20190049 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2022_20220609

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20190049
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 06/09/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/9/2022
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: *
Matthew Reid
Project Information
ID#:*
20190049
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
• DMS Mitigation Bank
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Gaston
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type: *
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
CarpenterBottom_100090_MY0_2022.pdf 13.51MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Matthew Reid

MONITORING YEAR 0
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
May 2022
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
Gaston County, NC
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
DMS Project No. 100090
NC DEQ Contract No. 7731
DMS RFP No. 16-007133-CTO3
Date of Issue: April 24, 2017
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
DWR Project No. 2019-0049
Data Collection Dates: August 2021 - February 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
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
May 27, 2022
Mr. Matthew Reid
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Carpenter Bottom Draft MY0 Report Review
Catawba River Basin - CU# 03050102
Gaston County
DMS Project ID No. 100090
Contract #7731
Dear Mr. Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Year 0 Monitoring Report for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site that were received on
May 4, 2022. The report has been updated to reflect those comments. The Final MY0 Report is included.
DMS' comments are listed below in bold. Wildlands' responses to DMS' comments are noted in italics.
DMS' Comment: Please add "Date of Issue: April 24, 2017" following RFP number on title page.
Wildlands' response: The RFP issuance date of April 24, 2017 has been added to the title page.
DMS' Comment: Table 2a: Recommend including the Monitoring Table Components from mitigation
plan in the MY0 report, or list the number of monitoring stations for each metric in the measurement
column of Table 2a.
Wildlands' response: The measurement column of Table 2a was updated to include the quantity of
monitoring components for each goal/performance criteria.
DMS' Comment: Table 3a: There is a discrepancy between the Restoration Tributary Summary
Information for Carpenter Branch R1 and R2 lengths when compared to Table 5 in the Mitigation Plan.
Please revise or explain the discrepancy in existing lengths.
Wildlands' response: Table 3. The pre -project stream length for Carpenter Branch Reach 1 and 2 was
corrected to match the mitigation plan and also what is reported in Table 1.
DMS' Comment: Section 2.1: There were a significant number of additional brush toes added during
construction. While DMS agrees the addition of wood and increase bank stability will be beneficial, can
WEI please add an explanation as to why this change was made during construction? Did a storm event
reveal a need for additional bank protection, was their extra material on site, etc.?
Wildlands' response: Additional brush material was available on site based on the limits of clearing during
design and construction. A portion of the additional brush was able to be burned, however utilizing
additional brush material as habitat in the small headwater channels was determined a better use of the
material. Brush toes were installed for habitat, not for additional stability, in this instance.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERIN C.::
DMS' Comment: Floodplain pool on right floodplain near sta: 112+25 should be included as a red line
change. This feature was not in the original design.
Wildlands' response: The floodplain pool on the right floodplain near STA 112+25 has been corrected and
included as a red line change. The following text was also added to section 2.1.1 of the report: "Floodplain
pool - Pool added to preserve relic channel meander feature with existing mature vegetation."
DMS' Comment: Sta: 122+39—122+84 note specifies 38 linear feet are realigned. Redline drawing says
44'. Please review and update as necessary for consistency.
Wildlands' response: The STA 122+39—122+84 note was revised, in the report and on the record drawings,
for clarification. The stationing listed represents where the channel realignment deviates from the design;
however, the actual channel realignment resulted in 38 linear feet, for a loss of 6 linear feet.
DMS' Comment: 3.6 Wetland Hydrology: Section 8.3 of the approved Mitigation Plan defines the
growing season based on the Gaston County, NC WETS table as March 15th to November 14th
representing a 250 day growing season. Wildlands proposed a 12% growing season of 30 consecutive
days based on this data which was approved by the IRT. Confirming season dates with a soil
temperature probe is appreciated, but please continue to use the success criteria approved in the
Mitigation Plan. Please update section to reflect the Mitigation Plan.
Wildlands' response: As requested the text has been revised to better reflect the growing season limits
defined in the Site's Mitigation Plan.
DMS' Comment: Table 4c: Calculation for Bank Protection under the Structure category is displaying a
formula error due to having a 0 value in the formula. Recommend manually changing to 100% or NA for
final.
Wildlands' response: Table 4c. Since there are no bank protection structures on the reach, the total
performing percentage is not applicable and was updated to N/A.
DMS' Comment: Groundwater gage 7 and gage 8 photos: Gage photos appear to show a minimal
amount of bentonite surrounding the wells when compared to other gages. The bentonite cap may just
be hard to see in the photos. As regular maintenance, please inspect and add bentonite as necessary.
Wildlands' response: Wildlands mixes some of the surrounding soil with the bentonite and dampens the
mixture which provides a better seal around the pipe collar. However, this can alter the pellet -like texture
and the appearance of the bentonite cap. Wildlands will continue to monitor, inspect, refurbish the
bentonite surrounding the wells on a regular basis. The bentonite seals on gages 7 and 8 are not a concern
at this time.
DMS' Comment: Monitoring gage installation data sheets are a welcome addition to the report. Thanks
for including.
Wildlands' response: Thank you for the comment.
DMS' Comment: XS 2,3 and 6 photos appear to show riffles with very little to no flow on the surface.
Does WEI have concerns regarding the depth of riffle material and the ability to achieve surface flow
over these areas?
Wildlands' response: Wildlands does not have concerns about the stream's ability to achieve surface flow
over the upstream extent of Carpenter Branch Reach 1. Cross section 2 is on an intermittent reach, so it is
not surprising that the reach is dry in the September photos. Cross sections 3 and 6 both show some
staining on the rocks indicating that flow has occurred over the riffles. It is expected that once the stream
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENG1NEERINC::
has time to stabilize and the riffle material settles, winter rain will recharge the streams and flow will
return as shown in the photos taken in February at PP1 and PP2.
DMS' Comment: Table 10: Please change the Project Instituted date to October 9, 2018.
Wildlands' response: In Table 10, the Project Instituted date was changed from July 6, 2017 (the date of
Wildland's contract with NCDEQ, #7244) to October 9, 2018 (the date of the fully executed original contract
with the NCDEQ, #7731).
Digital Deliverable Comments:
DMS' Comment: There are two depictions of what appears to be an outer meander bend on centerline
for Carpenter Branch R1; one is labeled as such and lists the length as 49.673, the other is labeled as CB
R1 As -built Deviation and lists length as 43.874. Please verify the submission of all centerlines (feature
class = Streams_PH) are sourced from the As -built survey.
Wildlands' response: The feature class "Streams_PH" was renamed to "Streams" and the attribute table
was modified for clarity. A credit/no credit column was added, and the realignment attribute of OID#14
was changed to "No". There are two lines shown in the map because one line represents the proposed
stream alignment, and the other is the deviation. The lines match what is used and shown in the CAD plan
set (Sheet 1.1.6); the deviation line in GIS matches the red line in CAD. The longer segment (OID#14) is the
proposed centerline, and the shorter segment (OID#8) is the deviation. The deviation length was used when
calculating the as -built creditable stream length.
166
Streams k.
81.2537740°W 35.4048205°N v
Ik i Add Selection Select By Attrihrrtes +� Zoom To ®® Switch ® Clear Delete 8 Copy HigFdighte&
fl6TECTID" Shape* 5hape_Length Flame
Approach
Lerigh_LF Realignment
ForCredit
14 PolylineZ 49.673367 Carpenter Branch R1 Restoration
PolylineZ 43.874078 CB R1 As -Built Deviat... Dev
49.673367 No
43.8743'7t `f E E
No
As requested, Wildlands has included one (1) hard copy of the final report and a full final electronic
submittal of the support files on USB. A copy of the DMS comment letter and our response letter have
been included inside the front cover of the report's hard copy, as well. Please let me know if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.3 Project Attributes 1-1
Section 2: As -Built Condition (Baseline) 2-1
2.1 As-Built/Record Drawings 2-1
2.1.1 Carpenter Branch Reach 1 2-1
2.1.2 Carpenter Branch Reach 2 2-2
2.1.3 UT1 2-2
2.1.4 UT2 2-2
2.1.5 UT3 2-2
2.1.6 UT4 2-2
2.1.7 Wetland Re-establishment Area 2-2
2.1.8 Vegetation Planting List & Plan 2-3
Section 3: Monitoring Year 0 Data Assessment 3-1
3.1 Vegetative Assessment 3-1
3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern 3-1
3.3 Stream Assessment 3-1
3.4 Stream Areas of Concern 3-2
3.5 Stream Hydrology 3-2
3.6 Wetland Hydrology 3-2
3.7 Adaptive Management Plan 3-2
3.8 Monitoring Year Summary 3-2
Section 4: METHODOLOGY 4-1
Section 5: REFERENCES 5-1
TABLES
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components 1-2
Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements 1-3
Table 3: Project Attributes 1-5
FIGURES
Figure 1-lb
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Table 4a-c
Table 5
Current Condition Plan View
Visual Assessment Data
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Groundwater Gage Installation Data Sheets
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final i

Appendix B Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6a-b Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross -Section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Table 8a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 10 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 11 Project Contact Table
Appendix E Record Drawings and Sealed As -built Survey
Appendix F Correspondence
Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes (01/16/2019)
DMS Technical Workgroup Memo (10/19/2021)
Pebble Count Data Requirements (10/27/2021 email)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Gaston County, NC approximately 4.1 miles
south of the City of Lincolnton and just south of the Gaston County/Lincoln County border. The Site
drains to Beaverdam Creek, which drains to the Catawba River. The Site is located within the South Fork
Catawba River (High Shoals) WS-IV water supply watershed and is located just outside the Indian Creek
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW). Table 3 presents information related to the project attributes.
1.1 Project Quantities and Credits
Mitigation work within the Site included the restoration and enhancement of perennial and intermittent
stream channels and the rehabilitation and re-establishment of historically altered wetlands. Table 1
below shows stream and wetland credits by reach and the total amount of credits expected at closeout.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. Table 2 below describes expected
outcomes to water quality and ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives.
1.3 Project Attributes
The project includes the headwaters of a tributary to Beaverdam Creek and occurs on adjacent
properties that have a history of agricultural use. The Site has been ditched and maintained as an active
cattle and hay pasture as far back as 1950; however, a small, forested area within the proposed wetland
restoration area was allowed to reforest starting around 1973. In 2014, approximately 2.4 acres was
deforested to provide additional pasture. Table 3 below and Table 8 in Appendix C present additional
information on pre -restoration conditions.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 1-1

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Project Segment
Existing
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Plan Credits
As -Built
Footage or
Acreage
Comments
Stream
Carpenter Branch -
Reach 1
2,564
2,249.689
Warm
R
P1, P2
1.0
2,249.689
2,243.000
Full channel restoration, riparian planting, livestock exclusion,
invasive species treatment, permanent conservation easement;
culvert crossing
Carpenter Branch -
Reach 2
353.080
Warm
Ell!
8.0
44.135
353.000
Invasive species treatment, permanent conservation easement
Carpenter Branch -
Reach 2 - No Credit
124.000
--
--
--
0.0
0.000
124.000
Invasive species treatment, permanent conservation easement
UT1
123
174.819
Warm
R
P1, P2
1.0
174.819
175.000
Full channel restoration, stormwater BMP implementation,
riparian planting, livestock exclusion, permanent conservation
easement
UT2
245
178.196
Warm
R
P1
1.0
178.196
178.000
Full channel restoration, riparian planting, invasive species
treatment, livestock exclusion, permanent conservation
easement
UT3
387
384.661
Warm
R
P1
1.0
384.661
385.000
Full channel restoration, riparian planting, livestock exclusion,
invasive species treatment, permanent conservation easement
UT4
50
36.349
Warm
R
P1
1.0
36.349
36.000
Daylighting stream and restoration of natural channel fetaures,
riparian planting, permanent conservation easement
Wetland
Wetland Re-
establishment
0.000
5.714
RR
RE
--
1.0
5.714
5.714
Re-establish hydrology via the plugging/filling of drainage
features, wetland planting, invasive species treatment, livestock
exclusion, permanent conservation easement
Wetland
Rehabilitation
4.130
3.947
RR
RH
1.5
2.631
3.947
Improve hydrology via the plugging/filling of drainage features,
wetland planting, invasive species treatment, livestock
exclusion, permanent conservation easement
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non -rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Restoration
3,023.714
Enhancement III
44.135
Re-esablishment
5.714
Rehabilitation
2.631
Totals
3,067.849
8.345

Table 2a: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Goal
Objective/ Treatment
Likely Functional Uplift
Performance Criteria
Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Exclude livestock
from stream
channels and
wetlands.
Decommission pastures on Site
and exclude livestock via the
removal from stream channels,
wetlands, and riparian areas.
Reduce direct fecal coliform and
nutrient inputs to the Site streams.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion. Reduce shear stress on
channel boundary. Eliminate cattle
trampling of wetlands.
There is no required
performance standard for
this metric.
N/A
N/A
Improve the
stability of stream
channels.
Reconstruct stream channels
with stable dimension, pattern,
and profile. Reconnect streams
to existing floodplain. Add bank
revetments and in -stream
structures to protect restored
streams.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion. Reduce shear stress on
channel boundary. Increase
floodplain engagement.
ER stays over 2.2 and BHR
below 1.2 with visual
assessments showing
progression towards
stability.
Cross-section monitoring (8 riffles
& 6 pools) will be conducted
during MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5 &
MY7. 12 reference photo points
were established throughout the
Site. Upstream and downstream
photos will be taken at each point
on an annual basis during visual
site inspections.
No deviations from
design.
Improve instream
habitat.
Install habitat features such as
constructed steps, constructed
riffles, and brush toe on restored
reaches. Add woody materials to
channel beds. Construct pools of
varying depth.
Increase and diversify available
habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish,
and amphibians. Promote aquatic
species migration and recolonization
and increase in biodiversity over
time. Add complexity including LWD
to the streams.
There is no required
performance standard for
this metric.
Visual annual assessments.
N/A

Table 2b: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Goal
Objective/ Treatment
Likely Functional Uplift
Performance Criteria
Measurement
Cumulative
Monitoring Results
Reconnect channels
with floodplains
and to allow a
natural flooding
regime.
Reconstruct stream channels
with designed bankfull
dimensions and depth based on
reference reach data.
Allow more frequent flood flows to
disperse on the floodplain.
Four bankfull events on
restored channels in
separate years within
monitoring period. At least
30 consecutive days of flow
for Carpenter Branch R1,
UT1, UT2, and UT3.
Five automated transducers were
installed throughout the Site. One
transducer (SG1) will be recording
days of consecutive stream flow.
Another (CG5) will be recording
bankfull events. The remaining
three (SG2, SG3, & SG4) will be
recording consecutive days of
stream flow and bankfull events.
Reported in MY1.
Restore wetland
function and
hydrology.
Restore wetlands through re-
establishment of hydrology.
Remove the drainage effects of
agricultural ditching and
maintenance.
Raise water table and hydrate
riparian wetlands.
Free groundwater surface
within 12 inches of the
ground surface for a
minimum of 12% (30
consecutive days) of the
growing season for Gaston
County
11 groundwater gages were
installed in wetland re -
establishment and rehabilitation
areas and will be monitored
annually.
Reported in MY1.
Restore and
enhance native
floodplain and
wetland vegetation.
Plant native tree, shrub, and
understory species in riparian
and proposed wetland
restoration zones.
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
erosion and runoff. Increase nutrient
cycling and storage in floodplain.
Provide riparian and wetland habitat.
Add a source of LWD and organic
material to Site streams. Support all
stream functions.
Survival rate of 320 stems
per acre at MY3, 260
planted stems per acre at
MY5, and 210 stems per
acre at MY7. 7 feet average
height at MY5, and 10 feet
at MY7.
9 permanent and 4 mobile 100
square meter vegetation plots
were installed within 2% of the
open planted areas and will be
assessed in MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5
and MY7. Shaded planted areas
will be visually assessed.
All 13 vegetation
plots have a planted
stem density greater
than 320 stems per
acre.
Permanently
protect the project
site from harmful
uses.
Establish conservation
easements on the Site.
Protect Site from encroachment on
the riparian corridor and direct
impact to streams and wetlands.
Support all stream functions.
Prevent easement
encroachment.
Visually inspect the perimeter of
the Site to ensure no easement
encroachment is occurring.
No easement
encroachments.

Table 3a: Project Attributes
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Project Name
Carpenter Bottom
Mitigation Site
PROJECT INFORMATION
County
Gaston County
Project Area (acres)
18.0
Project Coordinates
35.410725, -81.260717
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba River
USGS HUC 8-digit1
03050102
USGS HUC 14-digit
03050102050020
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-35
Land Use Classification
43% forest, 43% agricultural row crops and hay, 8% grassland/herbaceous, <1%
shrubland, 5% urban, <1% impervious
Project Drainage Area (acres)
180
Percentage of Impervious Area
0.65%
RESTORATION TRIBUTARY
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
Carpenter Branch -
Reach 1
Carpenter Branch
Reach 2
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Pre -project length (feet)
2,087
477
123
245
387
50
Post -project (feet)
2,243
353
175
178
385
36
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined,
unconfined)
Moderately confined
Confined
Confined
Moderately
confined
Moderately
confined
Confined
Drainage area (acres)
48 / 180
20
39
17
23
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
I/ P
P
I
P
I
P
DWR Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
Dominant Stream Classification (existing)2
G4
--
G4/5
G4/5
G4/5
--
Dominant Stream Classification (proposed)2
C4
--
C4
C4
C4b
C4
Dominant Evolutionary class (Simon) if applicable
III / IV
V
III
III
III
I
3.-
T
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 2019-0049
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion in Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
1- Expanded Service Area 03050103
2 - The Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) and Simon Channel Evolution Model (Simon, 1989) are for natural streams. These channels have been heavily manipulated
by man and therefore may not fit the classification category or channel evolution as described by these models. Results of the classification and model are provided for
illustrative purposes only.

