20190049 Ver 1_CarpenterBottom_100090_MY1_2022_20230201

ID#* 20190049
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 02/01/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/1/2023
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
ID#:* 20190049
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
County: Gaston
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: CarpenterBottom_100090_MY1_2022.pdf 41.22MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature: *

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
CARPENTER BOTTOM MITIGATION SITE
Gaston County, NC
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
January 2023 DMS Project No. 100090
NC DEQ Contract No. 7731
DMS RFQ No. 16-007133-CT03
Date of Issue: April 24, 2017
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
DWR Project No. 2019-0049
Data Collection Dates: March — November 2022
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
w
WILDLANDS
E N G I N EER I N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

ktr4
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
January 27, 2023
Mr. Matthew Reid
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Carpenter Bottom Draft MYO Report Review
Catawba River Basin - HUC 03050102 (03050103 Expanded Service Area)
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 1 Monitoring Report for the Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site that were received on
January 3, 2023. The report has been updated to reflect those comments. The Final MY1 Report is
included. DMS' comments are listed below in bold. Wildlands' responses to DMS' comments are noted in
italics.
DMS' Comment: Title Page: HUC is incorrectly shown on draft. Please update to how it is shown on the
Mitigation Plan and MYO final reports:
HUC 03050102
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Wildlands' response: The HUC was updated to correctly match the mitigation plan and MYO final reports.
DMS' Comment: In an effort to identify and resolve property issues, please verify the conservation
easement has been inspected, marking is up to date, fencing is intact, and no encroachments have been
identified.
Wildlands' response: A site walk was conducted in November to identify any easement and/or
encroachments issues. No issues were found, and all easement signs/markings are intact.
DMS' Comment: Please change RFP to RFQ. This projected was a small needs contract and not
contracted under the Full Delivery RFP method.
Wildlands' response: RFP was changed to RFQ throughout the report and appendices.
DMS' Comment: 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment: Recommend specifying CGS when discussing the
gage that was replaced on Carpenter Branch since two gages are installed on this reach.
Wildlands' response: CG5 is the correct crest gage that was replaced during MY1. This clarification has
been updated in the report.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS' Comment: 2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment: Consecutive number of baseflow days are included
for Carpenter Branch R1 and UT3. Recommend including the baseflow consecutive days when discussing
UT1 and UT2 (3 and 21 respectively).
Wildlands' response: The consecutive number of days of baseflow of 3 days for UT1 (SG2) and 21 days for
UT2 (SG3) has been included in Section 2.5.
DMS' Comment: If available, can WEI include photos of the three Stream Gauges and one Crest Gauge
in the gage photograph section? Three days of consecutive flow for UT1 is concerning and questions
regarding the location and installation of the gages may be alleviated by including pictures.
Wildlands' response: A photolog with the stream and crest gages has been included in Appendix A.
Individual photos of the gages has also been added to the digital submittal data.
DMS' Comment: 2.6 Wetland Hydrology Assessment: Section states that GWG 6, 8 and 9 failed to meet
success criteria with a range of 8-14 consecutive days. Groundwater gage plots show 14, 8 and 15 days
respectively. Please review and revise as necessary.
Wildlands' response: The number of consecutive days meeting the success criteria for GWG 6, 8, and 9 has
been updated to correctly reflect groundwater gage plot data.
Digital Deliverable Comments
The submission is missing the following required component. Please submit with the final deliverables.
• Vegetation plot data
• Visual vegetation table and spatial file for the invasive areas of concern identified in the
table in the report.
• All photo points included in the report.
Wildlands' response: The vegetation plot data, the visual vegetation data and spatial file for the invasive
areas of concern, and all photo points are included in the report.
As requested, Wildlands has included two (2) hard copies of the final report and a full final electronic
submittal of the support files on USB. A copy of our responses to the DMS' comment letter has been
included inside the cover of the report, as well. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
refs
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 1 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: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment................................................................................
2-1
2.1
Vegetative Assessment..............................................................................................................
2-1
2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activities........................................................2-1
2.3
Stream Assessment....................................................................................................................2-1
2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...........................................................................................................2-1
2.5
Stream Hydrology Assessment..................................................................................................2-2
2.6
Wetland Hydrology Assessment................................................................................................2-2
2.7
Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................2-3
Section3:
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
3-1
TARI PC,
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 Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Figure la-b Current Condition Plan View
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Assessment Data
Table 4a-c Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Groundwater Gage Photographs
Floodplain Pool Photographs
Stream Gage Photographs
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
Table 8a-b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9
Cross -Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 10 Bankfull Events
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

Table 11 Rainfall Summary
Table 12 Wetland Gauge Summary
Table 13 Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Summary
Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Plots
Groundwater Gage Plots
Appendix E Project Timeline and Contact Info
Table 14 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 15 Project Contact Table
Appendix F Additional Documentation
Wildlands' Response to DMS Comments for the Draft MYO Report (May 27, 2022)
Wildlands' Response to IRT Comments for the MYO Report & Notice of Initial
Credit Release (July 26, 2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

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.
-L.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 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

