
m >
m u
N
c w
I
L
Inf v
0 c u
I
"�
C7 '� m
I
0
d+0 N
C
I
N
C
0
w
u n f a,
3
I
z
�
I
I
I
I
Aew
II
AV
izoz/sz/F
uoseas 2ulmoa9 }o gels
I
I
I
aew
It
I
I
qa3
I
I
uef
O O O
O O
O
O
(ui) lanai
aa;eM
c-I
0
N
O
N

2 N
N 0 N O
W a
O Lf1
hO O m
a z }
U bA N
N O 'i -O
0 '0 ID
c
cn c +
O o 2 3:
M) uejuiea
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 Ln
m
r-4
I
I
r
o
I
I
I
ua4
izoz/s/ii
uoseOS 2uimoa9 }o pu3
I
I
I
"O N
I
po
P.
U
daS
I
�
v
I
bb
I
2ny
m
� N
N N
3 L
c w
I
L
�no
O aao
� c
�
V
N r
0 C
U
O
O
v
N
3
u n f a,
0 �
T
0
v
I
I
V
I
Aew C
C
u
Lf1
I
I
I
AV
izoz/sz/F
uoseas 2uimoa9 }o gels
I
I
aew
O
O
N
O
I
N
V
�
I C\
O
w
N
N
O
qaj
m�
C7
I
uer
O O O O O O O 0
(ui) 19n93 aa;eM
v

M) uejuiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
I
ua4
izoz/s/ii
uoseas 2uimoa9 }o pu3
I
I
I
"O N
I
po
U
das
I
�
I
v
bb
I
$nt1
m
� N
N N
m
f6 �
m
c w
s
Inr C
O aao
c
to
V'
0 C31C
O
v
v
3
I
unr a,
z
�
I
T
0
I
V
Ae A
�
c
O
CJ
I
AV
izoz/sz/F
uoseas 2uimoa9 }o :Pels
I
aew
o0
N
C \
O N
w
N
O
qa3
m
(D
I
uer
O O O O O O O O 0
(ui) 19n93 aa;eM
0
N
O
N

M) uejuiea
0 0
0
0
0 0 0
0 Ln
m
I
I
r-4 r o
I
I
I
ua4
I
I
noN
I
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseaS 2uimoa9 }o pu3
I
I
Po
I
I
daS u
I
I
0
W
I
bn
Onv 0'
m
� N
I
N N
m
f6 �
3 L
I
c w
I
L
Inf C
0 aao
c
C7
I
V
C
O
0
u n f a,
3
I
z
0
v
ALA
�
c
o
u
I
�
m
I
I
AV
TZOZ/sZ/F
uoseas 2uimoa9 }o :Pels
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uef
O O O
O
O O
O O O
(ui)
19n93 aa;eM
c-I
0
N
O
0
N
O
c-I
00
c
O
c-I
O
0
N
m
E
O
v
O
u
7
E
0
Y
O
m
v
N

Ln �,
c
O 2 N a1
O_ N 0 N E
t
bA O "10
n
.bD O M +�+
N = z } N
m u aao v
0 i -0
C 0 d 0 �
Ln C Y
O O
C7 O o D1
2 3:
M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
I
TZOZ/s/TT
uoseas 2ulmoag }o pu3 r
Inf
unr
T I
0
V
C
u
O
Ln
AV
TZOZ/8Z/F
uoseas 2ulmoaE) }o :Pels
I
I aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
I
uer
O O O O O O O
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM
s
c-i
N
O
00
O

2 N
N 0 N O
W Y
O Ln
GO O M F,
-0
0 ID
N � Y
o o 2 3:
M) Ile}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseaS 2ulmoa9 10 pu3
I
"O N
I
I
I
I
po
v
f0
0
v
I
I
J
�p
v
-
.O
v
I
U
daS
u
m
I
I
ri
�
I
u
v
I
Ony
bb
N
O
w N
3 �
C
I
Inf v
oaao
Lto
0
a
I
v
u
0
w
CO
� C
unf 4!
3
I
v
O
N
c O
O C4
u N
0
O N
O
I U'
ady
TZOZ/SZ/F
uoseaS OUIMOJ9 10 gels
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uef
O O O
O O O O
(ui) lanai
aa;eM
O
0
c-I
O Y
� O
O ,O
to
N .}
O
r` c
O
3
N 0
O N
N L
mY
E
O
E
O v

c
D1
N 0 N E
� � t
0 lfl 1 �
hD 0 M +
Y z
} D%
u aao v
N O 'L -0
o a 2 c
cn c +
O o 2 3:
M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseaS OUIMOaE) 10 pu3
I
AON
I
I
Sao
>
I
daS
I
oOp
Ony C7
N
L 0
y N
3 M
C }
Inf C
o aao
0
0
O
C
C7
0
U
CO
� C
unr 4!
3
o
T
0
I
V
N
Aew
�
c
�
IL
AV
TZOZ/SZ/F
uoseaS OUIm0a9 10 gels
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uer
O O O O O
O
O
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM
N
0
0
c-I
0
N
O
00
C
O
O
0
N
m
E
O
v
0
u
7
R)
E
0
0
O
m
v
N