Table 3b: Project Attributes
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
WETLAND SUMMARY INFORMATI l
Parameters
Wetland A
Wetland B Wetland C
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland F
Wetland G
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.07
0.01 0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine, or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Pacolet
Worsham
Pacolet
Pacolet
Worsham
Worsham
Worsham
Drainage Class
Well drained
Poorly drained
Well drained
Well drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status (field/mapping)
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Souce of Hydrology
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Restoration or enhancement method
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Parameters
Wetland H
Wetland I
Wetland J
Wetland K
Wetland L
Wetland M
Wetland N
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.39
0.36
0.01
<0.01
0.02
1.02
2.35
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian
riverine, or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Worsham
Worsham/
Winnsboro
Worsham/
Winnsboro
Winnsboro
Winnsboro
Worsham
Worsham
Drainage Class
Poorly drained
Poorly drained/Well
drained
Poorly drained/Well
drained
Well drained
Well drained
Poorly drained
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status (field/mapping)
Yes
Yes/No
Yes/No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Souce of Hydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater &
overbank flooding
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method
(hydrologic, vegetative, etc.)
Hydrologic, Vegetative
Hydrologic, Vegetative
N/A
N/A
N/A
Hydrologic,
Vegetative
Hydrologic,
Vegetative

Section 2: As -Built Condition (Baseline)
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed in July and September 2021, respectively.
The Site's construction planting was completed on February 1, 2022. The survey included developing an
as -built topographic surface as well as surveying the as -built channel centerlines, top of banks,
structures, cross -sections, gages (stream and wetland), and photo points. The collection of sediment
data was completed in August 2021. Vegetative data collection was completed in early February 2022.
2.1 As-Built/Record Drawings
No significant field adjustments were made during construction that differ from the design plans.
Minimal adjustments were conducted only where needed and mainly included changes of the material
type and the addition and/or removal of structures. These changes were made due to unforeseen site
conditions and availability of on -site materials. In all instances, the changes provide the same, if not
better, stability, habitat, and functional uplift. A sealed half-size set of record drawings and the as -built
survey are in Appendix E and include the post -construction survey, alignments, structures, and
monitoring features. The record drawing also includes redlines for any field adjustments made during
construction that were different from the design plans and/or monitoring installations that were
adjusted after survey was complete. Specific changes are detailed below.
2.1.1 Carpenter Branch Reach 1
• STA 100+18 - Rock sill installed as grade control.
• STA 100+18-100+29 - Brush toe installed to increase bank stability.
• STA 100+94-101+15 - Brush toe installed to increase bank stability.
• STA 101+94-102+21 - Brush toe installed to increase bank stability.
• Floodplain pool - Root wads added to floodplain pool to increase habitat diversity.
• Floodplain pool - Added stabilized outlet to increase stability at confluence.
• STA 104+44-104+78 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 105+10-105+36 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 106+41- Outlet installed to stabilize wetland overflow.
• STA 106+55 - Log sill omitted due to adequate stability.
• STA 107+04-107+37 - Brush toe added due to extra material availability.
• STA 111+83 - Log sill added to provide grade control.
• STA 111+83 - 112+08 - Brush toe added due to extra material availability.
• Floodplain pool - Log sill and stabilized outlet installed to stabilize flow from floodplain pool.
• STA 112+15 - 113+00 - Profile was lowered due to low area in the floodplain and to promote
drainage to the constructed channel.
• STA 112+36 - 112+68 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 112+89 - Log sill moved from STA 112+36 to provide grade control.
• STA 113+00 - 113+83 - Profile was lowered due to low area in the floodplain and to promote
drainage to the constructed channel.
• STA 112+92 - 113+16 - Brush toe added due to extra material availability.
• Floodplain pool - Pool added to preserve relic channel meander feature with existing mature
vegetation.
• Floodplain pool - Log sill and stabilized outlet added to stabilize floodplain pool confluence.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 2-1

• STA 114+60 - Log j-hook moved from STA 114+01 to increase stability downstream of the
floodplain pool confluence.
• STA 115+10-115+37 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 115+58-115+95 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• Floodplain pool - Log sill and stabilized outlet added to stabilize floodplain pool confluence.
• STA 116+18 - Rock sill added to increase stability downstream of floodplain pool confluence.
• STA 116+68 - 116+98 - Brush toe replaced log j-hook at STA 116+68 for additional bank stability.
• STA 117+06 - Crest gage added after survey was collected to monitor bankfull events.
• STA 120+17 - 120+30 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 120+80 - 121+07 - Brush toe added due to extra material availability.
• Floodplain pool - Floodplain pool not installed due to sufficient material on -site to provide
cut/fill balance.
• STA 122+66 - 122+91 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 122+13 - 122+33 - Brush toe added to increase stability.
• STA 122+42 - Rock sill omitted due to channel realignment.
• STA 122+39-122+84 - 44 linear feet of channel was re -aligned to allow for trees on left bank to
be saved. This realignment shortened the channel length to 38 linear feet.
• STA 122+45-122+69 - Brush toe added to increase stability due to channel re -alignment.
2.1.2 Carpenter Branch Reach 2
• No deviations from design.
2.1.3 UT1
• STA 199+85 - 200+00 - Riffle added to stabilize stream bed after culvert removal.
• PP-9A - Photo point was added after survey was completed to provide an additional visual
monitoring location on UT1.
2.1.4 UT2
• STA 300+00 - 301+78 - Profile was lowered as part of a design change prior to construction. The
grading was updated to better fit into the existing valley topography.
• STA 300+12 - Rock sill moved from STA 300+37 for better grade control.
2.1.5 UT3
• STA 402+23 - Log sill omitted due to adequate stream stability at this location.
• STA 403+23 - Log sill omitted due to adequate stream stability at this location.
• STA 403+54 - Rock sill omitted due to adequate stability from downstream log j-hook.
2.1.6 UT4
• STA 501+56 - 501+75 - Profile grade was raised to transition existing grade to proposed grade.
2.1.7 Wetland Re-establishment Area
• GWG 5 was relocated to a more representative area based on professional judgement in the
field.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 2-2

2.1.8 Vegetation Planting List & Plan
Changes within the planted riparian buffer were minimal and consisted of one species change and
five planting density changes within the Open Area Buffer Planting Zone. Flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida) was replaced by silky dogwood (Corpus amomum). The stem densities were updated from
10% to 11% for boxelder (Acer negundo), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides). Silky dogwood
was already included as an approved species within the Final Mitigation Plan's planting list
(Wildlands, 2020), so no approval for the inclusion of the species is needed.
The vegetation planting plan changes were limited to the addition of four floodplain pools and a
short sections of channel re -alignment. The changes are depicted on sheets 3.1 - 3.4 of the record
drawings and are shown in red. They are outlined below.
• Carpenter Branch Reach 1
o STA 103+90 - "Open Area Buffer Planting" was replaced by a floodplain pool in the left
floodplain during final design.
o STA 112+30 and 114+55 - "Open Area Buffer Planting" was replaced by a floodplain pool
in the right floodplain during final design.
o STA 116+10 - "Open Area Buffer Planting" was replaced by a floodplain pool in the left
floodplain during final design.
o STA 122+32 - 122+95 - "Open Area Buffer Planting" changed to "Riparian Corridor
Planting" due to channel realignment.
o STA 122+37 - 122+75 - "Riparian Corridor Planting" changed to "Open Area Buffer
Planting" due to channel realignment.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
146, Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 2-3

Section 3: Monitoring Year 0 Data Assessment
Monitoring Year 0 (MYO) site visits were conducted between August 2021 and February 2022 to assess
the condition of the project. Cross-section, longitudinal profile, and sediment data collection were
completed by September 2021. The collection of vegetative data was completed in early February 2022.
Locations of the monitoring devices are depicted in Figures 1 through lb. The vegetation and stream
success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2020). Performance criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrologic assessment are located in
Section 1.2 Table 2: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements. The first annual
monitoring assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2022, at least 6 months after the MY0
assessment. The streams will be monitored for a total of seven years, with the final monitoring activities
scheduled for 2028.
,.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 13 vegetation plots, 9 permanent and 4 mobile, were established throughout the project area.
Mobile plots established in MY0 will be used for vegetative assessment in MY1. Baseline vegetation
monitoring resulted in a stem density range of 526 to 688 planted stems per acre which is well above
the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. Average stem density was 601 planted
stems per acre. All 13 vegetation plots met the interim success criteria and are on track to meet the final
success criteria required for MY7, and no species dominance per plot was greater than 50%. Refer to
Appendix A for Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and
Appendix B for Vegetation Plot Data.
3.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Vegetation management and herbicide applications were implemented prior to construction over the
entire Site. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), hardy orange (Citrus trifoliata), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) were treated with herbicidal applications. During construction, both the treated, dead plants
and the surviving plants were mechanically removed to prevent the spread of invasive species that could
compete with planted native species. Invasive species will continue to be monitored and controlled as
necessary.
i.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys conducted throughout the Site show all streams as stable and functioning as
designed. All riffle cross -sections at the Site were constructed slightly larger than proposed design
dimensions; however, they do fall within the parameters defined for channel's stream type. It is
anticipated that cross -sections will narrow, and cross -sectional areas may decrease in size due to natural
channel adjustments such as the establishment of herbaceous vegetation along the tops of banks and
slight bed and or bank deposition. Bank height ratios are less than 1.2, and entrenchment ratios are
greater than 2.2.
Pebble counts were conducted in August of 2021. As documented in the Site's Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2020), reachwide counts were conducted on each restoration reach to establish stream
classification at baseline conditions, and 100-count substrate sampling was collected at each surveyed
riffle cross-section to characterize pavement at as -built. However, based on a DMS Technical
Workgroup memo from 10/19/21 and concurrence received on 10/27/2021 from the DMS project
manager for Carpenter Bottom, pebble count collection is no longer required for the project from MY1 -
MY7. Therefore, pebble counts will not be conducted during the remaining monitoring years unless
requested by the IRT or deemed necessary based on best professional judgement. A copy of the DMS
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 3-1

Technical Workgroup Memo (2021) and the email confirmation from the DMS project manager (Reid,
2021) are located in Appendix F.
Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and stream
photographs and to Appendix C for stream geomorphology data.
itream Areas of Concern
The Site is performing as designed. Wildlands will continue to assess the Site and will report any issues
during MY1.
3.5 Stream Hydrology
Five pressure transducers will be used to monitor stream hydrology. The gage on the intermittent
portion of Carpenter Branch Reach 1 will measure baseflow conditions. The automated crest gage on
Carpenter Branch downstream of UT1 will only collect bankfull event data. The other three transducers
located on UT1, UT2, and UT3 will measure both baseflow conditions and bankfull events. All gages were
set to record every two hours. Hydrologic data will be collected and reported during MY1.
3.6 Wetland Hydrology
Eleven groundwater wells were established at baseline conditions to monitor wetland hydrology within
both wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas. Groundwater gages are set to record the
groundwater level two times per day and will be downloaded during site visits. As described in the Site's
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020), the North Carolina WETS table defines growing season for Gaston
County from March 15th to November 14th, with a duration criterion of 12% of the 250-day growing
season or 30 consecutive days of inundation. The locations of the groundwater gages closely mimic
those outlined in the Site's Mitigation Plan and are denoted in Figures la -lb. Wetland hydrologic data
will be collected and reported during MY1.
3.7 Adaptive Management Plan
No adaptive management plans are needed at this time.
',8 Monitoring Year Summary
Overall, the Site looks good, is performing as intended, and is on track to meet success criteria. All
vegetation plots are on track to exceed the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, and
all streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Invasive species were treated prior to
construction and will continue to be assessed throughout the monitoring years.
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. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are included with the MY0 digital data submittal.
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 3-2

Section 4: METHODOLOGY
Annual monitoring will consist of collecting morphologic, vegetative, and hydrologic data to assess
project success based on the goals outlined in the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
(2020). Monitoring requirements will follow guidelines outlined in the NC IRT Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Guidance Update (2016). Installed monitoring devices and plot locations closely mimic the
locations of those proposed in the Site's Mitigation Plan. Deviations from these locations were made
when professional judgement deemed them necessary to better represent as -built field conditions or
when installation of the device in the proposed location was not physically feasible.
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was collected by
either a professional licensed surveyor or an Arrow 100' Submeter GNSS Receiver and processed using
ArcPro. Automated pressure transducers used to monitor stream hydrology were installed in riffle cross -
sections and will be monitored throughout the year. Groundwater gages were installed using guidance
from the USACE's Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites (2005).
Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update (NC IRT, 2016) and the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al.,
2008); however, vegetation data processing follows the NC DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool and
Vegetation Plot Data Table (NCDMS, 2020).
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report - Final 4-1

Section 5: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. NC Stream Restoration Institute, NC State
University.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved: http://cvs.bio.0 nc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
5.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS). 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Raleigh, NC.
NC DMS. 2017. DMS Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance.
June 2017, Raleigh, NC.
NC DMS. 2020. Vegetation Data Entry Tool and Vegetation Plot Data Table. Raleigh, NC.
https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/Veg Table Tool/
NC DMS and Interagency Review Team (IRT) Technical Workgroup. 2018. Standard Measurement of the
BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
NC DMS and IRT Technical Workgroup. 2021. Pebble Count Data Requirements. Raleigh, NC. October 19,
2021.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWR). 2010. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
NC DWR. 2015. Surface Water Classifications. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985, Geologic Map of North Carolina: Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section, scale
1:500,00, in color.
NCGS, 2017. NCGS Publications. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-
landresources/north-carolina-geological-survey/interactive-geologic-maps
NC IRT. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update; October 24,
2016. Accessed at: https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-
Update.pdt
Reid, M. 2021. Email Correspondence, Pebble Count Data Requirements. October 28, 2021.
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.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites. ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). 2020. Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site: Mitigation Plan. DMS,
Raleigh, NC.

Conservation Easement
0 Project Parcels
Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Rehabilitation
TM Existing Wetlands
Internal Crossing
Sheet Boundaries
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MYO
El Criteria Met (Permanent)
0 Criteria Met (Mobile)
Restoration
- Enhancement III
- No Credit
As -Built Alignment Deviation
— BMP
- Non -Project Streams
— Fence
= Existing Fence
-- -- Top of Bank
Cross Sections (XS)
Topographic Contours (2')
Stream Gage (SG)
4, Crest Gage (CG)
▪ Groundwater Gage (GWG)
▪ Barotroll
Soil Gage
O Photo Points (PP)
cs Reach Breaks
A Parking/Access
„ed.
2019 Aerial Photography
leirWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0
250
500 Feet
I I I
Figure 1. Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Gaston County, NC

Wetland
�- -I Conservation Easement
0 Project Parcels
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
A Existing Wetlands
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MYO
n Criteria Met (Permanent)
0 Criteria Met (Mobile)
] Structures
Restoration
- Non -Project Streams
— Fence
= Existing Fence
-- -- Top of Bank
Cross Sections (XS)
Topographic Contours (2')
+ Stream Gage (SG)
+ Groundwater Gage (GWG)
• Barotroll
Soil Gage
0 Photo Points (PP)
Barotroll
\ :�GW_'
Wefan
•
/•
1
2019 Aerial Photography
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0
100
200 Feet
I I I
Figure la. Current Condition Plan View
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Gaston County, NC

[_._I Conservation Easement
Project Parcels
Existing Wetlands
Internal Crossing
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MYO
I —I Criteria Met (Permanent)
Q Criteria Met (Mobile)
Structures
Restoration
- Enhancement III
- No Credit
As -Built Alignment Deviation
— BMP
— Non -Project Streams
x — Fence
= Existing Fence
-- -- Top of Bank
Cross Sections (XS)
Topographic Contours (2')
Stream Gage (SG)
+ Crest Gage (CG)
0 Photo Points (PP)
® Reach Breaks
2019 Aerial Photography
�WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0
100
200 Feet
I I I I
Figure lb. Current Condition Plan View
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Gaston County, NC

APPENDIX A. Visual Assessment Data

Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1
Date Last Assessed: 02/08/2022
or Channel Category
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total Amount of 11 % Stable,
Number in Unstable Performing as
As -built Footage Intended
Assessed Stream Length 2,243
Assessed Bank Length
4,486
Bank
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
100%
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
31
31
100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
45
45
100%
UT1
Date Last Assessed: 02/08/2022
Number
Stable, Total
Major Channel Category Metric Number in
Performing
As -built
as Intended
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed
Stream Length
175
Assessed Bank Length
350
Bank
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
100%
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%

Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT2
Date Last Assessed: 02/08/2022
IrNumber
Stable, Total Amount of11 % Stable,
Major Channel Category Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing As -built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 178
Assessed Bank Length
356
Bank
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
100%
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
5
5
100%
UT3
Date Last Assessed: 02/08/2022
Number
Stable, Total
Major Channel Category Metric Number in
Performing
As -built
as Intended
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Assessed
Stream Length
385
Assessed Bank Length
770
Bank
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
100%
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
12
12
100%

Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT3
Date Last Assessed: 02/08/2022
IrNumber
Stable, Total Amount of 11 % Stable,
Major Channel Category Number in Unstable Performing as
Performing As -built Footage Intended
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length 36
Assessed Bank Length
72
Bank
Surface Scour/
Bare Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
0
100%
Bank Failure
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
calving, or collapse.
0
100%
Totals:
0
100%
Structure
Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
influence does not exceed 15%.
0
0
N/A