U
2
O m
Z }
U NO
N C
2 o
C C
C
C
CO
C C
°
v
u
0
LJ
E
E
o m
v
E
m
U Y
O N
X (p
N
to
N
fo
N
N 'O
a i0
X t0
� 0
.�yO
f0 >
U
N N
N
N
C
NN
Fu E
C
'mu
CNO
O
O
O
E u
C
Oo
C (
OE
>N
cu
-EO
j0
to
fo
Q C
O
E N
FL U
> N
N
N
C
C C
> N
u O
N
-O E N
—
C
0
OC—O
=
\OO
m
OO
C OU
O
O
C
.0
Oo 0
C
O �
N .O
O
�
v
u
V
co a
u
C N
CU t0
.� 0
VI
tCo N '�
N
N
U C
a U
M N
p o
bD a N
,v N
y
m o
m
m
3° v
c w
a m
V
°>
°�° au
E
r
m E u
E
E
E E.L
o f
m E
O w
y o
a o
N
Q
N
Q
U
O
t0
a
0 C
>
b0 N
V
=- a>
Y U
U U
a s
OC
> C
a> C
0 O
C
C
C U
C N
C
v
b0 to
N m m
C N V
N
N
O �O
O Y
C N
Q
OO C E
y C E
m0
m
m>
v N
0 0
`p
mb11
E
p N
�. a
.>tl7oN
._
C
bT0 C
N N
N
N
C mm
C N
N N
N x
C X
a
E
c a
.fO
c
0 3 Nt
m N
m
t>
N
>
(uL
>
C
u m
L
u
m N
t>
m
t .°-
v v
N
> v
7
—
7
�
C
C
LL a
LL
75
m
m
cL
C
w
E
E
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
+-' O U
oU,o N
O
O
O
o
O
o
ti
o
m N i
m
Vi
o0
Q 0 V
LL
N
V1
N
I�
n
oo
M
V1
M
C �
o
ti
m
Oq V
O
oo
4
oo
m
�6
C
C a
E
N
O
n
n
oo
c
_
C
0
L
6
fp X
h
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
w
Oq O
-i
co
O
.4
K
T
N
N
aJ
a
a
O
m >
O U
J
[C
w
K
C
K
OC
N
71
cc
C T
o
o
E
E
E
E
E
E
N w
C
OC
V
o
o
m
w
N
m o w
w
wo
qm
0
00
°�
c
- N i
a;
M
C
oo
C
I�
m
SP
M
M
Lfl
t+7
O
iC_ LL
�y
.^i
.^i
C
oU O W
E oU N
l0
en
Ln
O
O
OM
0 N i
V1
•--I
C
N
W
M
Ln
O
.--I
'X 0 u
W O Q
LL
N
O
U
t
V
C
o
s
U
C
t
V (uC
C U
o
N N
O
y
m L
m t
m U
Z
•--I
N
M
C L
U
y
U
y
v
AL y
v
C C
v
C OC
y
C N
N y0
O
N
Q
N
a
N L
Q u
N
u
K
O
U
U
U K
m m
U
a
C
o w
Z
C 'O
m
a w
M
W
a
m
m
O
U
o
Y
u
�
c-I
T
C
m
O
en
>
W
o
C
=
E
C
N
s
C
O
m
p
u
O
Oof
N
N
N
L
F
N
C
N
K
W
K
w
�

�L
U
U
C �
m C
E o
i0 to N
O N
N � O
a o �
vi LN
� O
O O Z w
C7 m pp
aU,
M cu
N
y aci a
o_ Ln c
u o 2
a,
a,
v
—
E
a,
N
Y w m
C
a
V ry
OC
ate+c
=
m o
Q
7
m
L
-O
C C O
z
> OC
�
m a1
m
v
N a1
E s ry 3
E
` N
U
U
O
V1 N
Z
m
a1
c .0 m
oZS L E
:
CL to
to
W
41
E
D O L C CO
�o c} 0).5
aJ
E
o o
u m 'O
N
N6
O CL'O
V Y� N
•�
V
vUi
n
m
C N Vaj
'6 C Y
m
O—} C m m
Q
v
c
E 3 s E
C r v ,� m o m-
c
C
O v 7
a1
C
�,
v ion CL 3
m
°
7
CL I n
N a1 � N
C
7
N `O
°� } a1 a1 YO m
O -0N Y L O
u 3 ^
a
`o
=
`o
o v
�
_
m m °0 0
c o
v
o m
o
o
>
U
O- C V
` m
�
=_
O� v
m
C V E
a1 N C O Q
C a1 E
N O lA
> V N Y
o E`
`
o
E Y
3
E Y
s
> o n
m
s
y
°
N vOi °
°
v
LU
v
CL
w
a
Cai
C
m
E m o Y
mM -0 o ll
aJ w Y Y
m m>
` E to U
E to to
m Y
O O CO
— a C C
.Q
O
N O` Y m
O` Y `
; m O N
o
n E w E v
w
Z E > C E
w 3
CL m
aj
2
m
y, C to
C VI m b0
-O
a1 C C O Y
V
w
'�
Vtxo
C
N
V
m Y
> Q X
O`
C
N 7 -O
C
N 7 C
'O r C C N al
u C O a w
7
LL
V
ate.+ C
7 E v C-
O
E v s m
c m m E Y
v
CL a
E
n
'O
N
m E m o o
L Ca a1 u Y
Y
0
C aj
�n C_
N C
�n C O
V
0 O Q 'o
E
U
c W .2 v Y
v ,o m°
w
f0 E c
Q
'r O O C
7 O V
V m m-
a1
O m
ai v s
-O
v v
C �= u C a1
s v m E
C OC u
i=
m Q
ai
Y ai N
^ c E v
w
n 'O 2 Y O
m y
y c v
c y m, E
0
L c"i m 0
++
W
C m C
O .� m m
C Y ` m YO
'O `)
V ` 0 O
N Q
�1 Y U
m Q
Y Q N
Y Y
C C m V
Y
U
O
C V Y
C
O
L O O E ` Y
V EL
y
tYA m m
m
C m
m y
c E
Y tY/1 al
m -0
-o
F-
y .O.
CL
` o Q c o
Q c
'> 'n -O
E w O N O. a!Y-
N O U C
.2� E m
-o °� o c o
V°
v
ai v v
o o
s v s o° m
v
w
u— -o
s— c E
m u o Q s>
E v> f0
m v
p
O 'O N
0 Q .� > V
V t X
Y v
0 V L
U C
O m 3
a1 Y -O w
oc co o Y
ym.,
Vf C a1 V
c o_ t
v
3
Y
E
E
U
° E
a'
L
m
> v^
v v
c m
> C
D o 3
W
CL
E