c
+� N N
1n 0 N E
c t
O 1n N
GO O 16 +
Y z
} 4%
u aao 1v
s= .v
O 0
M) uejuiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 in m r o
I
I
I
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
I
I
A0N
uoseaS 2uimoa9 10 pu3
I
po
>
U
daS
I
N
N
r1
I
u
bb
I
2ny 20
M
(g N
L O
y N
3�
M
c
Inf v
oaao
L
L
to
0
C
v
0
U
�
CO
C
unr
3
o
T
0
I
N
Ae A
.O
0
m
m
Ln
I
r
I
AV
TZOZ/SZ/F
u0seas 2uim0a9 10:Pels
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uer
O O O O O
O
O
(ui) 19n93.l91eM
N
0
0
c-I
O
O
c-I
O
c
O
O
0
N
m
E
O
v
0
u
7
E
0
Y
O
m
v
v

2 N
N 0 N O
00 a
O Ln
11O O m
a z }
u aao a)
al O -O
0 0 c
cn c +
O o 2
M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
I
I
I
I
ua4
izoz/S/ii
I
uoseaS OUIMOaE) }o pu3
I
"O N
I
I
IL
I
Sao
>
I
daS
I
M
I
ti
ri
u
I
I
2ny 20
bb
N
O
N N 0
I
I
3�
i
M
C °
I
y
Inf a�
O ba o
�
u
O m
N
I
C7
v
U
N
unr
3
I
v
o
I
I
I
I
Aew
II
ady
izoz/sz/F
uoseaS OUIMOaE) }o gels
I
aew
O N
\
U�
C
\
7 N
qa3
f0 �
N
O
v
to r-4
m
C7 �
I
uer
O O O O O
O
O
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM
a!

41
*O N
d N O N O
tin O L
M Y Oi Y
L bD O M F)
' z
u NO ai
L I
0 v
C7 O o 2 3:
M) Ile}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln m r-4 r o
:)a4
TZOz
uoseaS 2ui
AON
po
v
a>i
U
daS
I
v
ti
pip
Ony C7
M _
(g N
L 0
y N
3�
M
C }
Inf o
0 b
L r
L
N
pQ
0
c 0
v
Q 0
U
C
N
1A
unr
3
O
Ae A
5
I
AV
TZOz
uoseas OUI
MEW
moa9 }o lAels
I
I
I
I
I
moa9 }o pu3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
o
V
v I
C
o I
U
m
N I
N I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/sz/� I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
0
0
0
N
0
0
0

c
N 0 N E
� � t
O
GO O M +
Y z
} 4%
u aao v
N O 'L -0
0 ' c
cn c +
O o 2 3:
M) IIe}uiea
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0 Ln
m
r-4
I
I
r
o
I
I
ua4
TZOZ/S/TT
uoseOS OUIMOaE) 10 pu3
"O N
I
I
I
po
>
U
daS
I
LM
14
ti
bb
I
2ny 20
N
I
L O
y N
3�
I
C
Inf v
oaao
L
0
c
N
U
N
unr
3
o
0
V
N
Aew
C
C
O
I
�
�
Ln
Ln
I
AV
TZOZ/SZ/F
u0seas OUIm0a9 10:Pels
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qa3
I
I
uer
O O O
O O
O
O
0
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM
N
0
0
0
N
O
O
C
O
O
0
N
m
E
O
v
0
u
7
E
0
0
O
m
v
N

a4
W N
O O
W N
a
N
U
0
c-I N
O U
z
a
L
O
n
c-I
U
O
U
Z
N
Q
c
O
�
2
C
v
C
J
N U
b0 N
75
O
N
o
m
C
IN
C
m
W
O
s
O.
N
i
N
z
}r
C
G1
i
N
ti O
N O
C
CL
o
O
n
0
in
ti
c
N
m
0
N
Q
O
3
In
c
c� O
z
c�
G �
U
I
U
z
N
� I
v
�o in a
N
C
o
m oo
r,
(ui) uoi;e;idl3aad
C

APPENDIX 6. Supplemental Wetland Boring Data

5
F—.

Soil Profile Photographs

Pocket rod units in 10" of feet
Core 1 - Hydric Soil Profile
0" - 9" — 5YR 4/6 (90%) 7.5YR 6/1 (10%)
9" - 17" — 10YR 5/1 (80%) 7.5YR 5/6 (20%)
Core 2 — Non-hydric Soil Profile
0" - 11 " — 5YR 4/6 (95%) 7.5YR 5/2 (5%)
11 " - 17— 10YR 5/3 (95%) 7.5YR 4/6 (5%)