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Date Last Assessed: 2/8/2022
Planted Acreage
15.94
ion Catego
Definitions I_
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
(ac)
0.10
Acr-
0
0%
Bare Areas
Low Stem Density
Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
criteria.
0.10
0
0%
Total
0
0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Rates
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
Standard.
0.10
0
0%
Cumulative Total
0.0
0%
Easement Acreage 18.00
ion Ca
Definitions
Mapping % of
Combined
Threshold Easement
Acreage
(ac) Acreage
Invasive Areas of
Concern
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with
the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term
or community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
0.10
0
0%
Easement
Encroachment Areas
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common
encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.
none
0 Encroachments Noted
/0 ac

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

,.I. 41
!0,. _______----4.--------- „__ _
Nt ,_ .,. = fi •+ ?� 0`- ._ r
I4 , > -av_ w�'�-'"mil _r
"� 4 _ yam y� e E 3 � _
i
!. •
.01111. • '
4.
�- - . . R
n .
PHOTO POINT 1-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 1-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
Ir
y y � - ._
7 e - µj 1� ``."—
I
PHOTO POINT 2-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 2-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
-
, z'
•
'; Y
- a
. *t,,,r*
Y
M [ � y ,�. 1 t� f `' � S: +n-7 '. (( of rq�'F' � ��,^
PHOTO POINT 3-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 3-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

S '
4'
;
� iti 4
•
PHOTO POINT 3-Carpenter Bottom R1- Floodplain Pool (2/3/2022)
°`•
g.
yy •
PHOTO POINT 4-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 4-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
V�� -r' b� �k
�' ff�F�- - _alb' y� ' —
. �C6 s / R f r 4b. i -el ..
� _ r sr '� a `,P' a " 1 n.• y#._
q . .. Ji' ....„. ..., .
r,x' 'y.4yb, Z�Mb i, h -
__... _ . h6
111
.:.......,:!,,.,
. ...., _... . ,
,-,,,_._:. ,. ., ..1 „1 ,. .,, _, . .., ._ !. .,,i,L,t.,..1,-
PHOTO POINT 4A-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream PHOTO POINT 4A Carpenter Bottom R1 downstream
(2/3/2022) (2/3/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

_ - -
h.
E, 4F n
r t, ti' ,L Ilya,"
h• ,,h� c k_y _
all.
S I, 1a F 4v 1. ,
E ,Sidi ' p f fi"
y. '. Y a'�.' 7F's. wl ,' F rgit :'�
N g: Y 't.Y.,-lo
PHOTO POINT 5-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 5-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
lc
1 1
ell,. _
' I ---- -
_ —ik `. 4
- . ot - --..,v: Li
1.
\ ,g# , /
Sa ' k
- � x / y _ `� a .,%•. >-„ �� ar•i•..� � �
PHOTO POINT 6-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 6-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
• (2/3/2022)
J�If,tl " pd"pi,: n ' -'a �f,
ti
.a" ' l w ! •
"l
a ye , '.�e�� n• �'
' a ate, s•
..,. n i. s 5 `4', i try_, 4 r5 1 - .K
� .�494'�-� +._ � a .vT 3i p 3, +�" i ,tM^• �
PHOTO POINT 7-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 7-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

-
-
I \CI* • -- .',: , , l' ' \ r.,i's ji,,,•
PHOTO POINT 8-Carpenter Bottom R1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 8-Carpenter Bottom R1-downstream
(2/3/2022)
-""*"'" ,
,p� p Y +
1.4
, r"*-vim ¢ - -.Gt-.� r C
a... ,3'`' ;` 'k.s,-'. "..ter" ! - - v�
d `'ter€ ,,,', . •Y.1 -pry.—'y
PHOTO POINT 9-UT1- upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 9-UT1-downstream (2/3/2022)
_1 ,..- -wads _
,._
VOVit
_ ilr' ate!
x _ w .-..ix
e
PHOTO POINT 9A-UT1-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 9A-UT1-downstream (2/3/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Stream Photographs

•
41113,
-ir :r ".- @ '.''- - - - c "F'• ' ` 'ice l
g
i0r" `' +k. � ,-a. ,' �" ' F =sue.,„ _ -
x �� a ^' ' ` ` 6�A i . 'sF'!5 u
t w, '"'.7- '1 � .i*',>. .`• -3.,-. •''* t`' �,l *a 6f,^
v 4 �"` ��� ' ' `ly >_ t, l • • w y; 'ice . ',
a R ,3�� t
��� 3s �•T �r �i ♦ ��,� .``�
_{,sue y -.- -* k ,f••z.. �''f •
1 r f ".'1 474 CA}, • . i
PHOTO POINT 10-UT2-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 10-UT2-downstream (2/3/2022)
-. x s r -tx �;��• �4
S , i - ,z^` .��, 1 9iC i k e :. . . Y, ; 7„7+-xt✓ . per: r e,'"-
-:rA:.!..j,i"'.'''•!-"--.A-',74,-
f'Yt K a• t - y�'f "S o- , h"`f tr
n ,� u 4 -a ssc . ' ..N �.`x t.- �,, `•,�-��- h� - fit- 2.
._...,,"
•
ar.: - r.1 ei'1^�+t F i„k`'S't T- t v = - t -
-44e."-'•-•".-';',tlg' 1..4:‘..r..1.'-, ,,-'•--.'
4" T''fir ZI A / r p �F,
PHOTO POINT 11-UT3-upstream (2/3/2022).l k
PHOTO POINT 11-UT3-downstream (2/3/2022)
1: x ,.yr fr. _ • , Yr s ' - ^A-y L ,7rx`ti ,y,�i* a 5 ;„: :.:,;i,
L-- �,.. ���y'f 7t. _ it _ s r 7. :,
F YY y iK c•b; Jp t .0 4 3 -. ,tom 5 .
.Ls dr , .- -r Vi-nu d '" •' `p.'' '+c W,-. a •r-, w i'..
'-,1":"",'4or:&r.r.•;*-,,,-*--..>1— '- .'"Fe--;-.1--- -7::• ,;.,-..:*-1,-,t7-,,i4:::: _':'4-,,,,:„..,.-.....,-,._,.:.:,,.,..,- .,
,,,.,,.. ,., ,
,„.,,,„.,,,,
..,
�� ;, r � ' r+ ',.,..
'
., -.... . .,_,.. . .,
,.`.,' •rt4F,..t a "! s_.,r �`.^ 4�v m
7� '+
PHOTO POINT 12-UT4-upstream (2/3/2022) PHOTO POINT 12-UT4-downstream (2/3/2022)
Bo
AppendixCarpenter A ottVisualm Mitigation AssessmentSite Data-Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

( 7
•
n f.. •7 - ' r r •
-
}, ' 3
N
4 JYT 1 1 S rx ���,`;ds r.
if•
,I: 1,
1 7y,
•
•
!•,•h ,+ }'r -'Skk4'F' -Y" 90 •4- tY . , r. Ai '=r'i,'.
y t `' Tug•'J{ 1 ..
- .. ,� ue-
a 'w� z q _
e
A,4, v ,sk 4. '[0 I u
i qrr � k 4 a..�
PERMANENT VEG PLOT 1 (2/2/2022) PERMANENT VEG PLOT 2(2/2/2022)
p
- - ?
PERMANENT VEG PLOT 3(2/2/2022) PERMANENT VEG PLOT 4(2/2/2022)
liPm MINIIIIII.'---
,P ,a
. .:
PERMANENT VEG PLOT 5 (2/2/2022) PERMANENT VEG PLOT 6(2/2/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Vegetation Plot Photographs

e`5 4 f 5y tt ,!
rb
n
I
-x,'lt
.z - e.. - -,;'"y `vim - t^- &`_ + y
'' •ter,,,,��..�� w� 7 �4 �-, � k w 3 - - '
PERMANENT VEG PLOT 7(2/2/2022) PERMANENT VEG PLOT 8(2/2/2022)
." {a'y e ti ''1').-
i wAo
�, WF
4 f tSll. +5 t. , .3�NeYelarg '
44:
` ' -- t
.
' .�Uii A4�ir:.c � ni� .vvr�
PERMANENT VEG PLOT 9(2/3/2022)
.,' ' 4:'. . ltrf.s ' .. .. '"'
Z
y1 - is 4 r• a
Y
S Yy r 3 -��gam,� - 'R" • L r �`,'
•
•
p J r .. - Jd� ..-4 L!X y TT' _, r d-, o f �' p ,,.t-1 - s'z..-'.. s k r
r E r to -rr ..,,e a 3 x " K - �.��-z�r s� ,: ,•*,._
i ,1-:'''''1." �" G .,fi 747r �yl:-.! "'� t`t° `
� � .f Raj `lyM°' '-.''�' �?�� 1 '�_
tw-r
yr - is. � " � J; '�:r:
MOBILE VEG PLOT 1 (2/2/2022) MOBILE VEG PLOT 2(2/2/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Vegetation Plot Photographs

•
= Ja ll 1 ligai,,5,51.40
1 wn e - l y y
t ir1'� nw F
rF y y ..r
r+�
•
-r.iS
-
f.
pd
•
•
n`
•• .:Oyu y _ L Y-` ,: 1h , - ' :x= y" r, " `�'g6 ?.,. +;m r $yr �7 is `�3'i z k 4
3 J i"'. �i,- ' a s ' '_, _,") h C 5 i Y h � 'rt �4y,` t5. r 4s � F "s - i � ' .,� �.K I '4'..-5
Lr4'r am` � ,��r5 E � S , -ri '� ,s..tle- -Z ',,,, A.
- -; Canti, ti �' . wa.Y ` iv7 • ..�a.z ;--?:"' :"`.q✓
MOBILE VEG PLOT 3(2/2/2022) MOBILE VEG PLOT 4(2/2/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data-Vegetation Plot Photographs

GROUNDWATER GAGE PHOTOGRAPHS

n 5.
y 114
HK�., 3^�� , .6., 4',f�f�h��I :/�� wl^"���� ,�t� -en t `3
''N''.„1 • Voh -', '. f''..'$ ','1,. 4...:14” ...-..,.. , -r, „r_- 4,---
(441 "'''
I"F r N .t."a' Wy{.11 Id tic ,g;1 MJ'�' S `fi^":.izM t 1 Z.r #-r - r - {—I.7" " _ i ., _
Y+}` _ rC ' ' 5'''''-it
*'• �,1 'Sy -: '�"�'. s . #Rc•'ty
+: ��� 11 � < � '7- ` k� - 'y� _ ter, ' �.i -
...r •-.,,*.• ..-W'>. ...ippik, • •
a.l fit';:.r'�
GROUNDWATER GAGE 1 (2/3/2022) GROUNDWATER GAGE 2(2/3/2022)
-:- y ,> '1 •. r' Se 4,. os" i i� ,y
y- `'T`. '1-1. 5. `4 `yti/1r•� t` -"e414-% '. � '"�' -�1PI� J �*9. +,°.tl,.� '
iwig s J W ► sd 1 _Iglik'N r
at e �a P.. ��r
"� b #� ,�� * 4 • . "Est t, . re ---
. ., 4Alifisive..4..''''''..r-', .,A:-.- ,} ,.,..:,,,,,x... -,-; •••,,,e., ' - _
. .,, ., ....„. _.. ,.... .,,,, ._ ,.. , ., ,.,
GROUNDWATER GAGE 3(2/3/2022) GROUNDWATER GAGE 4(2/3/2022)
- `- ". ., .n a .a• � • 1 ', . -- a .1-., ! ' _ � - , 5"' -am . el :Xt S s ' { , r �a fsm kK`is
„:._,.,..,...,,,,
" Y .:1 -,.,., 3•„ off' '_'r' .4'" Y „ _
it
�'��•r ,ea, r"`,s d°� �'A.a - i' B � -''3� � c �� :�� � ws ,� •%� � v j� -..
#, ter '' `- "k r '
.2,'',,,,,,,,,, 4,,Ai7..,,,,...,4;„*„. .. t...: ,, ,..: . .,.
'�'� r % 1 a --
GROUNDWATER GAGE 5 (2/3/2022) GROUNDWATER GAGE 6(2/3/2022)
�„ Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
1.1 Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Groundwater Gage Photographs

111.1111-11.111111
'1F
[
•
GROUNDWATER GAGE 7(2/3/2022) GROUNDWATER GAGE 8(2/3/2022)
- -
r, t
•
,..,_ . :-. '`‘.:, ,--.„''',.-\L--- 'rt,-,-:-. ...$a_,7-.'° 2t`••=t& ' . ---AA-- ,..-.1, ' 0'4,",,-..\:,,;''..'4 l'' -4.,..-7. ,tr4.1,407 '' '.ty•—.*::"..n• i,i...*
�;�° 9 l�C `, t .'� 'br A r r ,3 ,r(r—:tJ X , yZ ��, ,a. x M d f r�.•
‘ttiri7.'-- .,-.„_
'.4 _§ cf 1 �c�c ti -srmoo '.�'4c�s r r 1 ;�f ''.'* 46 'ems"�� LL• *� �•sC'� n
f;>• '_ � y t ,a,`3 ^1yZ s x� - J� , - -µ�'-_ ..sG .:„. 1 s V` ,.,_ ` iP
ass-. .r K-:` _ , • I�rA ,�'..
GROUNDWATER GAGE 9 (2/3/2022) GROUNDWATER GAGE 10(2/3/2022)
,iP.."'.-42-- - -.,. ,k..'-,il , Ikltr,-..."-.' ..- - ,;,..,4<, ._
,...10_ t ,,,,..,__ ,____-,-.3._,—.,..1. ,,,,,.. .,.., ._ _.... 1
'+.. -
1•— F" '`., ' F_ ' / . `7 st .ry
--...4"."'" Al . \'7•-.‘-'''r i
` d - =.
GROUNDWATER GAGE 11 (2/3/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A-Visual Assessment Data-Groundwater Gage Photographs

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Proiect Name:
Project Location:
Purpose of Gauge;
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number.
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material;
Type of Measurement;
Tvpe of Logger,
Gau e Location:
Notes:
Water Table Monitoring
IN11111111Y.10111Cirr-
ellraMTIE
2" PVC Well Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
vict,1/4c4(04-reon q.oq_"
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
De th Range (jLf] Color
Redox
Texture
P-1
37-IgKfriet bAl
Notes
0.0 --o �3
C�1 !¢/
Sig Ib_a �
Sri Nam
% - ) .
E
Rsy a
_0
ta..
;. t
5. 3 N
i.
6t N
1�� R $);� 1.
;
%Dunn...
it.a- 5.a
A bL S$
wYR5rS,ror,
^
. "� ��
1o«An ."
B
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
project Name:
project Location:
purpose of Gargle'
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number.
Total Well Casino Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material
Tvpe of Measurement
Tvpe of Logger.
Gauge Location*
c ✓pe,tr,*C4 i t4 ter►
Water Table Monitoring
t0•M"r
2' PVC ell Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
vW era ko.6tAfir
Depth Range (irfI
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
Color
Redox
Texture
si latya4
aRl6v\itcrlv3
Notes
0_ ,•.
t.t-2,u
b
N
I K(c8IS7
J - a._
3
N
t Q 'g!?1n
`•vleIna.trrt
ai Ian tru►A�b.�v`
3. 4 - 5.a
?�
�.�,+1R 3?.
st
Cdct�rv. a d a (jlt rav�O
,
- 4 (v
al
a I
;V I 0-7,.
Sr ltc
-1-31;WO"
t
IB
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Frilled Name;
Protect Location:
purpose of Gauge:
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number:
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground IB):
Distance From Eye Bolt To Probe Sensor
Materiel:
Type of Measurement*
Type of Logger
Gau, e Location:
Notes:
Csvr17e-r1Y SO4-4-4wM
Water Table Monitoring
gig la-02-1
tiomeA 1 t vkcA fitiv'A �d Slit IMP, ' tt'M �tVV i IAth preANVI"44 O& J Gli4CS4•6
ff
wal rseuttitant Soiofile Description at Location of Well:
Depth RanCcLlor Redo
Texture
Notes
0- IIS"
104(({{ 3I 1
l0� In .
t.S-5,0
0 V K
(Y 5 r
3, u - r .
Icki 4 A
1T45 1ii•i.
q-ravreP_
B
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Protect Named
Protect Location;
Purpose of Gauge;
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number.
Total Well Casing Length (At
Weil Casing Height Above Ground (B);
Distance From Eve Solt To Probe Senso
Material'
Type of Measurement
Type of Logger.
Gauge Location:
Water Table Monitoring
1.88 keoi-
1incM
2' PVC Well Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
1nf1 TiW'nerfett'osk% 6% lt,3 i,
sttwtt►tA.t (ALMS 4+r1N4 etkilh
a1 O-fat rtt4C4 cue hnnviltufty,
Sol Profile
Description at Location of Well:
DepthRangeji (FtColor Redox
Texture
Notes
p — t7 .h
toYlc a'II
4
30►
3S- °I•S
IA . c-S.O
ALt4
tyl^y
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Project Name:
Project Location:
Purpose of Gauge:
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number:
Total Well Casing Length (A).
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B).
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
Type of Measurement.
Tvpe of Logger:
Gauge Location:
�rpP.A•ttr 1344idM
Water Table Monitoring
C.L.0 Coal c.NtU
Co. 61
2" PVC Well Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Pred Ater
Depth Range lin i Fot
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
Color
Redox
Texture
2 / 8110S2.
. r/ eR
Notes
d.c.
0.8
tovrt %/I.
•-
I.4,0,00,
o.{?
-
l . (o
2.6 Y 3/ 1
SI. IOYrt Sit.
Loam, cloy
1. (a
•
3�.0
2.5 Y t,/ I
1o. Io)% SYR
r\C
•
3 P
LE>4 5JI
`leik OW6./S
city
S'7• Mvtg
Oanele
.8
61.'•1
t,d''/ S/)
YO7,. 2.5# /G
Sta..A.7Nay
F,, PP t rttf
4.4
S I.
2.Sy sij
—
G,ayeydtxna
wJ .rnae I gravel
B
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Project Name:
Project Location;
Purpose of Gauge;
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:,
Serial Number,
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material'
Type of Measurement
Type of Logger.
Gauge Location:
Cat / k-V
Water Table Monitoring
' Cl
2" PVC Well Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
Depth Rangelin
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
Color
Redox
Texture
is/1 a
Notes
0-1, 5wY(�,
a a
—
¢1
l�owv�
i • � ~ 1.14
IOU. a a•
IO'If. 1 '�7a
enl
Ga�/W\
1.S - o'*. $
101tK. in�V
asd4 t. on't,,
ltievWl (dJl�
t
l
a S4 - 3.01
TOIL Kt
a.Sv S WA.
GlL
i
GIC t.Vt1wi o
s ,
Pre15,
CA
1
�.g-S.�
ti-$-S
1 bl1oY
�0 10i
silk-1
B
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
project Name;
Project Location;
Purpose of Gauge;
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number,
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground (8):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material'
Type of Measurement;
Type of Logger:
Gauge Location:
C .S-1,4 vt
Water Table Monitoring
to D4V" .
2" PVC ell Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
. W M ,Ar : a . .
Death Range
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
Cglor
Re ox
Texture
gf �/Z
)o
2 1 2p
(-15/ 1�31
Notes
0 - O. S
W`FK �
S 4f b 357
sill- (da
trv.
l�H
�b�ka'1 l
1O R 3%
Sp tl.c�:1
\6a~
CIA a.3
(i(l 1 •5
love5 i •I.
la t,oa-✓1n
3. o - 2�
a M
-----
�°` cLa
�t,a- o
a Alin(,
�t
it$.W\
,
.t
B
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Project Name:
Project Location;
Purpose of Gauge;
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number,
Total Well Casing Length (At
Well Casino Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material;
Tvpe of Measurement:
TYPO of Logger.
Gauge Location:
co r Sot+. w,.,
Water Table Monitoring
2" PVC ell Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
h Range,J (F{_•
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
Color
Red
Texture
ga3 %a-02-1
Notes
WUM:.1r.
1ELM 0
Mi A
— ? .
as s Hiracraaf
90
�_'
�..
-a•3—.
4 Leif.
I3EI
_4 _�w�
•
D. i'M'_i
r
_ , -
► ' THIMMMOM
b'
'Tn*.y2'-ti.4_
%.a.__ ai r
8- ,
FM O
If.UWl -03i1 I iLt�� •
1
B
A