H
C
w
E
W
O
Q
E
C
O
U
C
7
LL
C
m
ai
U
ai
U
C
m
E
w
al
a
m
O
N
al
m
H
C
0
2
N
a+
c
OJ
a
U
vn c
0
o �
0 O Y
bD
C E N
.Y
a1 N -O -p
}
yam., v
O
to
.0
a1 ro s u
u= s .... L Y
a -I O
v C o0
E a �
Y
y v 7 v
'^ 0
E
c c C C .�
L io
O • a u
>
OJ m m a a1 '= m Y O
O '= N r
C Y i--I m a1
a1 00
10
U C
V M
V
O
7 -6 a -I N N
C y Y 3
`
a --I a1 00
.2 O 11
N } >
O {.J
Z C
E
C a1 C O a1 a.+ -6
} Y M V
a1 ti •vf
N
6
m (V
y ..
00 } C
U
D 'O U E j
C N
> 'O
(J
C to 00 00 a1 y
0 'p o C Q O
C
-o
O �n al N c} `�
O Y
N
C
3 o v
i1
v
o Y= G
OU
v O —
} u E O m 3 o a>i
v
3 v— `o
,� _
v° O 3> �6 v
y
v v 'c
m E -0 =
N i
"
•0
o v
E
j v ` a1 7
-O � a1 (,7 >
a1 r m
m L
O •° fV C N
E N
N V
0)
yt,, N S In '7 C
C
a1 E >.
Y C N M 0
'^ }
a O O
C
y_
a1 L Q M
y i 3 Y m
C—
t0 > 3 <D c-I f0
y 7 C
a --I
Vl C
f0 C
a+ C
'6 } f0 of
C
a16i
o
6 C
v_0 `°
ai >
a v s
c u> ry 3
E a1 c9 O
c v
E c
aci
E
ou
c
y v o C
V 7 �--- -O
" 0
m •5 ^ s
E E •C a '6
`u
7 a1 O L
w '6 N O E
C f0
S a1
N a1 C wo
v 3
m
f0 c u M
a1 Y C T C f0
11
y N
v
6 a1 a N C
C
t N
L
C Q S Y N
3 O N N
> y
Ll y
c ro 0 r
c
u a, o
0 y o°1a ayi
E 0 v
10
.N
O C C _
tY1
a,
w= m O Y
y
ar
a1 O
ate.+ �n a+ O
C N Q C D
'-'
�^ 0 2 e O (7
0 ry c.J �n >
O N E N O
C
a1 C
c>
> c p m f 0 -0
0 -0
v v 'S) ti> w
m> v av v c
v
V
m e
L to
a1 to
Y T
V p -O C C
O N O
E
E
N L
c
O u> Q> Y ry
3 .5 v°
ar M E e" r
v u
OJ C V C~
ry E Q) U
7 'y
'6 m
N O
`
O.
0
cy C
E
}
V C^
00 L O a1 C
ai to i0
` a1
a
p v c 0 D
v +- � 'c c 3
Q> v
a
O°
3
E
LL
n a s
O
Y C m =
c
Y
Cu
O
N
Y
S C
Y m m o
U-03 Vcf
v c
o
-p
Ca
a1 - m
p
E
oQ
-6
O OCo
� ^
'O 'sc
v.
3 Vj
o
p
o f0
0
a1
aJ aJ
c T c
c
.
O
3
ovn
E
V
j
C
y
to
C o m
a) C 0 C a1 E
O a.+
p V ` �n
v p
>
v w
io ro
fl-
` -p -0,
N 'O C f0 7
" m `Y"
Y
O a1
3
C f0 a p y N
f0 y p
E Q
al
V V
3 1
�i
m
CCL
V C a1 to
D o '� -6 -6
(0 a
C
O
0C
'6 'V; >. > '6
,v �D
O a+
Q
� O u O Q E
N
a •-
a
n Cp
O
C
N 'O
C — a1
> 0
y _0
2 C
to
<D
C
N
C 7 '^ f0
t, w
a
O a0+
t Y -0 m
V L 'O
tw
-O, a1 C a1
y
7 i Y
L C a1
'�
y V1
A
E -0 CL
s tw c
V
3 o
v y
-p a1 f0
f0
of y f0
N O
�
C C
CL •�
pU
y 00
c u
N N C
O
CL
° c
3 N y E
`O CL
n E
w
s w
v— a1
c YA 6
ro v
p
3
m o
c v c
w v
o
E
N
c
0C
0C a1
a
a1
C C <D 00
'O
C
O O
Y
N 7
<D <a 3 16
C >
C Y f0 Y
Y E
0 o o ai
a m w
f0 C c v
c
ar
u p to 9 E
3 O
bD
C a1 f0 a1
C L L al
Ve
v O o � oa
i1
O
v
V -6
O c a>
-p ,
m a� E
E y O
O
O L
N
O '= C
3 C
w
C
a1 v
a Y a1
°
v
6-
oc
3

v
v
>
j
on
m
•C:
N
a
vi
v—
O
0
V
U
_
O
�
O
�
L
N
\
C
N
-6
O
>
�
O
�
O
=
O
tw
00
00
U—
Oo
o
M
M
-,
o
0
m
o
O
U
G
W
C
L
7
u
Q
N
Q
O
O
O
0 ON
cCo
O
Z
•+-'
Z
Z
Z
�
O 7
V i
Ct
>—
a
O
0
C
N
V)
00
m
a)
M
a
ZT
V
u
Q
0
N
c-I
7
7
O O
u
u
V
7 0
V
W
n
Y -
V
M
u
c
n
V C
—
O
w
O
v
N
c 7
00
v
C)o
v
>
U
VN
•
NO
C
N
U—
c-I
c-I
V
o
3
o
"'
° m
— -0
�
u
m
V)
m
OM
M L
Lr)
lD •
C7
M •
u
O
n
O
•
s
10
y N
m s
u
r,
m
�
�
_
Q
Q
Q
•
m
m
C
i>n
>•
O>>>>
Z
Z
Z
0
U
.i
0)
ai
G
•
Q
U
W
O
O
73
O
00
to
Y
O
Y
L
u
6
a
C:Y
00
C
V•
w
E .i
E N
w
CO
A.
y
T •
O •
m
00
>,
D_
C
>
N
�n
�n
�n
�n
O
O
O
C
V
V
Gl d
O
N
a,\
—
>�
V
U\
U}}}>
Z
Z
Z
uy
O
co
C
co
>
C
Y
V
CO
2
C •.
G
O1
-0
Q
N
O1
U1
(, j
O
U
m
U
O
V
a
oc
a
E
O
Y
Y w
O
O
Ul
m V1
41
N
a0+ O
C
O
V)
O
4
_
Q
'Y
O
O
1M
C
OLn
N
u
G
G
s+
O
O
ID
>-
c0
u
00
a
M
o
M
O
00
O-
6
0
0
°
0
ci
a
a
¢
O
L
O
c
0
C
O
C
O
N
G)
E
Nc
0
N
W
•�
��
U
C
�'
N
T
-O
0)
O
V
O
Y�
O
m
V)
V)
u
Q
ai
u
w
V
U
a
v
v
v
C
wr
w
U
0)
•—
m
u
)
Y
'V
C
O
a
Y
00
N
°°
O1
N
E
V
v
E
(p
E
0
Y
Y
fl-
cccp
C
•m
, N
m
u
o
n
o
C
v
w
C
v
o
v
C
C7
v
v
o
ut
i
v
G
Q
N
L
E
i
-C
00�'
c0
i
U
U
C
-p
4)
—
VI
VI
>
W
0)
N
Ol
N
v
�n
i
Ol
C
O
LL
Z
Q
i
O
a1
�
O
W
m
m
c
v
a
N
O—
Id
Id
v)
fl.
V
to
O
O
O
c
O
Otm
O1
O1
O=
'—
T C
O
C
y,
O
O
O
a2
a`
a
a
a`
a>
a
0
0
�i
�i
w
x
u
LL
w
0
O
O
O
Q
N
U
h
C
O
Ok.
W
ti
O �
c a,
0
E
o a
N �
-C O
N N
N
-Cl O
Q
O
= C
O
N zi
O
C '
O OU
U
h
N O
U
N
vi
O
ate.
H �
v
o �
C �
� O
v N
O N
+C,
00QU
O
ti U
O 'O
In
n
O
O
c C
C O
C j
O �
> >
N
W C
N C
C O
O U
U O
O M
Ln N
O
,Z3 U
C C
O
O
ti
N
N O
M U
In v
aU.
h G
� O
O E
N
o
N
O N
U
C
N C
01 O
o G
O o
N
-O
C
O
N
O
Q
a
QU

al
o V)
7 O
N
Y tuD m N
++ 0
Q 0
m
O 0
Z Q >.a m U on
m aJ N
O
N aJ o_ .+0'
V) O
H U 0 2
C ._
E
a
C
-0
O
z
o
c
v
Ya)
3 y
Q
Ln
}
Z
N
N
v
0
0
C ry
W
O
0
-O
ca
c,6 .s
LL
a)
-
a) Q
�
m
o
m
.S
m
v
ry 0
3 y
Q
-ti
o
N
c)
°p
o
>j
a
8
0
O
oa
c,6 .O
W
C
a)
S
Y Q
J
°
m
N
oIN
m
m
a,3
m O
y
Q
a
m o
a)
cv
0
T
T
C O
Z
a) 6
a
0
0
0 a) Y
a) Y C m
c N O v 0 3
m o N 00 6 Z
m
MOM
co c
a)
YD
v
o
'm
z
m°
3
Q
\
c
o 0
m—
y
c 0
z
v o
a
a)
O m
Et
0
�
0
co .s
Ca)
C
-0
00
'6
C
m
a —I
o
L
L
'c
m
a0,
m
Q
C lD
ar
o
0}
C
Z
w
00
O
a
>
0
O
O
V a)
6
0 m
N
>
00
2 >
a°
O
O
V a)
6
0 m
N
6
a
6
0 Y
>
00
2 >
a°
o
a)
C
—
o
z
v
m
3
�
7
l7
Q
z
oa
C,6 s
Q
Q
-0Q
a)
O
O
-
m
-0
O
Q
c
Z
-0
z
o
(D >
O
v
tla
co
E o
c -o
°
o
_°o
3Y
a
•0z
-0
C
z
>
m
00 L
O
O
a)
a)
•Y
m
\c 0
\
a)
C O
a) -0
0
a0
m
tto
a)
m
c
z
3
>
.,
'M
o
0
o
-a
a
=
v
ca
co>
W C
2
Q
_0
0
=
a
C
a
a)
Ca
c
n
v
'm
Y
m°
c
m
m
3
>
m
o
o
O
3
Q
\
m
m
N
n
—
v
Q
V
-O
Z
y
'O O
0
Z
—
4)
C)
°
>,
—
>
C
D
V
a—
v
D m
0
0
ca
0
a
(7
0
(7 >
0
T
2
C
m
0
0
L
C
m
0
0
L
m y
_
on
v
m y
_
oa
a)
O. C
.Q
E
�' C
•Q
E
UI
m .L
mc
C
aC) V
C a)
N
m .L
m
E
a) y
E a)
m e
0
\
v
V
m e
O. 0
\
-0
v
V
y
i
C
A;C
>
y
a
C
v
C>
Y
_o
Q co
N
,n
m
O a)
m
y
O m
a)
,n
O
m
c aYi
c
`J m
n
Yo
°
v tm
a)v
_0
v m
n
Yo
°
° tm
am
_
m
y,
-0
O >
am
m
O. .L
_
y,
-0
O >
a)
H Q
UD)
V
u
2
O V
'pp
a)
H O
0
V)
V
u
=
C u
O •10
c ai
�=
O
'co Oo
C
m
O-
C
N
O 20
Y
Q
•
V
Y71•—
T
N aj
m
V
-Q
N T
N
VI
0
0
V0)
OC L
�
�
L
O
VI
0
V)
OC L