Vo-el,
MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
prolect Name:
prolect Location:
purpose of Gauge:
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number,
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casino Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
Tvpe of Measurement
Tvpe of Logger.
Gauge Location:
Water Table Monitoring
a.
gal /H Ivta%,
2" PVC Well Screen
Pressure, Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
wwt ou.pr i t ?($ i n&k,
*' (4 ,,e44 (Wyk sal (t'Y4r4Le- {kvvt aSseSf: 1
tjak t F use,* t( YW%tle-fa
Soil Profile Description at Location of Well:
De RangR• Color Redox
o — o.h gJ 4tIYK V tf — 4
S. o S. 0
?.sig y q.D
MIRES C /.
-C
Texture
(ateq
Notes
rti
lB
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
Project Name:
proiect Location.
Purpose of Gauge:
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number
Total Well Casino Length (A):
Well Casino Height Above Ground (B):
Distance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
Material:
Type of Measurement:
Type of Logger
Gau • e Location:
Notes:
Water Table Monitoring
A KO piOVIOAS el Wei t so; ftb6(g, Cw rimmAAAnatiot stS4tl:,wwiAC un
wUl rttrttl.ctfvr mtic+ntt•Kt►
To Profile Description at Location of Well:
314 j2+�1`i
Depth Ra(f t j Color
Redox
Texture
Notes
. 0.`O.
its 3
tIt
��
O0.4
Iv
B
A

MONITORING GAUGE INSTALLATION DATA SHEET
protect Name;
Protect Location:
purpose of Gauge:
Gauge Description:
Gauge ID:
Serial Number.
Total Well Casing Length (A):
Well Casing Height Above Ground (61:
pistance From Eve Bolt To Probe Sensor
ateria •
Type of Measurement;
Type of Logger,
Gauge Location;
caw v r i�a 1 *vs
Water Table Monitoring
(,9 0
Le,motN
2" PV Well Screen
Pressure. Temperature, & Depth
In -Situ Level Troll 100
Notes:
f tn+akve aax► - 4 ,1,y 4 pt-
Death Ran gelia l (Fk.
Soli Profile Description at Location of Well:
Color
Redox
Texture
K/3/a1Y3t
8-a` /dT1Pf
Notes
0- 0.11
j0YRy�s
r31R ,'c 'IL40am
1.1- 1 • la
:1 a 5 N
S Y. 3
s�nn cwI r.{
1 13404.4
, a.�
w 1.4f N
IN WI
aq IUu.
nIt. wait &t,1atn.( -�v
-
) •
a •� - 4. 3 61.6441 % N`
7 54 CR . S% SaNiztr r ceklixt.i.
I 0 641M
Era- 3
Ca 0.49(si c.0 ."
B
A

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 6a. Vegetation Plot Data
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
15.938
2022-02-01
NA
NA
2022-02-02
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/
Shrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 9 F
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Planted
Total
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
FAC
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Tree
OBL
3
3
2
2
Amelanchier arborea
common serviceberry
Tree
FAC
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
FACW
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
OBL
4
4
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
1
1
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
Tree
FACU
3
3
2
2
Linden benzoin
northern spicebush
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
3
3
Liriodendron tulip era
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
2
2
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
5
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
FAC
1
1
2
2
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
FACW
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
FACW
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FAC
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
American black elderberry
Tree
2
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
6
Sum
Performance Standard
17
17
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
16
16
15
15
14
14
MI
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Yea Stem Count
17
15
16
15
15
14
16
15
14
Stems/Acre
688
607
648
607
607
567
648
607
567
Species Count
6
8
8
8
9
8
10
7
7
Dominant Species Composition (%)
24
27
25
20
20
43
19
20
36
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
%Invasives
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IL
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
17
15
16
15
15
14
16
15
14
Stems/Acre
688
607
648
607
607
567
648
607
567
Species Count
6
8
8
8
9
8
10
7
7
Dominant Species Composition (%)
24
27
25
20
20
43
19
20
36
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
%Invasives
0
0
0
0
MillMMillMillM
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are of approv d, and a regular font indicates hat the s ecies has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan' section contains only those species that were included in the original approved miti ation pla . The "Po t Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are be ng proposed throug
a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded) , spe ies that have been approved in prior monitoring years throu h a mitig tion plan ddend um (regular f nt), and species that are not approved (i alicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation Ian, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan P rformance Standard includes data from mitigation
plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 6b. Vegetation Plot Data
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Planted Acreage
Date of Initial Plant
Date(s) of Supplemental Plant(s)
Date(s) Mowing
Date of Current Survey
Plot size (ACRES)
15.938
2022-02-01
NA
NA
2022-02-02
0.0247
Scientific Name
Common Name
Tree/
Shrub
Indicator
Status
Veg Plot
1 R
Veg Plot
2 R
Veg Plot
3 R
Veg Plot
4 R
Total
Total
Total
Total
Species
Included in
Approved
Mitigation Plan
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
FAC
2
2
1
3
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Tree
OBL
3
Amelanchier arborea
common serviceberry
Tree
FAC
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
FACW
4
5
2
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
FACW
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
OBL
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
FACW
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
FAC
1
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
Tree
FACU
1
3
Linden benzoin
northern spicebush
Tree
FAC
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulip era
tuliptree
Tree
FACU
2
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
FACW
2
1
2
4
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
FAC
4
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
FACW
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
FACW
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
FAC
2
Sambucus canadensis
American black elderberry
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
FACW
Sum
Performance Standard
13
16
13
14
In
Mitigation Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Yea Stem Count
13
16
13
14
Stems/Acre
526
648
526
567
Species Count
6
7
8
7
Dominant Species Composition (%)
31
31
31
29
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
2
2
2
% Invasives
0
0
1
Post Mitigation
Plan
Performance
Standard
Current Year Stem Count
13
16
13
14
Stems/Acre
526
648
526
567
Species Count
6
7
8
7
Dominant Species Composition (%)
31
31
31
29
Average Plot Height (ft.)
2
2
2
2
% Invasives
0
0
0
0
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are of approv d, and a r gular font indicates hat the s ecies has been approved.
2). The "Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan' section contains only those species that w re includ d in the original approved miti ation plan. The "Post Mitigation Plan Species" section includes species that are being proposed through
a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year (bolded), spe ies that have been approved in prior monitoring y ars throu h a mitigation plan addendum (regular font), and species that are not approved (italicized).
3). The "Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation Ian, whereas the "Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation
plan approved, post mitigation plan approved, and proposed stems.

Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Veg Plot 1 F
Veg Plot 2 F
Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
688
2
6
0
607
2
8
0
648
2
8
0
Veg Plot 4 F
Veg Plot 5 F
Veg Plot 6 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
607
2
8
0
607
2
9
0
567
2
8
0
Veg Plot 7 F
Veg Plot 8 F
Veg Plot 9 F
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
648
2
10
0
607
2
7
0
567
3
7
0
Veg Plot Group 1 R
Veg Plot Group 2 R
Veg Plot Group 3 R
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
526
2
6
0
648
2
7
0
526
2
8
0
Veg Plot Group 4 R
Stems/Ac.
Av. Ht. (ft)
# Species
% Invasives
Monitoring Year 7
Monitoring Year 5
Monitoring Year 3
Monitoring Year 2
Monitoring Year 1
Monitoring Year 0
V
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot "groups". Random plots are denoted with an R, and fixed plots with an F.

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 1- Carpenter Branch Reach 1
101+05 Pool
Elevation (ft)
J V
J _I V
) N A C
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
t MY0 (9/20/21) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.8 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
2.0 max depth (ft)
15.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
_ -,
_-*
. —
=
.,, •
►411.
•
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 2 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
0
.>
v
776
774
772
101+27 Riffle
0
10
20
Width (ft)
30
40 50
MY0 (9/20/21)
- Bankfull
- Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.2 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6 width -depth ratio
50.0 W flood prone area (ft)
5.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 3 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
104+89 Riffle
771
Elevation (ft)
J
0
0 0 n
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
— — MY0(9/20/21) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.2 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
12.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
22.7 width -depth ratio
68.1 W flood prone area (ft)
5.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
_
--__"" •' =
t ,' - I-
"s"', y"f
•!
f •'��'; .r
_� {°
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 4 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
c
0
v
772
770
768
766
105+19 Pool
•
0
10
20
30
Width (ft)
40
50
t MY0 (9/20/21)
- Bankfull
60
70
Bankfull Dimensions
15.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.9 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.7 max depth (ft)
13.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 5 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
108+66 Pool
Elevation (ft)
J 0I V
n rn rn
.4 A rn
ioz
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
t MY0 (9/20/21) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
i,,w
13.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
w i
12.4 width (ft)�
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
13.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
`�
1
Wk. Tyr
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 6 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
c
0
766
764
762
109+39 Riffle
0
10
20
30
Width (ft)
40
50 60
MY0 (9/20/21)
- Bankfull
- Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.4 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
9.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.7 width -depth ratio
44.4 W flood prone area (ft)
4.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 7 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
111+73 Riffle
Elevation (ft)
J •-I V
o m m C
O O N t
•:
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
— — MY0(9/20/21) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
11.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2 width -depth ratio
50.8 W flood prone area (ft)
4.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
-_-
-
ins b
it• ; - _ 1...
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 8 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
12.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.8 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
14.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.7 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 9 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
c
0
.>
v
757
755
753
116+87 Pool
0
10
20
Width (ft)
30
40
t MY0 (9/20/21)
- Bankfull
50
Bankfull Dimensions
12.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.8 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
12.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 10 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
117+06 Riffle
7,4
Elevation (ft)
Ul
J •-I
O1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
— — MY0(9/20/21) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.7 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
11.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1 width -depth ratio
55.9 W flood prone area (ft)
5.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying'
r . _
�..e
a J
y.
it '
oli
r`► la
'`' _
Ls,._
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 11- Carpenter Branch Reach 1
Bankfull Dimensions
6.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.4 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
11.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
15.9 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 12 - Carpenter Branch Reach 1
119+96 Riffle
7,1
Elevation (ft)
J •-I V
f1 V1 L
0 0 N t
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
— — MY0(9/20/21) — Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
11.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4 width -depth ratio
54.1 W flood prone area (ft)
5.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
1
p
!r''°`' •_
- -
—
,c
= eS,Fo�,i
K"--aiiii,•_
`' y
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 13 - UT1
202+09 Riffle
Elevation (ft)
J
n rn c
J NJt
•
•
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
t MY0(9/20/21) - Bankfull - Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.0 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.6 max depth (ft)
8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
27.6 width -depth ratio
55.5 W flood prone area (ft)
6.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
x
-
' i.
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Cross -Section 14 - UT3
776
c
774
0
.>
v
772
402+47 Riffle
0
10
20
30
Width (ft)
40
50
MY0 (9/20/21)
- Bankfull
- Floodprone Area
60
70
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.4 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
8.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0 width -depth ratio
52.6 W flood prone area (ft)
6.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 9/20/21
Field Crew: Turner Land Surveying
View Downstream

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch (STA 100+00 to 110+00)
Elevation (feet)
o 0
n
X
N
XLn
m
X
w
AkAAAA••♦ •AA
I
I
. ♦ ♦ •.il. •
I
I
i
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500
Station (feet)
t TW (MVO-9/2021) WSF (MV0-9/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB(MVO-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB(MVO-9/2021) • STRUCTURE(MVO-9/2021)
Elevation (feet)
•'
I
1
1 O
1 X
Ls-)
cn
D
X
at
N♦
AAAAA
II
I
I
♦ ♦
I
I
1
•♦
••gt•A•A
,60
10500
10550
10600
TW
10650 10700 10750
Station (feet)
WSF (MV0-9/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MVO-9/2021) ♦
10800 10850 10900
RBKF/RTOB (MV0-9/2021) • STRUCTURE (MV0-9/2021)
10950
11000
t (MV0-9/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch (STA 110+00 to 120+00)
Elevation (feet)
J oAL
•
I
♦
I n
1 x
•
4\**
--Cif\tAr
fir.
14..."
Ills*.
_
-
a la
4 • i
.♦.ula'♦♦ ♦♦♦♦.♦♦
♦♦.♦
AAAA
1
♦
.
•
I
I
1
I
J 11000
11050 11100
11150
11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11450
11500
Station (feet)
W
WSF(MVO-9/2021)
LBKF/LTOB(MVO-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB(MVO-9/2021) 0 STRUCTURE(MVO-9/2021)
- TW (MV0-9/2021)
,cn
Elevation (feet)
n o c
'.•♦..♦.♦♦♦
i
m
Ilnternal Crossing)
.
ry
• ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � ♦
r
� AAA • • A•AA• AtI.
♦
il.
I
x
cn
x
x
x
i--
I
I
----- I
I
•
--- ,'�� '� i
; ♦:��! !•! rr M�
r “`- a lII
11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000
Station (feet)
t TW (MV0-9/2021) WSF (MV0-9/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MVO-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MV0-9/2021) • STRUCTURE (MV0-9/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS ID No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch (STA 120+00 to 123+00)
Elevation (feet)
a
12000 12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500
Station (feet)
—I,— TW (MY0-9/2021) WSF (MY0-9/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MY0-9/2021) 0 STRUCTURE (MY0-9/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT1 (STA 200+00 to 202+41)
"^
Elevation (feet)
n o cn c
a
2
m
End BMP
Start UT1
Restoration
X.
End UT1
�♦♦ .► + ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
1
1
20000 20050 20100 20150 20200 20250
Station (feet)
t TW (MY0-9/2021) WSF (MY0-9/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB (MYO-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MY0-9/2021) • STRUCTURE (MY0-9/2021)
* - Channel was dry during As -Built Survey.

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT2 (STA 300+00 to 301+78)
Elevation (feet)
c
„ o n, c
rq
7
49
N
F
7
-Q
Lu
• • • • • •
••••'••—•-••----
V
• •A •• • • • A • ! • •• •• ••
•: • •••• •• • • •
• —•
- -----------
---
•• ••
••
• • • • ••• ••
30000 30050 30100 30150
Station (feet)
—I,— TW (MY0-9/2021) WSF (MY0-9/2021) I LBKF/LTOB (MY0-9/2021) • RBKF/RTOB (MY0-9/2021) 0 STRUCTURE (MY0-9/2021)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT3 (STA 400+00 to 403+85)
75,
Elevation (feet)
o a
c
E
r
Ln
I
a I
1
X.'40000
40050 40100 40150 40200 40250 40300 40350 40400
Station (feet)
TW (MV0-9/2021) ♦ LBKF/LTOB(MVO-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MVO-9/2021) O STRUCTURE (MV0-9/2021)
* - Channel was dry during As -Built Survey.