Section 2: Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) to assess the
condition of the project. The vegetation, stream, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follow the
approved success criteria presented in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2020), the performance criteria
are located in Section 1.2 Tables 3a-b: Goals, Performance Criteria, and Functional Improvements.
Methodology for annual monitoring is presented in the MYO Annual Report (Wildlands, 2022).
2.1 Vegetative Assessment
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in August 2022. Vegetation monitoring resulted in a stem
density range of 364 to 567 planted stems per acre. All thirteen vegetation plots are meeting the
interim requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. The locations of the mobile plots did not
change from MYO to better capture the survival rate of the planted stems. Beginning in MY2, the four
mobile plots will move to a new location every year to capture a random sampling of the Site; some of
these plots will be relocated to capture portions of the wetland rehabilitation areas, as requested by the
NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) as part of their comments from the MYO Baseline Report (Appendix
F). Herbaceous vegetation is also abundant across the Site and includes native pollinator species
indicating a healthy riparian habitat. The riparian habitat is helping to reduce nutrient runoff from the
agricultural fields outside the easement and stabilize the stream banks. Refer to Appendix A for
Vegetation Plot Photographs and the Vegetation Condition Assessment Table and Appendix B for
Vegetation Plot Data.
2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activities
The MY1 assessment indicated that the surviving stems are at a density above the MY3 interim criteria.
The visual assessment across the Site found that the herbaceous cover is also well established
throughout the floodplain. A Site walk was conducted in November 2022 to assess the easement
boundary. No issues of encroachment were found, and all easement signs/markings were intact.
Hardy orange (Citrus trifoliate) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) were treated prior to completion
of the project. There are some small areas of resprouts that will continue to be monitored. There is one
area of C. trifoliate in the northwest portion of the project that is 0.16 acres in size; at 1% of the Site's
acreage, it is only a minor concern. Nevertheless, hardy orange and Chinese privet were treated in July
and November 2022. Depending on the treatment's effectiveness, additional chemical treatments may
be needed in the following years. Small areas of in -stream vegetation (Ludwigia palustris and Murdannia
keisak) were also treated in July of 2022. Ninety-nine percent of the Site is free of invasive species and
shows strong vegetative growth. Wildlands will continue to monitor for the reemergence of any
invasive populations which threaten the success of the project.
2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in August of 2022. All streams within the Site are stable
and functioning as designed. All 14 cross -sections at the Site show little to no change in the bankfull
areas and the width -to -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios (ERs), and the bank height ratios (BHRs) are
less than 1.2. As discussed in the MYO report (Wildlands, 2022), pebble count data is no longer required;
therefore, it is not included in this report. Refer to Appendix A for the Visual Stream Morphology
Stability Assessment Table and Stream Photographs and Appendix C for Stream Geomorphology Data.
2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
A site assessment last conducted in November 2022 found that there were no stream areas of concern
across the project. The banks all appear stable and are well covered by newly established vegetation.
WCarpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