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT4 (STA 501+74 to 502+10)
0
765
760
755
♦
Y ♦ ♦
a
i
•♦
End UT4
50100
50150
Station (feet)
50200
TW (MY0-9/2021) WSF (MY0-9/2021) LBKF/LTOB (MY0-9/2021) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MY0-9/2021) 0 STRUCTURE (MY0-9/2021)
50250

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
36
37
37
37
SP4O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
41
Fine
0.125
0.250
41
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
42
Coarse
0.5
1.0
42
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
42
4i,
6‘
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
42
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
45
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
48
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
49
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
52
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
11
63
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
7
70
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
16
86
,zV0
CDC
Small
64
90
6
6
6
92
Small
90
128
5
5
5
97
Large
128
180
1
1
1
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D3, =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
13.3
D8 =
61.2
121s5 =
111.2
D1oo =
256.0
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn 3t/day I Sand I Gavel 1 Cobble Boulder I Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
u I I r I
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
M30-08/202,

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
Coarse
22.6
32
22
22
23
Very Coarse
32
45
24
24
47
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
65
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
21
21
86
Small
90
128
6
6
92
Large
128
180
4
4
96
Large
180
256
2
2
98
......................................
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
0
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
28.6
D35 =
37.9
D55 =
47.7
D84=
87.1
D95 =
165.3
Dioo =
362.0
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn SI V/day j Sand Gravel j Cobble Boulder j B.rock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
0.01
0 1 1
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
100 1000
10000
IIIMV0 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
21
Very Coarse
32
45
27
27
48
Very Coarse
45
64
28
28
76
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
14
14
90
Small
90
128
7
7
97
Large
128
180
2
2
99
Large
180
256
99
......................................
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
6
lPJ
Medium
512
1024
100
L
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
29.1
D3, =
38.2
D50 =
46.1
D84 =
77.8
D95 =
115.7
Dioo =
362.0
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn Si V/Clay 1 Sand 1 6Tavel I Cobble Bouldu B: rock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
,
1
f
0.01
•
0 1 1
T 1 1
10 100 1000
Particle Class Size (mm)
1
10000
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
5
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
17
Very Coarse
32
45
27
27
44
Very Coarse
45
64
25
25
69
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
19
19
88
Small
90
128
9
9
97
Large
128
180
97
Large
180
256
1
1
98
......................................
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
6
lPJ
Medium
512
1024
100
L
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
31.1
D35 =
40.2
D55 =
49.0
D84 =
83.8
D95 =
118.4
Dioo =
362.0
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn SI V/day 1 Sand Gravel I Cobble Boulder Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
,
1.-.
-
0.01
i • T'' 1 I
0 1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Class Size (mm)
I
10000
IIIMV0 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
4
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
9
Very Coarse
45
64
47
47
56
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
27
27
83
Small
90
128
13
13
96
Large
128
180
3
3
99
Large
180
256
99
......................................
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
6
lPJ
Medium
512
1024
100
L
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
47.4
D35 =
54.7
D55 =
61.2
D84 =
92.5
D95 =
124.6
Dioo =
362.0
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn Si V/Clay 1 Sand 1 6Tavel I Cobble Bouldu B: rock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
,
1
0.01
0 1 1
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
100 1000
10000
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 10
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
7
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
10
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
22
Very Coarse
32
45
27
27
49
Very Coarse
45
64
24
24
73
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
11
11
84
Small
90
128
9
9
93
Large
128
180
3
3
96
Large
180
256
3
3
99
......................................
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
0
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
26.9
D3, =
37.7
D50 =
45.7
D84 =
90.0
D95 =
160.7
Dioo =
362.0
-Jnn SR/day
Carpenter Branch
Pebble Count
J Sand
Reach 1, Cross -Section 10
Particle Distribution
1 Gravel J Cobble
;
Bd©k
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
,Bould
.
0.01
0 1 1
I
10 100 1000
Particle Class Size (mm)
I
10000
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 12
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
9
Coarse
22.6
32
21
21
30
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
48
Very Coarse
45
64
27
27
75
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
16
16
91
Small
90
128
6
6
97
Large
128
180
1
1
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
......................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
6
lPJ
Medium
512
1024
100
L
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
25.4
D3, =
35.2
D50 =
46.2
D84 =
77.5
D95 =
113.8
D1oo =
256.0
Carpenter Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn Slyday J Sand 1 Gravel J Cobble Bd©k
;
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
•
•Bould
•
ii,
• •
._.•
i.........._.____..__.
0
0.01 0 1 1
,
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
100 1000
,
10000
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
38
38
38
38
SP4O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
43
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
44
Medium
0.25
0.50
44
Coarse
0.5
1.0
44
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
44
4i,
6‘
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
44
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
44
Fine
4.0
5.6
44
Fine
5.6
8.0
44
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
45
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
46
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
1
4
4
50
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
7
57
Very Coarse
32
45
10
1
11
11
68
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
17
85
,zV0
CDC
Small
64
90
10
10
10
95
Small
90
128
4
4
4
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D3, =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
22.6
Ds,=
62.7
D95 =
90.0
D1oo =
362.0
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn 9V/Clay I Sand 1 Gavel i Cobble Boulder I Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
—
+
j•
-I I
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT1, Cross -Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
0
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
9
Coarse
22.6
32
22
22
31
Very Coarse
32
45
26
26
57
Very Coarse
45
64
26
26
83
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
13
13
96
Small
90
128
4
4
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
......................................
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
6
lPJ
Medium
512
1024
100
L
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
25.2
D35 =
33.7
D55 =
41.1
D84 =
65.7
D95 =
87.7
D1oo =
128.0
UT1, Cross -Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
dy 1 Sand 1Gravel lBoulder B: rock
'inn�e•,
,
iulati
i
it
0.01
0 1 1
T
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
i i
100 1000
1
10000
111MV0 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
37
38
38
38
SP4O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
42
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
45
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
47
Coarse
0.5
1.0
47
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
47
JiV
6‘
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
47
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
48
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
54
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
60
Very Coarse
32
45
12
1
13
13
73
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
84
,zV0
CDC
Small
64
90
8
8
8
92
Small
90
128
8
8
8
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D3, =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
11.0
D8 =
64.0
121s5 =
102.7
D1oo =
128.0
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn S1/Clay 1 Sand 1 Gavel i Co ble. Boulder I Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
._•
0 I I r I
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
35
35
35
35
SP4O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
38
Fine
0.125
0.250
38
Medium
0.25
0.50
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
39
JiV
6‘
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
39
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
39
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
43
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
46
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
1
4
4
52
Coarse
22.6
32
5
1
6
6
58
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
18
76
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
13
89
,zV0
CDC
Small
64
90
9
9
9
98
Small
90
128
2
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D3, =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
19.0
D8 =
55.9
121,5 =
80.3
D1oo =
128.0
UT3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
I nn S V/day I Sand I Gavel i Co blew Boulder I Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
_•
0 I I r I
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT3, Cross -Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
SQ$O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
4(,,\'
e
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
9
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
11
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
25
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
45
Very Coarse
45
64
31
31
76
'ZiF'
CO'
Small
64
90
15
15
91
Small
90
128
7
7
98
Large
128
180
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
......................................
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
512
1024
100
0
Medium
1024
2048
100
Large/Very Large
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
25.6
D3, =
37.9
D50 =
47.6
D84 =
76.8
D95 =
110.1
D100 =
362.0
UT3, Cross -Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
inn SIV/day 1 Sand 1 Gravel J Cobble Boulder
Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
,
1
'
0.01
0 1 1
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
100 1000
10000
MVO 08/2021

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
UT4, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
35
37
37
37
SP4O
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
15
16
16
53
Fine
0.125
0.250
53
Medium
0.25
0.50
53
Coarse
0.5
1.0
53
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
53
4i,
6‘
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
53
Fine
4.0
5.6
53
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
54
Medium
8.0
11.0
54
Medium
11.0
16.0
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
57
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
64
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
12
76
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
87
,zV0
CDC
Small
64
90
7
7
7
94
Small
90
128
3
3
3
97
Large
128
180
1
1
1
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D3, =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.1
D8 =
58.1
12195 =
101.2
D1oo =
512.0
UT4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Inn SV/Clay I Sand I Gavel i Cobble Boulder• I Bedrock
Percent Cumulative (%)
O O O O O O O O O
--
f
• •
/
•
•
•
e
0 ..,_
0 I I r I
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO 08/2021

Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
DESIGN MONITORING BASELINE
AL (MVO)
Parameter
Carpenter Branch R1
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.2
1
7.5
9.2
12.2
6
Floodprone Width (ft)
14.2
1
17.0
26.0
44.4
68.1
6
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
1
0.6
0.5
0.8
6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.2
6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
7.0
1
4.4
5.3
8.2
6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
1
12.5
14.4
22.7
6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1
2.2
3.5
4.6
5.6
6
Bank Height Ratio
3.4
1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
6
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
37 / 90
32 / 81
46
61
6
Rosgen Classification
G4
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14.0
14.0
14.0
Sinuosity
1.1
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0130
0.0120
0.0109
Other
--
--
--
Parameter
UT1
Riffle Only
Min Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.1
1
5.0
8.0
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
4.2
1
11.0
18.0
55.5
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
1
0.4
0.3
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1
0.5
0.6
0.6
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
1.8
1
1.9
2.3
1
Width/Depth Ratio
5.2
1
12.5
27.6
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1
2.2
3.5
6.9
1
Bank Height Ratio
6.1
1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
-
41
1
Rosgen Classification
G4/5
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6.8
6.0
6.0
Sinuosity
1.1
1.3
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0258
0.0200
0.0153
Other
--
--
--
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the
floodplain.
2. Channel slope is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
PRE-EXISTING MONITORING BASELINE
CONDITIONS DESIGN (MVO)
Parameter
UT3
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min I Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.5
1
6.0
8.4
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
1
13.0
21.0
52.6
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
1
0.5
0.6
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
1
0.6
0.8
0.9
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.8
1
2.9
5.1
1
Width/Depth Ratio
31.9
1
12.0
14.0
1
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A
1
2.2
3.5
6.2
1
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
-
48
1
Rosgen Classification
G4/5
C4b
C4b
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6.2
8.0
8.0
Sinuosity
1.0
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0260
0.0230
0.0237
Other
---
--
1. ER for the baseline/monitoring parameters are based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the
floodplain.
2. Channel slope is calculated from the surface of the channel bed rather than water surface.
(---): Data was not provided, N/A: Not Applicable

{§
;§
o
°§
§
a
Cross -Section 5 (Pool) I Cross -Section 6 (Riffle) I Cross -Section 7 (Riffle) I Cross -Section 8 (Pool)
§
nch Reac
Cross -Section 11 (Pool) Cross -Section 12 (Riffle)
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§/§)/:)
§/§//m§
§§§}§nc
. nch Reach 1
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
}�}}��
2/8}/�^
2j�}jm:
Carpenter Br
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
§
§
Cross -Section 9 (Pool) Cross -Section 10 (Riffle) .
§
Cross -Section 14 (Riffle)
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
2j�jj6"6
20
oo°
.
2}8}}�,
2/�j/mz
{§
;§
)§
°§
§
§
§
Cross -Section 13 (Riffle)
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§/§//:\
§/§//;/
§)§))m)
§/§//m;
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation'
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)I
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Areal
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)I
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)I
I
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Areal
Thalweg Elevation
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)I
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftz)I
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull' Area
Bank Height Ratio - Based on AB Bankfull' Area
Thalweg Elevation'
LTOB2 Elevation
LTOB2 Max Depth (ft)I
LTOB2 Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)

APPENDIX D. Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 10. Project Activity and Reporting History
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
ctivity or Deliverable
Data Collection Complete
Task Completion or
Deliverable Submission
Project Instituted
N/A
October 9, 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved
December 2020
December 2020
Construction (Grading) Completed
N/A
July 2021
Planting Completed
N/A
February 2022
As -Built Survey Completed
August -September 2021
September 2021
Baseline Monitoring
Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
August -September 2021
April 2022
Vegetation Survey
February 2022
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Table 11. Project Contact Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 0 - 2022
Designer
Eric Neuhaus, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
828.774.5547
Construction Contractor
Wildlands Construction, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Seeding Contractor
Canady's Landscape & Erosion Control, LLC.
Nursery Stock Supplies
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Herbaceous Plugs
Wetland Plants, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Monitoring, POC
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754

APPENDIX E. Record Drawings and Sealed As -Built Survey

Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
for
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
N
Vicinity Map
Not to S:le
Environmental
Quality
RECORD DRAWINGS
APRIL 1, 2022
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
Project Overview
General Notes and Symbols
Stream Plan and Profile
Carpenter Branch
UT3
UT2
UT1
UT4
Wetland Overview
Planting Sheets
Project Directory
0.1
0.2
0.3
2.0
3.0-3.4
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Eric Neuhaus, Project Engineer
865-207-8835
Surveying:
Turner Land Surveying
P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Elisabeth G. Turner, PLS
919-827-0745
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Matthew Reid
828-231-7912
DMS Project No. 100090
Catawba River Basin 03050102
USACE Action ID
No. SAW-2018-02062
NCD W R #20190049
H

/\
CE-
wF
BRIAN ONEIL BUMGARNER &
CHERYL M. BUMGARNER
D.B. 4786, PG.0,1
P.B. 050, PG. 072
PARCEL ID:157539
P.I.N. 3621-62-6,6
[N/ STA: 300+00 \
STA:100+00 UT2
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1 BEGIN RESTORATION F
BEGIN RESTORATION
SHEET 1.1.1
N/F \
DALTON MAUNEV & 3J
LUCILLE MAUNEV
.B. 2333, PG. 0534
M. 050, PG. 072
PA'. EL ID: 157538
G P.I.N.'621-61-2994
SHEET 2.0
SHEET 1.2.1
�F. A
STA: 200+00
l
C BEGIN STEP -POOL BMP
STA: 400+00
UT T BEGIN RESTORATION
SHEET 1.1.2
SHEET 1.5.1
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
REACH
STARTING STATION
NORTHING
EASTI NG
CARPENTER BRANCH RE,,CH 1
100,00
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 2
000+00
300+00
200+66
UTO
501+70
06+00
soo.00T' 014
STA: 501+74
UT4
BEGIN RESTORATION
SHEET 1.4.1
STA: 200+66
UT1
END STEP -POOL BMP
BEGIN RESTORATION
\F
N/F
ANNETTE POOLE &
WILBUR POOLE
D.B. 2333, PG. 0531
P.B. 050, PG. 072
PARCEL ID:157537
P.I.N. 3621-61-8033
SHEET 1.1.3
SHEET 1.1.4
N/F
DIANE CARPENTER &
WADE CARPENTER M.
D.B. 2333, PG. 0522
P.B. 050, PG. 072
PARCEL ID:157536
P.I.N. 3621-70-11,
STA:123+00
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 2
END RESTORATION
BEGIN PRESERVATION
SHEET 1.1.5
- SHEET 1.1.7
SHEET 1.1.6
100' MDR 300'
rs
STA:126+53
CARPENTER BRANCH
END PRESERVATION
BEGIN NO CREDIT
SE L ; _
F. MEN

Pre-Contruction Features Design Features
X X
=111111=111111=111111
11I-111111-111111-1
PreconstructionProperty Line
PreconstructionAccess Easement
PreconstructionFence
Pre -construction Wetland
Pre -Construction Bedrock
Pre -Construction Treeline
Pre -Construction Tree
10+00
Design Alignment
100
Design Major Contour
Design Minor Contour
Design Culvert
Design Riffle
Design Mush Toe
Design Log Sill
Lea Design Log 1-Hook
O
LstosLEV Design Rock Sill
Design Rock Toe
a
IIIIII
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Design Hoodplain Pool
As -Built Features Monitoring Features
CE CE
SCE -IX
\J
As Built Thalweg Alignment
As -Built Bankfull
CE Recorded Conservation Easement
CE IX As- Built Internal Crossing
As Built Major Contour
As Built Minor Contour
As Built Culvert
LOD LOD As Built limits of Disturbance
As Built Fence
As -Built Riffle
As -Built Brush Toe
As Built Log Sill
o As -Built Log 1-Hook
a
IIIIII
As -Built Rock Sill
As -Built Rock Toe
As -Built Stream Crossing
As -Built Stabilized Outlet
As -Built Rip Rap
As -Built Farm Road
Wetland Reestablishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
As -Built Hoodplain Pool
As -Built Root Wads
XS.
> Monitoring Crass Section
�PP-tt PhotoPoint
✓ SG -It Stream Gage
▪ GWG. Groundwater Gage
▪ CG. Crest Gage
▪ BT BarotrolI
9322 —
VP.
— VEG
Vegetation Plot
NOTE:
1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN
WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
General Notes and Symbols
m