2.5 Stream Hydrology Assessment
In MY1, bankfull events were recorded on UT1 and UT2. Carpenter Branch and UT3 did not record a
bankfull event and there were no visual indicators of bankfull events occurring on these reaches. The
automated crest gage (CG #5) on Carpenter Branch was replaced in May 2022. The new probe is
working, and data was successfully downloaded in September 2022. While only two channels had a
bankfull event in MY1, it is expected that the hydrologic success criteria for bankfull events will be met
for all streams.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on intermittent or low flow reaches
(Carpenter Branch Reach 1, UT1, UT2, and UT3) for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal
precipitation year. Carpenter Branch Reach 1 and UT3 maintained baseflow for 103 and 100 consecutive
days, respectively; however, UT1 and UT2 did not meet the minimum requirement in MY1 with 3 and 21
days, respectively. It is expected that baseflow duration will increase as rainfall restores groundwater
levels.
The stream gage on UT1 showed several water level spikes from January 12-31, 2022. These readings do
not appear to correspond with rainfall events, but there is a correlation between the spikes and freezing
temperatures. Wildlands previously contacted In -Situ on 11/18/2021 to confirm the findings. Based on
the discussion with In -situ, it is likely that these are the result of ice forming on the probes leading the
false pressure readings during these times (Haynes 2021). Therefore, the spikes during these times are
not counted towards a bankfull event. The stream gages' calibrations were checked in November 2022
and were functioning correctly.
The NC IRT expressed concern in the MYO report comments (Appendix F) about whether the riffles were
constructed too high to allow the streams to function. However, riffle height is not a concern. The photo
point log shows water in most of Carpenter Branch. Water staining on the riffle material is evident as
you move downstream. Standing water is shown in the November photos of UT3 and it met the 30-day
consecutive flow criteria for an intermittent channel. While UT1 and UT2 were dry during the summer
and did not meet the flow criteria for the year, it is expected that they will recharge with the winter
rains as the groundwater level rises. This is supported by the stream and gage photos, PP9A and PP10
and SG2 and SG3 respectively, which were retaken in November and show more water in the channel.
Photologs are included Appendix A, and hydrology data is presented in Appendix D.
2.6 Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Eleven groundwater gages (GWG) were initially installed during baseline monitoring to record the
groundwater level across the Site. Out of the eleven gages, eight met the success criteria in MY1 (GWG1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11) for 34-59 consecutive days of the growing season. Three gages (GWG 6, 8, and
9) did not meet the success criteria this year with 14, 8, and 15 consecutive days of the growing season,
respectively. It is expected that all gages will be meeting the criteria over time as groundwater continues
to recharge across the site. Annual inspections of the bentonite seals around the groundwater gages are
a regular part of Wildlands' protocol; bentonite was added in 2022 to the seals around GWG 6, 10, and
11, and is visible in the groundwater gage photolog. Refer to Appendix D Table 12 for the wetland
hydrology data.
The NC IRT expressed concern in the MYO report comments that the floodplain pools are too deep to dry
seasonally and will prevent herbaceous and woody vegetation establishment (Appendix F). The
floodplain pools were designed with a maximum depth of 2.0 feet and were intended to draw down
seasonally. When the site was assessed on September 1, 2022, floodplain pool 1 was greatly reduced in
size and had only a small area of standing water approximately 0.5 feet deep, and the others were dry.
All of the floodplain pools are covered with herbaceous vegetation; with an average width of
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-2

approximately 27-feet, they are small enough that the targeted forest community can easily provide a
closed canopy over these areas. Additionally, floodplain pools 3 and 4 were delineated as Wetlands D
and B, respectively, and were protected during construction; the vegetative and hydrologic conditions of
these two pools should not pose a concern —even if they were to have some surface water —as their
hydrologic functionality and their vegetation communities are assumed to be comparable to the existing
conditions. Refer to the CCPV figures for the locations of the floodplain pools. A photo log is included in
Appendix A to show the conditions of each of these pools, but because they do not pose a concern, the
photo log will not be included in subsequent monitoring years.
2.7 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
All 13 vegetation plots are exceeding the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. All
streams across the Site are stable and the cross sections show little dimensional change since the as -
built survey. UT1 and UT2 exhibited at least one bankfull event and are on track to meet the bankfull
hydrologic criteria but did not meet the minimum baseflow criteria. However, UT3 and Carpenter
Bottom Reach 1 met baseflow criteria in MY1, but neither experienced a bankfull event in MY1. Eight of
the eleven groundwater gages met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for MY1. Invasive species
were treated prior to construction of the project and will continue to be monitored as there are small
patches of Chinese privet and hardy orange that have reappeared. Overall, the Site is on track to meet
its goals and is preventing excess nutrients and sediment from entering the Catawba River tributaries.
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 available from DIMS upon request.
WCarpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-3

Section 3: REFERENCES
Applied Climate Information System (ACIS). 2022. AgACIS for Lincoln County: Lincolnton 4W.
https://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fi ps=37109.
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.
Haynes, Kaylie. In -situ technical support specialist. Phone conversation. 18 November 2021.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NC DMS). 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Raleigh, NC.
NC DIMS. 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/
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ). 2010. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
NC Division of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ). 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-planning/classification-
standards/classifications.
NC Interagency Review Team (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.pdf
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.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
USACE. 2005. Technical Standard for Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites. ERDC TN-
W RAP-05-2.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). 2020. Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site: Mitigation Plan. DMS,
Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands. 2022. Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site: Monitoring Year 0 Annual Report — Final. DIMS,
Raleigh, NC.
WCarpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

FIGURES

Figure 1. Current itton Plan View'Key,
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet I}�Jj Carpenterer Bottom Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I DMS Project Na. 100090
Environmearal Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Quality
Gaston County, NC

1W
[_•_I Conservation Easement
0 Project Parcels
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Rehabilitation
Existing Wetlands
] Structures
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY1
0 Criteria Met (Permanent)
Criteria Met (Mobile)
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Hardy Orange
Restoration
+ Non -Project Streams
X — Fence
---- Top of Bank
Cross Sections (XS)
Topographic Contours (2')
Photo Points (PP)
Stream Gage (SG)
Barotroll
Soil Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY1
+ Criteria Met
+ Criteria Not Met
VP2
VP4
am
.vr�Ll
land K �l:'a I;
,
Wetland L�\ .,�'
.�Amok
Wetland G .,
VP7 J
\ Weiland F\ v�
I '
1�
MP3 Y
kWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Environmental
Quality
/ 4-
Figure 1a, Current Condition Plan View
0 100 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
I I I DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Gaston County, NC

I
L_._I Conservation Easement
Q Project Parcels
® Existing Wetlands
%/ Internal Crossing
0 Structures
Vegetation Plot Conditions - MY1
= Criteria Met (Permanent)
_ Criteria Met (Mobile)
Restoration
Enhancement III
No Credit
-- As -Built Alignment Deviation
BMP
— Non -Project Streams
x — Fence
---- Top of Bank
— Cross Sections (XS)
Topographic Contours (2')
0 Photo Points (PP)
0 Reach Breaks
Stream Gage (SG)
Crest Gage (CG)
Streams selection - Deviation for visual only
Approach
-- As -Built Alignment Deviation
N.WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Environmental
Quality
100
r
Figure 1b. Current Condition Plan View
0 200 Feet Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
0 10
Ili I 2 DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1 - 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 1- 2022
Carpenter Branch Reach 1 Date Last Assessed:11/16/2022
Number Tota I Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable 11
Performing As -built Footage
d1i as Intended
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
2,243
Assessed Bank Length
4,486
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
0
100%
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Tota Is:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
31
31
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
45
45
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
UT1 Date Last Assessed: 11/16/2022
Number Tota I Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable
Performing As -built Footage 11
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
175
Assessed Bank Length
350
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Tota Is:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
6
6
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
6
6
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1- 2022
UT2 Date Last Assessed: 11/16/2022
Number Tota I Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable 11
Performing As -built Footage
d1i as Intended
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
178
Assessed Bank Length
356
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
0
100%
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Tota Is:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
4
4
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
5
5
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.
UT3 Date Last Assessed: 11/16/2022
Number Tota I Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable
Performing As -built Footage 11
as Intended
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
385
Assessed Bank Length
770
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Tota Is:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
9
9
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
12
12
100%
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1- 2022
UT3 Date Last Assessed: 11/16/2022
Number Tota I Amount of
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable 11
Performing As -built Footage
d1i as Intended
Assessed Stream Length
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
36
Assessed Bank Length
72
Surface Scour/
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
Bare Bank
poor growth and/or surface scour.
0
100%
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are
Bank
Toe Erosion
modest, appear sustainable and are providing
0
100%
habitat.
Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping,
Bank Failure
0
100%
calving, or collapse.
Totals:
0
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
Grade Control
1
1
100%
grade across the sill.
Structure
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
Bank Protection
0
0
N/A
influence does not exceed 15%.

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1 - 2022
Date Last Assessed: 11/16/2022
Planted Acreage 15.94
regetation 7ategolW
Mapping
Definitions Threshold
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.10
0
0%
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on current MY stem count
0.10
0
0%
Areas
criteria.
Total
0
0%
Areas of Poor Growth
Planted areas where average height is not meeting current MY Performance
0.10
0
0%
Rates
Standard.
Cumulative Total
0.0
0%
Easement Acreage 18.00
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and within the easement and will
Invasive Areas of therefore be calculated against the total easement acreage. Include species with
Concern the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term 0.10 0.16 1%
or community structure for existing communities. Invasive species included in
summation above should be identified in report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon. Encroachment to be mapped consists
Easement of any violation of restrictions specified in the conservation easement. Common 0 Encroachments Noted
Encroachment Areas encroachments are mowing, cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has no none / 0 ac
threshold value as will need to be addressed regardless of impact area.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1- Carpenter Bottom R1- upstream PHOTO POINT 1- Carpenter Bottom R1- downstream
(11/16/2022) (11/16/2022)
PHOTO POINT 2 - Carpenter Bottom R1- upstream PHOTO POINT 2 - Carpenter Bottom R1- downstream
(11/16/2022) (11/16/2022)
PHOTO POINT 3 - Carpenter Bottom R1- upstream PHOTO POINT 3 - Carpenter Bottom R1- downstream
(11/16/2022) (11/16/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 3 - Carpenter Bottom R1- Floodplain Pool (8/31/2022) 1
PHOTO POINT 4 - Carpenter Bottom R1- upstream (8/31/2022) PHOTO POINT 4 - Carpenter Bottom R1- downstream
(8/31/2022)
PHOTO POINT 4A - Carpenter Bottom R1- upstream PHOTO POINT 4A - Carpenter Bottom R1- downstream
(8/31/2022) (8/31/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

: ��-'�3�6'-a6� .. \t .�.. •vLe ��'�'�-�-.�.�:r�L fs.�Y _ir eft'�ar� F: d -�. ',Y,ui�. _.. r �J F': �.:}
a.
�
t
o..
�
ak 1�•�t.

$
}
itj
All
7
-
C, x
V,,. -.: & M4,7,7,,iaLek,.

PHOTO POINT 10 - UT2 - upstream (11/16/2022) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 - UT2 - downstream (11/16/2022) 1
PHOTO POINT 11- UT3 - upstream (11/16/2022) 1 PHOTO POINT 11- UT3 - downstream (11/16/2022) 1
PHOTO POINT 12 - UT4 - upstream (8/31/2022) I PHOTO POINT 12 - UT4 - downstream - (8/31/2022) I
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data — Stream Photographs

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

WCarpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data - Vegetation Plot Photographs

PERMANENT VEG PLOT 7 (8/30/2022) 1 PERMANENT VEG PLOT 8 (8/31/2022) 1
PERMANENT VEG PLOT 9 (8/31/2022) 1
MOBILE VEG PLOT 1 (8/30/2022) I MOBILE VEG PLOT 2 (8/30/2022) I
WCarpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data - Vegetation Plot Photographs

Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data - Vegetation Plot Photographs