��L�I�
780
780
20' a0' 60'
775
775
DESIGN
GRADE
770
770
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
AS -BUILT
GRADE
765 765
100+00 100+50 101+00 101+50 102+00 102+50 103+00 103+50 104+00
-
S � \� / PP-lOe 3 ROOT WADS ADDED TO
INCREASE HABITAT DIVERSITY.
sG-3
NOTES:
1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
2. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UTZ IS ADDRESSED ON SHEET
CE� 3. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT3 IS ADDRESSED ON SHEET
I CEO 1.21.
OE�CE�
VP-3
\E6
BEGIN
REACHI
A:100+18-100+29 STA:100+94 - 101+15 S A
BRUSH T0E INSTALLED TO 8 BRUSH TOE INSTALLED TO ., 4. Ilp
INCREASE BANK STABILITY. INCREASE BANK STABILITY. 9 STA:101+94-102+21 S /
S BRUSH TOE I NSTALLED TO
S INCREASE BANK STABILITY. 9 -�
3
A / ' '
S :100+00 S 9 � IT�a
CARPENTER BRANCH 99 8 9 CARPENTER BRANCH T 9
-REsro RATION ^ REACH 1
ADD STABILIZED OUTLET TO
INCRE SE STABILITY AT CONFLUENCE.
mks,
SG y'P
101roo
Sheet Index
z
-✓
F� `'"' i *,
Sheet1.1.1
SSTALLE+18 L .,
ROCK SILL INAs `,`. ��_ lO
GRADE CONTROL S22
~_� �1 O+
Sheet112
6W6 6
S3 .�_,S�
sG a „
_ STA: 103+15
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1 V'
STA:102+53 STA 301+78 _ l� - ._\
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1 — UT2 CONFLUENCE Q — — __
F-
STA CONFLUENCE
-lyp ,11\ L1T3 CONFLUENCE I ,
GOl—OOI�9j oiaoi\1 Z0 aoT�ao7
44P �O = 3J-3J�BD \G°8-
L
0/ .
Sheet 1.1.3
? Sheet 1.1.4
Sheet1.1.5
Sheet 1.1.6 Sheet 1.1.7

02' 4' 6'
ryemirn4
JJ5
JJ5
0' 20' 40' 60'
z Q_i)_-Q
JJO
DESIGN
GRADE
770
J/%
/
AS
-BUILT
GRA
E
765
�
\
�
765
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
760 760
104+00 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 107+00 107+50 108+00 108+50
\ NOTE:
1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED. \
/ „ CE CE
\ CE CE E _ JJp
O \ CE
\ � CE Cj �`OOc CEO CEO CEO
C / CARPENTER BRANCH �\
[E/
'E-Q .44 � �� INCRBEASE BANK STABILITY.
n 0
����
��'
REACH Z j
- _
srAa06+55
j 0 STA:107+04-107+37
j OUTLET TO. STABILIZE - \_LOB
LANDINSTALLED
= �P ,1r =
A MATERIAL AVAILABILITY.
/;
,o' /
aP'a� Sheet Index
\ ULOG SILL OMITTED DUE
TO ADEQUATE STABILITY.
�
m
\ w ET//
[
1
Sheet 1.1.1
Sheet 1.1.2
Sheet 1.1.3
INI
J— O`b-xxo_ _-� "_' "_-
ao—ao—ao
eet1.1.4
sTA:1o4+a4-1o4na � » aoi—oo7
aJ aP�BCREASE EADDED TOl00 J� 3J�j�{�
0 3J�
\ INCREASE BANK STABIY: �— ] 7(� J�3 3J
Y/
3J �.
Sheet1.1.5
\ �OOI_3on4_ p0 ��
33
0 Ae('
Sheet 1.17
o
oo aJ�
00 1 $;5 _ Ol 00l /
,x
Sheet 1.1.6

02'
20' 40' 60'
NOPEONTAW
765
//\\
STA:
+15
13+00
765
LOWERED
PROFILE WAS LOWERED DUE TO LOW AREA
DUEy
IN THE LO NANDSTR
DRAINAGE
THE
TO TH
E CCNSFRUCTED
CONSTRUCTED
CHATE
CHANNEL
NNEL
j�
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
ESIGN
GRADE
V
AS -BUILT
GRADE
755
755
108+50 109+00
109+50 110+00 110+50 111+00 111+50 112+00 112+50 113+00
_E\ S
OE �0.1R10
CE\-B I G3 EEP-POOL
NOTES:
STA. 200+66
-, / p�—LOD�� \C. I 1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
00 `_Q END UTl- STEP -POOL BMP F 2 AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT115ADDRESSED ON SHEET
BMP �,Xl — BEGIN UTI-RESTORATION \C
F IO 3. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT4 ISADDRESSED ON SHEET
1s.1.
—Lo LODES
- _
i<W/ _ UT7 LOD \
% Z, WD
��•/ �p� p'j-cE
CIS✓
STA. 111+83-112+08 Q
era pD 6E—CE�--CE—CE—CE—C
6
,C
PP9 \� LOD
EXTRA MATERIALAVAIIABILITV. 1lA F
.
-_-
e °> gyp' \� CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1 4Z�-`
.11 Po:6
qyl 0� STA 202+41 J
j +
n •
z
,:
__
✓
✓
✓�
✓
✓
ye0+° °
YP \ UTI CONFLUENCE ENCE
\ qq' 1 �� /
/ \v\ \. 3-STA'.111+93
/ - g %5"y 41 LOG SILL ADDED TO -
i S62 PROVIDE GRADE_ �60 mo STA'. 112+39
— — - — — -CONTROL. LOG SILL MOVED FROM STA 112+36
G CARPENTER BRANCH j-`' ° TO PROVIDE GRADE CONTROL.
REACH 1 ,- -13,, =
F` aer 11z+DD
I=wri
I -- dal,
S VP-9
-- \\`C\
✓
`,6$�,
/ ,»o',
3
D >0
0
3J
���
.
'A
L GO#W. '� LOG SILL AND STABILIZED r
C44/d' 5 OUTLET INSTALLED TO
�� : �~ STABILIZE FLOW FROM/
,- J ��PP 12 FLOODP LAIN POOL.
STA'. 501,4 i ky( D' .J STA'110+50
BEGIN UT4-RESTORATION ��
e ENTER BRANCH REACH 1 rO
(\ STA45C0N1 --o �
\ US CONF NCE�_�_
°p1
mow:
,
�
=��
?`-�
'
OOl YO '� e• 1.
STA.112+36-112+C8
BRUSH TOE ADDED O
INCREASE STABILITY.
�-
11
1 Sheet111
Sheet1.1.3
Z Sheet 1.1.4
Sheet 1.1.5
IOOI� � FLOODPLAIN POOL ADDED TO PRESERVE 3J ,�3J 3J
/x/x��3J� / RELIC CHANNEL MEANDER FEATURE 3J II 33---__3J_____
/ WITH EXISTING MATURE VEGETATION.
Sheet 1.1.6 Sheet 1.1'7

IYEELIEW
765
765 0' 20' 40' 60'
STA'.
113+00
-1
3+83
z
PROFILE
IN TH
WAS
FLOODPIAIN
OWERED
DUE
AND
TO
TO PROMOTE
OW AREA
760
DRAINAGE
TO
THE CONSTRUCTED
CHANNEL.
760
AS -BUILT
GRADE
-
v
�/
`\
755
`—/
755
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
DESIGN
GRAD
!%
'�`
�\i
750 ]SO
113+00 113+50 114+00 114+50 115+00 115+50 116+00 116+50 117+00 117+50
78
\ D OTE:
/C� I 1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILLBE SHOWNIN RED.
( 2. CRESF GAGE ADDED AFTER SURVEY WAS CO LLECTEDTO
CEO MONITOR BANKFULL EVENTS.
11 C L D�LOD LOD LO6—LO LOp� �i /CE//
— CE— CE— CE-7— CE — CSTA. 112+92-113+16 CE LOD CE CE — CELL F r 060 D�LOD `UOD CE
D—LODE— LOD I BRUSH TOE ADDED DUE TO �D�LOD� 8�— J E __ SCE77)
M
EXTRA MATERIALAVAlIA81LIT'. / E�CE E�CE CE/�
REACH 1 cE�cE 'cc—
ER BRANCH
sTA. 114.60
3C \ LOG 1-HOOK MOVED FROM STA 114+01 I
LOG SILL AND STABILIZED
VP-8 \\111 TO INCREASESTABILITYDOWNSTREAM __
_OUTLET ADDED TO STABILIZE
OF FLOODPIAIN POOL CONFLUENCE. - __ ____ - CE 1557
/ FLOO EDP POOL LUEN
_
s / la
T S
/
Sheet Index
- -° PP-3"' u. \ BEGIN INTERNAL
kLy-J
3J�3J�
- - '` v Pp
�+7
e. STA. 115+10-115+37 -,
ouV '� BRUSH TOE ADDED TO
01 INCREASE STABIL,.
O
_
ADDE
� ,4 . e POOL DCONOFSSTABILIZEWLDOWNSTREAMENO
UENCE EZF LOODPLAN \ •, FL STABILITY
IN POOL
N �
tnl STA'. 115+59-115+95 \
utBRUSH TOE ADDED TO \ BRUSH TOE
zl INCREASE STABILITY. 116+68 FOR
3J�3J_ ���3J�3J�3J-4D 3D , 3D 3J�3J�3J �3J�3J� JDO��DODO
a _3 _ �3
�,
O
i
00)-'-O7\0p7 O 8-1
e-t
I �\ �
STA'. 116+69-116+99 33'
REPLACED LOG 1-HOOK AT STA O y"A�z
ADDITIONAL BANK STABILITY. O q��
en` IQ
I�
'iT Sheet 1.1.1
Sheet1.1.2
�\�<
r Sheet 1.1.3
Sheet 1.1.4
i
Sheet 1.1.5
Sheet 1.17
sheetl.lb

02'
0' 20' 40' 60'
260
760
755
755
AS -BUILT
GRADE
-
/
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
750
J50
DESIGN
6RA
E
c
\ /1/
`
- --
L
LIf-7-/l
745 745
117+50 118+00 118+50 119+00 119+50 120+00 120+50 121+00 121+50
ooi o Noce
IO (F' 1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
n
oD� •a
F, CE_CE—CE—CE I.11 _CE—CE
SO4 IA D CE�CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE— Ic-1
Q CE-06— IQ
�/ 0 IASCE— LOp,__LOD �,^^—L0/ LOD--L0D—L00--- 1-
D LOD LOD-
, . cE�CE�E ,�' �
' '� BRANCH REACH 1 °per ='� z
21
Q�
— — 48 CMP
-� __- 52.2)
IN
l
G CARPENTER
.- '... Aso _----- - -----
x H "- _ _ _-_ - - — -_— --_ — — -, — - IQ
.'%INV. OUT.. )52.20 -..
•
I�-1ifl
j ® CA
/
':.
Ba6..
i
IS PPAA/ Oµ a
I ♦ '� _Ili — — .� It
SE. ♦
m.�ayri. "• V I Sheet Index
/ �/it!
wr It
-. -
ti.`VIA
I
_
ES1A. 118 80 -. ��
]5
Sheet 1.1.1
y'+
END\NTERNAL CROSSING£
J
Sheet
STA:118+30
BEGIN INTERNAL CROSSING
05.
•}
1' �
Ii ..
9
-- ---- _ ]50 _ _
_ \
\ ` Ar VF
Sheet1.1,3
_ ���
-�-
-
.li:1
- ,--'
- S1A: 120+17-120+30
BRUSH TOE ADDED TO BRUSH TOE DDED DUE TO
AO.1TPPLGPI
STABILITY. EXTRA MATERIAL AAVA GF
\
- . V SASE
3 / �/
—3C—�3C -Y—
33 —3C 1C�
(_ —39— 3C-3C-39— �_ I
Sheet 1.1.4
Sheet115
_ _
'155 00l
-r. ew-'» 604-0p1- 00} ❑0 d0
11001---00-1 BPl
90l .. 4
0
/ \ _-- �el_ FLOODPLAIN POOL NOT INSTALLED I
DUE TO SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON -SITE
/ 60 �1 TO PROVIDE CUT/FILL BALANCE. I
1�
Sheet 1.1.6 Sheet l.l.%

755
755
20. 4-0. 60.
750
AS
-BUILT
GRA
E
750
745
DESIGN
GRADE
PRE
-CONSTRUCTION
GRADE
`\
t
J45
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
V
\.~1
740 740
121+50 122+00 122+50 123+00 123+50 124+00 124+50
% a � k / NOTE:
CF-
\ 1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
25e
m.`tea` .
ii II
.SO \ ��
�1 3,
\
_
—C,- a
' y
�A\
L\
/�
��
/ F\
3i�e—�j �F
p
e
`off
` STA:122+13-122+33
BRUSH TOE ADDED
/ au, INCREASE STABILITY.
/
�OQ
�)
k� l
k�N �CE�'
CE�CE�CE
x /
E /CEO@E
�— a y
/
r y y
TO
�v y y
STA:122+39-122+84
44 LINEAR FEET OF CHANNEL WAS PP-6
RE -ALIGNED TO ALLOW WRTREES ON \ I /
LEFT BANK TO BE SAVED. THIS 1
\ REALIGNMENT SHORTENED THE
/
CHANNEL LENGTH TO 38 LINEAR FEET. M i /Bp — t/!
/ \— Sheet Index
�
Dx m /� P-9
, _ �/
CARPENTER BRANCH /
�40 REACH 2
Sheetll.I
EG > ,, - ;
yf;'\ J
.� �,
Sheet 1.1.2
O STA:122+42" =` l5°
ti ROCK SILL OMITTED _
P -' o
DUE TO CHANNEL"'- _,_ - . _ _� y-
5 /b RE -ALIGNMENT.
\4On /
Sheet 1.1.3
(` / STA:122+66 - 122+91 �� '--- ®
/ BRUSH TOE ADDED TO �',) SFA:123+00
INCREASE STABILITY. STA:122+45 - 122+69 END CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1-RESTORATION �Q _3-
�/ i BRUSH TOE ADDEDTO _ BEG IN CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 2-ENHANCEMENT III 3ii�33
�G/ INCREASE STABILITY DUE TO— _
p0 CHANNEL REALIGNMENT.��� /2
Z Sheet 1.1.4
Sheet 1.1.5
CV//Q
// Q N60 �_3J .� 3�l ��
I
/ 0 ° Q
Sheet 1.1.6 Sheet 1.1.7

02'
745
745 NERT.L1
20' 40' 60'
V\
ti`
\
740
740
A
_
/
\
735
\�
,./...
1
�k_
\
/\
/
1
J35
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
Carpenter Branch
Stream Plan and Profile
1/�
J
1e/N1
1
PRE
-CONSTRUCTION
GRADE
^ \
730 730
124+50 125+00 125+50 126+00 126+50 127+00 127+50 127+78
NOTE:
1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
_ CE 7 / yy y T I
r\ /
/
yy yvv y yO -/- l
PP-6 J t\
O / /
/ 'i \ 125 �A
_ 1 /
CARPENTER BRANCH / \ i PP
oa REACH 2 //
O / \k� STA'. 126+53
O / END CARPENTER BRANCH
REACH 2-ENHANCEMENT III \ - /
(n BEGIN NO CREDIT \ f
,OO /
® ,On / N 3D 33 —� \ l7 x
sTA. 123+00 / a3�3��3�� .� PPa4 ., o� / Sheet Index
END CARPENTER BRANCH REACH I -RESTORATION _ 3
BEGIN CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 2-ENHANCEMENT 111L�3J 3J�
— 4 / jN\ \5
2
/ Z'44.\ /
xtj \/
'V STA.127+n G
/ END CARPENTER BRANCH
/ \,Vj REACH 2-NO CREDIT
/ '44.
xt r280
/
/ A�
J
1
Sheet 1.1.1
Sheet 1.1.2
Sheet 1.1.3
Sheet 1.1.4
Sheet 1.1.5
Sheet 1.1.6 Sheet 1.1.7
L

785
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1
785 20040' 60'
I
ry AL,
N OPE
I
PRE-CONT3RUCTIONGRADE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I
80
■r
l':i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1
780
■I.L®IIII.
��'AS-BUILT
■■■■■■■
GRADE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1
Ed
Er
®1_■i■iii■l
■■■■■■■■i■Lii'i■l
PII
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
775
■■■■■■■■■■
DE�6®■iWill
■NU
■i■l
JJS
Mil
MUM
IMELIIIIIII
I
iiiiiiii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ii■l
770 770
400+00 400+50 401+00 401+50 402+00 402+50 403+00 403+50 403+85
00
,
\.V
a
< \
\ G
.1, O PP 11
0M0 :.�
y��`A9�
' ✓'
GWG-6
/
y
1 nCnn y i
1 `!� '!A y y
'9C FA, y
V
y ZOZ (,b '1 T�Cn /
SG-ly `j '! y y
tic
PP-� wJ
/.1Dz
STA 403 54
ADEQUATE OMITTEDDUE O
ADEQUATE TABILITY
DOWNSTREAM L0 1-HOOK.
/ •, '�`
NOTES:
X 1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
y v 2. ASBUILT INFORMATION FOR CARPENTER BRANCH IS
y ( ADDRESSED ON SHEETS1.1.1 THROUGH 1.1.7
\563 3. ASBUILT INFORMATION FOR UT215ADDRESSED ON SHEET
PP-10 1.3.1.
er N v
y y
OS
"� Sheet Index
,,.
0•J QQ� O ��', ..®_<...r SGA/P .. o'�OG s�`
k� .,.,."
•
2+00
STA. 400+00 o „ Qe
.V 0 '\__00 .® 40Qsv STA.. 102+53
BEGIN UT3-RESTORATION .9, \ i ••
� CARPENTER BRANCH REACH
� �• � ' sTA4oe+z3 STA 4o3+as
00)} UT3 CONFLUENCE
LOG SILLOMITreD DUE To
.9, ADEQUATE STREAM STABILITY
\STA'. 402+23 ADEQUATE AT THIS LOCATION. 4f L� `" 1 0,,
.1,~�'^S
j LOG SILL OMITTED DUE TO
ADEQUATE STREAM STABILITY /y�(h) CARPENTER
/ �`J
ii
J:<
STA'. 103+15,
BRANCH REACH I
I�
Ili
4
Sheet1.2.1 d Sheet 1.3.1
Sheet 1.5.1 t Sheet 1.4.1
AT THIS LOCATION. J STA 301+78
\.VO 6 UT2 CONFLUENCE
-33 33 33-33-33-33
\ / / 0
_3J-
� � p0
O. 33-33-33-33-33
00, � ,VO 00
�001
y

790
790 IVEWPP4
20. 40. 60.
PROFILE WAS
AS WAS
LOWERED
A DESIGN
ED
FROM
FROM
STATION
PRIOR
N3
C
NST-301+J9
+00-30TION.
THE GRA
ING
WAS
DATE
TO B
TTER
FIT INTO
THE
A
JJ5
EXISTING
VALLEY
TOPOGRAPHY.
JJ5 !i
ESIGN
GRADE
—�—J
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
UT2
Stream Plan and Profile
AS -BUILT
GRADE
765 765
300+00 300+50 301+00 301+50 301+78
-44
111 o r
\C6. /GE �„¢F�
a a a a / a ` `�'^o
O a a a a CF 1
a a a < a y53
' a a a -�
a a
s a a a a/ a a a r� lJl✓
a V a a �
GWG-e a a
/ �
�~Op
a
a /�> 6 W 6-J a
NOTES:
1. DEVIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
0
—� 2. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR CARPENTER BRANCH IS
�' JEG ADDRESSED ON SHEETS 1.1.1 THROUGH 1.1.7
t 3. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT3 ISADDRESSED ON SHEM
1 �. 1.21.
VP-7
p / STA. 300+12 a a
ROCK SILL MOVED FROM STA 300+37 1/,
FOR BETTER GRADE CONTROL a V a `JU !
a UT2 pO
/ a PP low':
�LL ro °
Soo 00 . o � Sheet Index
STA
BEGIN UT2-RESTORATION
a
a a a
03*� �
3000� ~ 0
'' a S� "'
a a a STA. 103+15
a a a'. 4, CARPENTER BRANCH REACH
a a - STA 301+79 '°
a a a UT2 CONFLUENCE
i 1
Sheet 1.2.1 Sheet 1.3.1
a
a a � -- 7 0°S
a a
a a a a _r•.- a. a a� ,`� �,� ,��
Sheet/ �t. Sheet
t1.5.1
\ J
��°Q
�Q!° ti PP-1
D GP ,C
,
ft
STA'. 102+53
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1
STA 403+95
L I
UT3 CONFLUENCE
n ° T
o
t
a a a a a
{

02' ' 6'
ryemirn4
770
770
O. 20' 40' 60'
Z
765
AS
BUILT
GRADE
765
760
760
DESIGN
GRADE
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
UT1
Stream Plan and Profile
755 755
200+00 200+50 201+00 201+50 202+00 202+41
/E
E
E
E/
E/ /� CEO CEO
E/ CE�CE_
6' CE�CE�
--6 6'
\x X `Op C�II4���
�X� --6, CE/ -_� 1
\ OO— STA. 111+09
,�. Z$TA'. 200+66 JD CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1 _
6' ENDUT1-STEP-POOL BMP STA202+41
X� / BEGIN UT1 RESTORATION UTI CONFLUENCE
x�x ��' �UT1- —
CE
/ ' / NOTES:
D.
1. DEVIATIONSS-BUILFRO MTHN FOR N WILL CARPENTER
0 OWN IN BRANCH IS
0. `0D/ 2. ADDRESST DON SHEETS FOR THROUGH
C,E � //� ADDRESSED ON SHEETS 1.1.1 THROUGH I.I.J
��� V' 3. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT4 IS ADDRESSED ON SHEET
/ GE 1.5.1.
i 4. PHOTO POINT WAS ADDED AFTER SURVEY WAS
/ VO� / COMP LETED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL VISUAL
;' -� MONITORING LOCATION ON UT1.
til
/ -- -.
j�P%y
2,9
_= "�
,
oD
STA. 20 J / j^ \ ! �O X �;
BEGIN UTl -STE �k�,- __I � ( h20100 \ ' \ �
t
am' i Sheet Index
/
STA. 199+95 - 200+00 G _ ; PP I'- b
RIFFLE ADDED TO STABILIZE STREAM
BED AFTER CULVERT REMOVAL.6'
�
`00 o
ao ,D U
1_,
.6"5"
0 100+p0
\- 3
^'h ®
�
/ J
g g
0
• — §$�ahy
._ i ice
P;
o P�P
o I
1
BEGIN
)\
\
PP-9A r
R
N C
� .> r
/z �s`
�Yq PP-1
� ~ _
STA'. 501+74
UT4-RESTORATION
>-
CARA�L�`n ��)_,3O
STA 502+10 X�X—X
UT4 CONFLUENCE
0°
o°
44444444'-)--444—
—
�—�
��-0
30
— —
/�o�
Sheet1.2.1 `dL Sheet1.3.1
Sheet 1.5.1 Sheet 1.4.1

02'
STA'. 50 +56-501+J5
PROFILE GRADE WAS RA SED TO TRANSITION Ivearirny
EXISTING GRADE TO PROPOSED GRADE.
20' 40' 60'
765
J65
xoaizorv.ez,
�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■M■■■■■
^;
Mina
majm
Er
II
II
■■■
IIIIIIIIIIIM
AS BUILT
GRADE
III
MM..
760
■■■
®II��
ESI
••
MOM
760
■■■
PRE-CONSTRUCTI
N GRADE
■■■■■MIIIPII®E■■■
IN
FI
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
DESIGN
GRADE
ra■■■
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site Record Drawings
Gaston County, North Carolina
755
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
755
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
750 150
500+00 500+50 501+00 501+50 502+00 502+20
\ 465 _ N � NOTES:
Ck JJJJJ
♦",24 p 1. DWIATIONS FROM THE DESIGN WILL BE SHOWN IN RED.
2. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR CARPENTER BRANCH IS
\ ADDRESSED ON SHEETS 1.1.1 THROUGH 1.1.7
3. AS -BUILT INFORMATION FOR UT115ADDRFSSED ON SHEET
It
y.Zz�, y
$ 00 63 �= V
P
1+1
TA' 501+74 UT4 ..\,_-----sG-2]'1,I, ///
BEGIN UT4-RESTDRATION bO oY p
p1k —� � ^ Sheet Index
sr
► sTA. a +oa
.1 PP-12 x q CARPEIVER BRANCH REACH 1
STA 202+ 1
500+�' \'.�0 111 00 UTI CON FL ENCE
0 � . A�
STA'. 110+50' "` \
CARPENTER BRANCH REACH 1 :$N
STA 502+10 R
UT4 CONFLUENCE pp
)\ •'l' ��
434,
II`S A
\\\F
\L•
Sheet 1.2.1 d / Sheet 1.3.1
Sheet1.5.1 IiiSheet 1.4.1
2 i,x 1y , \ . A \
to
L oid'�
II J 0p Y
l \

1
px�
1
1
I'•'1' I.
E� E vp0
Y'ET LOQ�=L00
a
so' ion iso.
thanzeatan
O
Wetland Re-establ ishmenc
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Over

Open Area Buffer Planting
Open Buffer Planting Zone Trees
Bare Root
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Acer negundo
Boxelder
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
369E119E
Plotonus
ccidentalis
Sycamore
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
15%
Betide nigro
River Birch
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
15%
Lirio dendron
tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACU
Quercus Phellos
Willow Oak
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
369E119E
Fagus
grandifolia
American
Beech
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACU
369E119E
Diospyros
virginiana
Persimmon
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
Populus
deltoides
Cottonwood
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
Total
90%
Alterna es
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
%
Acer
saccharinum
Silver Maple
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
%
Ulmus rubs
Slippery Elm
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
%
Open Buffer Planting Zone Small Trees / Shrubs
Bare Root
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Alms serruloto
Tag Alder
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
OBL
2%
omomeli
rg
Witch Hazel
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FACU
2%
Corms
Megwaa4 Silky
Dogwood
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sob Ca, muV
Shrub
'ACU FACW
2%
Lindero benzoin
Spicebush
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0„
Shrub
FAC
2%
amelonchier
arborea
Semiceberry
12ft.
6-12 ft.
025"-1.0"
Shrub
FAC
2%
Total
10%
Alterna es
Asima [globe
Pawpaw
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FAC
%
Carpinus
caroliniana
American
Hornbeam
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FAC
%
Partially Vegetated Buffer Area Planting
Partially Buffer Planting Zone Trees
>D�DD
D D r>
Bare Root
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
# of Stems
Carpinus
caroliniana
American
Hornbeam
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FAC
10%
Eu onymus
americana
Strawberry
Bush
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Shrub
FAC
10%
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FAC
10%
Fagus
grandifolia
American
Beech
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACU
10%
(Amus rubs
Slippery Elm
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
10%
Hamamelis
virginiana
Witchhazel
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FACU
10%
Calycanthus
floridus
Sueetshrub
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Shrub
FACU
10%
Corns Florida
Flowering
Dogwood
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FACU
10%
Asima triloba
Pawpaw
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
FAC
10%
Quercus rubs
Northern Red
Oak
12ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACU
10%
Total
100%
Wetland Planting
Wetland Planting Zone Trees
Bare Root
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
#of Stems
Plotonus
occidentalis
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
159E
Quercus
Pagoda
Cherrybadc Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
159E
Quercus
phellos
Willow Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
109E
Ulmus
ermana
American Elm
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
109E
Nyssosylootico
Black Gum
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
59'.
Quercus
mchouxii
Swamp
Chestnut Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
109E
Acer negundo
Boxel der
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
59'.
Celtic loevigoto
Sugarberry
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
5%
Betide nigro
River Birch
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
109E
Total
85%
Alternate
Acer Silver Maple 12 ft. 6-12 ft. 0.25"-1.0" Canopy FACW 09.
saccharimm
Wetland Planting Zone Small Trees/Shrubs
Bare Root
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
#of Stems
Alnus serruloto
Tag Alder
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
OBL
5%
Lindero benzoin
Spicebush
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Shrub
FAC
39'.
Cepholonthus
occidentalis
Buttonbush
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
OBL
5%
Sombucus
canadensis
Elderberry
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Shrub
FAC
29.
Total
15%
Alternate
Alnus serruloto l Tag Alder 1 12 ft. I 6-12 ft. I Tubling ISub-Canopy OBL 59.-09.
Partially Vegetated Wetland Planting
Partially Vegetated Wetland Planting Zone
Bore Root
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min.
Caliper
Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
#of Stems
Plotonus
occidentalis
Sycamore
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
159E
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
15%
Alnus serruloto
Tag Alder
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
OBL
15%
Acer negundo
Boxel der
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FAC
15%
Colds loevigoto
Sugarberry
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
15%
Cepholonthus
occidentalis
Buttonbush
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Sub -Canopy
OBL
15%
Quercus
mchouxii
Swamp
Chestnut Oak
12 ft.
6-12 ft.
0.25"-1.0"
Canopy
FACW
109E
TEMPORARY SEEDING
APPROVED DATE
TYPE
PLANTING
RATE (Ibs/acre)
Rye Gain (Seale Cereale)
120
Jan 1-May 1
Ladino clover(Trifolium Repens)
Crimson Clover(Trifolium inarnahim)
5
Straw Mulch
4,000
German Millet(Setorio ito(ico)
40
May 1-Aug 15
Ladino clover(Trifolium Repens)
Crimson Clover(Trifolium inarnahim)
5
Straw Mulch
4,000
Rye Gain (Secole Cereole)
120
Aug 15-Dec 31
Ladino clover(Trifolium Repens)
Crimson Clover(Trifolium inarnahim)
5
Straw Mulch
4,000
Riparian Corridor Planting
(Streambanks)
Streambank Planting Zone
live Stares
Species
Common
Name
Max
Spacing
Indio.
Spacing
Min. Size
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
%of Stems
Solix nigro
Black Willow
8 f.
6-8 f.
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
OBL
259E
Corms
amomum
Silky
Dogwood
8 ft.
6-8 fC
0.5"-1.5" cal.
Shrub
FACW
209E
Solissericeo
Silky Willow
8f.
6-8 f.
0.5"-1.5"cal.
Shrub
OBL
259E
Cepholo[hus
ccidentalis
Buttonbush
8ft.
6-8 f.
0.5"-1.5"cal.
Shrub
OBL
159E
Sombucus
canadensis
Elderberry
8ft.
6-8 ft.
0.5,1.5"cal.
Shrub
FAC
159E
Total
100%
Herb oreous Plugs
Amer,
ncus effusus
Common
Rush
5 ft.
3-5 ft.
1.0"-2.0" plug
Herb
mcw
409E
Corex crini[o
Fringed
Sedge
5ft.
3-5 ft.1.0"-2.0"plug
Herb
OBL
109E
Carex(undo
Lurid Sedge
5ft.
3-5 ft.
1.0"- 2.0" plug
Herb
OBL
209E
Carex lupulina
Hop Sedge
5ft.
3-5 ft.
1.0"-2.0"plug
Herb
OBL
159E
Scirpus
ryperinus
Wool grass
Sft
3-5 ft.
1.0"-2.0" plug
Herb
FACW
159E
Total
100%
Permanent Seeding
Riparian Seeding - Open Canopy
Pure Live Seed 120Ibs/ acre)
Approved Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
Density
(Ibs/acre)
All Year
Schizochyriumscoporium
Lille Bluestein
Herb
FACU
4.0
All Year
Ponicum virgotum
Suitchgass
Herb
FAC
2.0
All Year
Ponicum rigidulum
Redtop Panicgass
Herb
FACW
1.0
All Year
Rudbeckio hirto
Bladceyed Susan
Herb
FACU
1.0
All Year
Coreopsis lanceolate
Lanceleaf Coreopsis
Herb
FACU
1.0
All Year
Carex vulpinoideo
Fox Sedge
Herb
OBL
1.0
All Year
Ponicum clondestinum
Deertongue
Herb
FAC
2.0
All Year
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild Rye
Herb
FACW
2.0
All Year
Sorghastrum nutoru'
Indiangass
Herb
FACU
3.0
All Year
Bideru'oris[aso
Showy Tickseed
Sunflower
Herb
FACW
1.0
All Year
Helionthus ongustifolio
Narrowleaf Sunflower
Herb
FACW
1.0
All Year
Coreopsis tinctorio
Plains corepsis
Herb
FAC
1.0
Wetland Seeding - Open Canopy
Pure Live Seed 120Ibs/ acre)
Approved Date
Species Name
Common Name
Stratum
Wetland
Indicator
Density
(Ibs/acre)
All Year
Coleotoenio on ceps
Beaked Panicgass
Herb
FAC
3.0
All Year
Carex vulpinoideo
Fox Sedge
Herb
OBL
2.0
All Year
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wild Rye
Herb
FACW
4.0
All Year
Bid oristoso
Showy Tickseed
Sunflower
Herb
FACW
3.0
All Year
Ponicum cirgotum
Suitchgass
Herb
FAC
3.0
All Year
Polygonumpe,? ylvonicum
Smartweed
Herb
FACW
1.0
All Year
Juncus ffusus
Common Rush
Herb
OBL
2.0
All Year
Ponicum dicho tomiflorum
Smooth Panicgass
Herb
FACW
2.0
Stabilization Seeding
Stabilization Seeding
Pure live Seed (321bs/re)
Species Name
Common Name
Ibs/acre
Festucoarundlnarea
Fescue (KY 31)
20
Dactyl, glomera>
Orchard Gass
12
SE L f;
042660
IJ
No 2
0
G O
oz
ti
13
2 2
O �,tr�
1 V
561-3
�i
U

Y
▪ U42660
o, ▪ FA
o

o.
SN \66s
,A S S S S ��V S ,A oaem aaea su FFea awmrim�was NOT
S \ \ S \ \ - S V ,A TeAu'csoousrorss esraLLnnom
S , N S S va-s S \ `\ S S \ �` \ \ P. CIF F�000a�ai �w� \'\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\Po,GT�„�
�V x
Gs
\6w6-a \ \ \\\.�"\
WG-6 )
Zan J \ \ \ \ `\'
„rilf
7/1
coo
so'
Sheet Index
iso
¢¢¢FSE L�'
U42660
c

N
ILTJ
ZZ
2 / 1
U
-E-2 • 1 E-
E- E- E E E- E- E- E- E-
E E E
E�E�E�E-E-\X
r �
T
OPEN AREA BUFFER PLANTING WAS NOT
CONDUCTED DUE TO THE INSTALLATION
OF FLOODPLAIN POOL
OPEN AREA BUFFER PLANTING WAS NOT
CONDUCTED DUE TO THE INSTALLATION
OF FLOODPLAIN POOL.
120.
IHOPEONTAW
MATCH LINE - SHEET 3.4
Sheet Index
Sheet 3.2
Sheet 3.3
Sheet 3.4
se
F. U42660

MATCH LINE - SHEET 3.3
SFA:122+32-122+95
OPEN AREA BUFFER PLANTING CHANGED
TO RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PLANTING DUE
TO CHANNEL REALIGNMENT.
CARPENTER BRANCH
G-E
G�-
GE GE
3TA: 122+37 - 122+75
RIPARIAN CORRIDOR P W NTING CHANGED
TO OPEN AREA BUFFER PLANTING DUE TO
CHA NNEL REALIGNMENT.
40.
DPI
120.
128+00
128+07
Sheet Index
MOO
30
Cr)71-1

I, DAVID S. TURNER AS A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HEREBY CERT, THAT THE
DATA SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED UNDER SUPERVISION,
IAZT
REN° DNUMBER, AND 'EALTHIS 315E DAYF n N MARC 2022.
tiYCIA N�.
DAVID S. TUR ER
DAVID S. TURNER CERT, THAT THIS PROJECT NOS COMPLETED UNDER MY
DIRECT AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
STANDARDS: THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
CLASSFOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO THE HORIZONTAL THE VERTICAL ACCURACY WHEN APPLICABLE TO TRSTANDARCLASS
THE ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED IN AUG-SEPT 2021 • THAT THE SURVEY WAS
EPT 2021' AND ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON NAD83
COMPLETED
mDAL'L111ANALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAv084. WITNESS MY ORIGINAL
CENSE NUMBER, AND SEAL
THT SIGNATURE,
"DAY OF 11ARCH . 2022.
GENERAL NOT S:
1 ALL DISTANCES ARE HORIZONTAL UNLESS
2. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS DATUM IS NAVD38.
3. THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION,'OR CONVEYANCES AND DOES NOT COMPLY
WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS. VERTICAL4. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MAP IS TO SHOW THE AS -BUILT CONDITIONS OF THE CARPENTER
THE CONTROL NENVORK WAS ESTABLISHED BY TURNER LAND SURVEYING DURING THE
NO PROPERTY RESEARCH. INVESTIGATION, OR INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR ENCUMBERANCES.
A LICENSED ATTORNEY -AT -LAW SHOULD BE CONSULTED
nuE.As1 s orA ET owPERFORMED FOR THIS AnoN OF EASEMENTS AND OTHER TITLE
SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, ND/OR ENCUMBRANCES THAT MAY AFFECT
Tin RTHaSNOEs
NOT CERTI, TO THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES THAT MAY OR M. NOT ExIST WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES AS
SHOWN HEREON.
V) -BUILT f CONTROL
ENe ,g(leK2) D
LSp4N
L SHSN
LS#6NL
LSVN
NL
LS#IRONL
LSI1N
TLS#1.2NL
LSNI6NL
LSft24N
FLS#26NL
FL5#27NL
LSR28NL
749.32 LSA3IN
6.668035 32.22 78805 TLSp32NL 50 10438 LSH5020
L5p10
L8104
L0NL
L#10
107 611066.93 Iaz67saeD 767.2e rL506spt D7NL
CARPENTER BOTTOM
MITIGATION SITE
AS —BUILT
CARPENTER
BOTTOM
UT3
SHEET 4.2
iUT2
-SHEET2.1
SHEET 2.2
UTI
UT4
CARPENTER
BOTTOM
SHEET 3.1
SHEET 3.2
SHEET 4.1
2.
SURVEY FOR,
\JILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC
LICENSE NO. F-0B31
167-B HAYU/OOD RD
ASHEVILLE. NC 28806
ERIC NEUHAUS, PE PROJECT ENGINEER
865207-8835
AS -BUILT SURVEY PERFORMED BY
TURNER LAND SURVEYING, PLLC
AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2021
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES, OR CONVEYANCES AND
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.
REVISIONS, DATE AND INITIAL
AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR:
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
55
77
88
PL
Pg
8/29/2021
[SUPPE ED DST/EPG/EHK
DRAWN BY'.
EGT/DST
REVIEWED BY:
DST/EGT
PROJECT
19-020
[E BOTi 7 P. DWG
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
1of4

1, DAVID S. TURNER AS A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ,ND
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE DA, SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED UNDER
MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE REPRESENTATION
OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD, AND THAT THE
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS ARE AS -BUILT
CONDITIONS ExCEPT WHERE SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER WITNESSTHERWISE NOTED HEREON. AND SEAL
ANORIGINAL THIS
G
Dk./I, S. TURL ER, IR�C.S'- #L "AS51
L-4551
I, DAVID S. TURNER, CERTIFY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED
UNDER MY DIRECT AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY
PERFORMEDMADE UNDER HY SUPERVISION; THAT THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS
AT THE L
GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TO THE HORIZONTAL ACCURACY OF CLASS L, AND THE VERTICAL
ACCURACY WHEN APPLICABLE TO CLASS E STANDARD, AND THAT THE
TA ORIGINAL DAWAS OBTAINED IN A.-SEPT
WAS COMPLETED ON 1 SEPT 2011' AND ALL COORDINATES H ARE BASED
ON NADS3 (201 G) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVDBB.
MITNESS LICENSE NUMBER, AND SEAL
Ii�\T
DAVI S'. T.
GENERAL NOTES:
.SEE SHEET I FOR GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND:
. — . . _ THALWEG
- - TOP OF BANK/TERRACE
- - BANK TOE/TERRACE TOE
AS BUILT SURVEY LIMITS
FARM PATH
FENCELINE
—�— — CONSERVATION EASEMENT
nE CONTOURS
(✓YW1 TREELINE
TREE
0.MwIGwG
oPP1
A
TL3n12NL
LOG SILL
ROCK SILL
J-HOOK LOG SILL
ROODNAD
GRAVEL/GROSSING
RIPRAP/STONE
BEDROCK
BRUSH TOE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
CROSS-SECTION
STREAM GAUGE
MONITORING WELL/GROUND WATER GAUGE
PHOTO POINT
�NIVP2 VEGETATION OT PL
MOVEABLE VEGET TION PLOT
CONTROL POINT
Ztitttgial
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
SCALE: 1 Inch = 20 feet
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES, OR CONVEYANCES AND
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.
REVISIONS, DATE AND INITIAL
AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR:
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
8/29/2021
(CURVE ED D=T,cPB/EHR
DRAWN BY'.
LOT/DST
REVIEWED BY:
DST/EGT
PROJECT
19-020
[FILE:
2Rpg1T,DR,
DwG
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
2of4

1, DAVID S. TURNER AS A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ,ND
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE DA, SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED UNDER
MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE REPRESENTATION
OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD, AND THAT THE
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS ARE AS —BUILT
CONDITIONS EWITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. REGISTRATION NUMBER, AND SEALTHIS
DAVID S. TURNER, S.L-4551
22, 2 L-4551
I, DAVID S. TURNER, CERTIFY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED
UNDER MY DIRECT AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY
PERFORMEDMADE UNDER HY SUPERVISION; THAT THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS
AT THE L
GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TO THE HORIZONTAL ACCURACY OF CLASS 9 AND THE VERTICAL
ACCURACY WHEN APPLICABLE TO CLASS E STANDARD, AND THAT THE
TA ORIGINAL DAWAS OBTAINED IN A
WAS COMPLETED ON 1 SEPT DOR 1' AND ALL COORDINATES H ARE BASED
ON NADS3 (Z911) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVDBB.
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND SEAL
TFIS 1st DAY OF EI.ROH 2022 ,..
' V
DAVID S'. TURNER,
L.S. gL-a5 1
GENERAL NOTES:
.SEE SHEET 1 FOR GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND:
. — . . _ THALWEG
- - TOP OF BANK/TERRACE
- - BANK TOE/TERRACE TOE
AS BUILT SURVEY LIMITS
FARM PATH
FENCELINE
—�— — CONSERVATION EASEMENT
nE CONTOURS
(✓YW1 TREELINE
TREE
rwlowG
oPP1
A
TL3n12NL
LOG SILL
ROCK SILL
J—HOOK LOG SILL
ROONVAD
GRAVEL/GROSSING
RIPRAP/STONE
BEDROCK
BRUSH TOE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
CROSS—SECTION
STREAM GAUGE
MONITORING WELL/GROUND WATER GAUGE
PHOTO POINT
�NIVP2 VEGETATION OT PL
MOVEABLE VEGET TION PLOT
CONTROL POINT
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
ED
SCALE: I inch = 20 feet
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES, OR CONVEYANCES AND
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.
REVISIONS, DATE AND INITIAL
AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR:
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
22
PsLIB
30
8/29/2021
ISUM, ED DST/cPB/EHK
DRAWN BY'. EGT/DST
REVIEWED BY:
DSWEGT
PROJECT
19-020
re: aoTT _ owG
SCALE:
AS SHOWN
3of4

1, DAVID S. TURNER AS A EU, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LANE
SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HEREBY GEREF
THAT THE DA, SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING, WAS OBTAINED UNDER
MY SUPERVISION, IS AN ACCURATE AND COMPLETE REPRESENTATION
OF WHAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIELD, AND THAT THE
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OR ELEVATIONS SHOWN THUS ARE AS —BUILT
CONDITIONS EWITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE. REGISTRATION NUMBER, AND SEALTHIS
AY OF MARCH 2022. NEFF
DAVID 2. TUN E3
DAVID S. TURNER, CERTIFY THAT THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED
UNDER MY DIRECT AND RESPONSIBLE CHARGE FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY
PERFORMEDMADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION; THAT THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS
AT THE 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO MEET FEDERAL
GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
TO THE HORIZONTAL ACCURACY OF CLASS A AND THE VERTICAL
ACCURACY WHEN APPLICABLE TO CLASS P STANDARD, AND THAT THE
ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAINED IN A
WAS COMPLETED ON I SEPT OOZE AND ALL COORDINATES H ARE BASED
ON NAD83 (2010 AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NAVDBB.
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, LICENSE NUMBER, AND SEAL
THE I st DAY OF MARCH 2072
•/_
/•
I % V
DAVID S. TURNER, P/�.5.
GENERAL NOTES.
.SEE SHEET I FOR GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND:
. — . . _ THALWEG
- - TOP OF BANK/TERRACE
- - BANK TOE/TERRACE TOE
AS -BUILT SURVEY LIMITS
FARM PATH
FENCELINE
—�— — CONSERVATION EASEMENT
nE CONTOURS
(✓YW1 TREELINE
TREE
0-MwIGwG
oPP1
A
TL3n12NL
LOG SILL
ROCK SILL
J—HOOK LOG SILL
RoonvAD
GRAVEL/GROSSING
RIPRAP/STONE
BEDROCK
BRUSH TOE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
CROSS—SECTION
STREAM GAUGE
MONITORING WELL/GROUND WATER GAUGE
PHOTO POINT
�NIVP2 VEGETATION OT PL
MOVEABLE VEGET TION PLOT
CONTROL POINT
olip
I
Ffer
04
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
CE CE-- CE-- CE—CE—CE—CE— CE-- CE-- CE— CE — CE — CE—
AO
SCALE) 1 Inch = 20 feet
THIS MAP IS NOT FOR RECORDATION, SALES, OR CONVEYANCES AND
DOES NOT COMPLY WITH G.S. 47-30 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS.
CO
DO
CO
qjm
ro
N 9 3
3
3
REVISIONS, DATE AND INITIAL
AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR:
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
22
00
8/24/2021
[SUPPE ED131,,
T/cPe/EHK
DRAWN BY'.
LOT/DST
REVIEWED BY:
DEOEGT
PROJECT
19-020
[FILE:
2 DwG
SCALE.
AS SHOWN
4of4

APPENDIX F. Correspondence

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

4. The walk continued into the proposed wetland rehabilitation area, where two headwater ditches were
observed, and soils were double checked for consistency. A rehabilitation approach was discussed
including plugging of the existing drainage ditches, treatment of invasive vegetation (including but not
limited to hardy orange, Chinese privet, and white pine trees), wetland plantings, and cattle exclusion.
IRT members noted that a jurisdictional delineation will need to be done to verify the wetland
rehabilitation boundary, but overall, they agreed with the approach. Soils observed within the
rehabilitation area were consistent with previous soil borings taken within the re-establishment area.
5. NC Wildlife Resource Commission noted that there is potential habitat for a stream specific crayfish and
dwarf flowered heartleaf species on -site. Wildlands noted that they would look for these specific species
as part of the categorical exclusion and threatened and endangered species walks.
6. A soil boring was taken within the wetland re-establishment area west of Ditch 2 shown on the proposal
concept map. Soils were consistent with other observations on site and were deemed appropriate for
wetland re-establishment at the surface.
7. Overall, IRT members agreed with the proposed wetland restoration approach and proposed ratios of
1:1 for areas of wetland re-establishment and 1.5:1 for areas of wetland rehabilitation.
8. Wildlands will prioritize getting the jurisdictional delineation completed within the proposed wetland
rehabilitation area. Additionally, Wildlands will install groundwater gages throughout the wetland
restoration area prior to the 2019 growing season.
9. The walk continued south toward the headwater tributaries of Carpenter's Branch. IRT and NCDMS
representatives were shown the approximate location of intermittent and perennial stream calls based
on field mapping. It was discussed that these calls would be further refined as the project moved
forward, but generally intermittent and perennial calls presented in the proposal were agreed upon.
10. Ditch 1 shown on the proposal map east of the wetland rehabilitation area was discussed in detail.
Wildlands current proposed approach was to install channel plugs at various locations upstream of the
intermittent call to redirect drainage back into the adjacent proposed wetland area. It was noted that if
the channel was deemed jurisdictional above the current field call, Wildlands would either restore or
enhance the channel and include it within the proposed conservation easement.
11. The site walk continued to the headwaters and ultimately down the entire length of Carpenter's Branch.
Wildlands originally proposed all streams on -site including headwater tributaries, the entire length of
Carpenter's Branch, and UT1 for an enhancement II approach at a 2.5:1 credit ratio. After field
observations and discussions with the IRT, it was determined that the streams on -site need to be fully
restored using a priority I approach until an existing bedrock portion of the channel, which will be
proposed for a preservation approach. The change in approach will be incorporated by Wildlands and
updated crediting information will be supplied to DMS.
12. It was noted that a current culvert crossing over an unnamed tributary from the right floodplain will be
removed as part of the project. The portion of this channel within the proposed conservation easement
will be restored and tied to the proposed alignment of Carpenter's Branch as part of the project.
13. IRT members noted that a flow gage will need to be installed along UT1 to document continuity of flow
for the project reach, regardless of stream approach.
14. In addition to restoring Carpenter's Branch with a Priority I restoration approach, Wildlands agreed that
they would discuss putting the additional property (approximately 5.7 acres) on the right floodplain of
Carpenter's Branch within the proposed conservation easement with the property owner. This would
allow for an extended buffer along the right floodplain of Carpenter's Branch and allow Wildlands to
eliminate the proposed 30' internal culvert crossing shown in the proposal.
15. The IRT noted that the site could be a prime candidate for benthic and water quality monitoring with a
potential associated 2% credit bonus if property monitoring was carried out.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CARPENTER BOTTOM mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk
page 2

rtz
Environmental
Quality
To: DMS Technical Workgroup, DMS operations staff
From: Periann Russell, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
RE: Pebble count data requirements
Date: October 19, 2021
The DMS Technical Work Group met September 29, 2021 to discuss Interagency Review Team (IRT) and
DMS requirements for collecting pebble count data as part of monitoring (MYO-MYx). Agreement was
reached between all attending parties that pebble count data will not be required during the monitoring
period for all future projects.
Sediment data and particle distribution will still be required for the mitigation plan as part of the
proposed design explanation and justification.
Pebble counts and/or particle distributions currently being conducted by providers for annual
monitoring may be discontinued at the discretion of the DMS project manager. If particle distribution
was listed as a performance standard in the project mitigation plan, the provider is required to
communicate the intent to cease data collection with the DMS project manager. The absence of pebble
count data in future monitoring reports where pebble count data was listed as part of monitoring in the
mitigation plan must be documented in the monitoring report. The September 29, 2021 Technical Work
Group meeting may be cited as the source of the new policy.
The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary
during the monitoring period.

Kristi Suggs
From: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Kristi Suggs
Cc: Mimi Caddell
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
I am absolutely OK with not doing pebble counts anymore!
As stated in the memo, please add a statement in the monitoring reports citing the policy.
Thanks!
Matthew Reid
Project Manager — Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
`[4othi mores w
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Kristi Suggs [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:24 PM
To: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mimi Caddell <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Matthew,
Jason Lorch in our Raleigh Office forwarded this meeting memo to me. It says that conducting pebble counts for DMS
monitoring (MY0 — MY7) projects is no longer needed as long as it has been okayed by the DMS PM. Moving forward,
are you going to allow us to stop doing them on your projects? If so, will DBB projects be treated the same? Please let
me know. Thank you!
Kristi
1

Kristi Suggs I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
From: Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 9:05 AM
To: Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
FYI!
Jason Lorch, GISP I Senior Environmental Scientist
0: 919.851.9986 x107 M: 919.413.1214
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Russell, Periann <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:05 AM
To: King, Scott <[e-mail]>; Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J
CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>;
Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; grant lewis<[e-mail]>; Jeff
Keaton <[e-mail]>; katie mckeithan <[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell
<[e-mail]>; Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew
<[e-mail]>; Ryan Smith <[e-mail]>; Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>; Allen,
Melonie <[e-mail]>; Famularo, Joseph T <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Bryan
Dick <[e-mail]>; Ryan Medric <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning
<[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell <[e-mail]>; Worth Creech
<[e-mail]>; Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Dow, Jeremiah J
<[e-mail]>; Horton, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>; Ullman, Kirsten J
<[e-mail]>; Ackerman, Anjie <[e-mail]>; Blackwell, Jamie D
<[e-mail]>; Xu, Lin <[e-mail]>; Mir, Danielle <[e-mail]>; Corson, Kristie
<[e-mail]>; Russell, Periann <[e-mail]>; Sparks, Kimberly L
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Pebble Count Data Requirements
Please review the attached memo documenting the agreed upon policy for pebble count data requirements.
Please reply (me only) to this email if accept that this memo represents (or misrepresents) our discussion on Sept 29.
Thank you.
Periann Russell
Geomorphologist
Division of Mitigation Services, Science and Analysis
NC Department of Environmental Quality
2

919 707 8306 office
919 208 1426 mobile
[e-mail]
Mailing: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Physical: 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
Notting Comperes .�.�
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
3