GROUNDWATER GAGE PHOTOGRAPHS

GROUNDWATER GAGE 1 (8/31/2022) 1 GROUNDWATER GAGE 2 (8/30/2022) 1
GROUNDWATER GAGE 3 (8/31/2022) 1 GROUNDWATER GAGE 4 (8/31/2022) 1
GROUNDWATER GAGE 5 (8/31/2022) 1 GROUNDWATER GAGE 6 (8/31/2022) 1
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A -Visual Assessment Data -Groundwater Gage Photographs

GROUNDWATER GAGE 7 (8/30/2022) 1 GROUNDWATER GAGE 8 (8/30/2022) 1
GROUNDWATER GAGE 9 (8/30/2022) 1 GROUNDWATER GAGE 10 (8/31/2022) 1
GROUNDWATER GAGE 11 (8/31/2022) 1
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A -Visual Assessment Data -Groundwater Gage Photographs

FLOODPLAIN POOL PHOTOGRAPHS

FLOODPLAIN POOL 1 (FP1): FLOODPLAIN POOL 2 (FP2):
Maximum water depth: 0.50 feet. Maximum water depth: 0.00 feet (i.e., dry).
(8/31/2022) (8/31/2022)
FLOODPLAIN POOL 3 (FP3): FLOODPLAIN POOL 4 (FP4):
Maximum water depth: 0.00 feet (i.e., dry). Maximum water depth: 0.00 feet (i.e., dry).
(8/31/2022) (8/31/2022)
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data — Floodplain Pool Photographs

STREAM GAGE PHOTOGRAPHS

STREAM GAGE 1 (11/16/2022) 1 STREAM GAGE 2 (11/16/2022) 1
STREAM GAGE 3 (11/16/2022) 1 STREAM GAGE 4 (11/16/2022) 1
CREST GAGE 5 (8/29/2022) 1
W Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
Appendix A - Visual Assessment Data - Stream Gage Photographs

APPENDIX B. Vegetation Plot Data

-§��������������������
��
������
�����■
.§��������������������
��
������
�����■
I
Mr.1
oil!

millillillill�ilillill
�����■
M111111111111111111111
11111111
M1111111111111111�����
M§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§1
91111111
MEN

a
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
a
LL
N
LL
N
N
Q
N
a
a
a
m
¢
¢
¢
¢
\
00
iD
N
iD
N
I
M
N
N
a
a
a
a
c
o
o
c
o
o
>
c
i
c
e
e
o
0
w
:a
a
a
a
a
F
a
a
1
m
a
1
1
a
LL
N
LL
N
N
p_
N
u
�
a
M
N
V
Ql
a
c
16
OM
>
o
o
MOo
o
>
o
>
o
o
>
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
a
a
a
a
a
LL
N
LL
N
N
a
N
Q
N
O
O
O
a
O
a
O
a
7
7
7
7
7
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
¢
a
VI
a
N
a
N
a
VI
a
VI
U!
m
U! U!
T
m m
U!
T
m
U!
.
m
U!
.
m
N
T
m
N
T
m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N
T
m
N
T
m
N
T
m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N N
. .
m m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N
T
m
N
.
m
N
.
m
N
T
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
N
m
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

APPENDIX C. Stream Geomorphology Data

OJ
N
O
.C� O N
by o N
'"' O O
N N
2 O
O
O �
a
c ° p v
O o z >
V m N bA
Gl OJ �
N O
N N d Y
N Q sn c
u u o 2
I
m
v
Kfi
V1
� s
*,
d }4p
Y ram, Zak
�
VO
ti
O
bA
m
d
d'
}
p N
N u ai
L
V
C
i
fu
I
O
N 6 C
L
m
0 Q L N Q N
ut C Y N O_ O_ .0 OJ -O
L
C O -O w
U C -6 i (pa L
L
i
N x O i cy -O
v -p -o m
cli
x 3 E E 3 3 cow
N
u
N
_ 3
O O
I
7 N cq CO Ol Lq CO `1
U
O
Ln
ti ti o r ti o 00
v
v
m
O W
d
n n
n r
N
'A(;j)
UOi;ena13
O
u

aJ
0
.0 O N
0
� o �
a
C o ci y
O o z }
V coN bA
N o
N d 0
N Q N c
u u o
0
I
I
I
I
w
a
v
N
O
o
Y
a
o
O
N
�-
I
I
I
sue_:<° � a•A.. R
�I
I
I
I
N
N
�
ri
0
�
i
N
to
o
m
c
t
I
I
v � t •own
E � •on
a
i
I
N
t a
f0 Q aJ Q Q t
m
I
I
o
c
ai
o -o — -o
a
•�
a0+
O
I
rn
•°
v i t c t o v m
v -6 m x -6 -o m
v
i.
>
ai
ar m 3
x 3 E E 3 t 3 as ° cow
m
u
—
I
7
v
N `~ lD Ol Ol O U
rq
c
6 O O O O O �6 0�
O
O
f0
co7
ar
++
n
r n r
LL
d
N
(1j) uOi;enal3
O
u

OJ
N
O
.O O N
0
� o �
a
� o O N
O o z }
V m N bA
G1 OJ �
N O
N d 0
N Q v) c
u u o 2
0
0
v
Q
c
0
a
0
0
a`
o
0
m
�
v
L
Y
C
f0
CO
I
�
o
'
m
i�
r,
0
J(M
y Y
7
ei
s
V �
N O
O
w O C
•ia
O O
_ N
OJ v O O O
L w t cc
N O
f0 Q L Q O t N
m ut C Y OJ O_ O_ .0 OJ L i' -O
L C O -O OJ -O 7 -6 U C N O
U U I O� +0+ O O OJ \ f0
N O x c -O
O v m v o 0 3 m
x 3 E E 3 t 3 a5i _0 co
m
\
o ° 3
u _
O o' m w- a m O m ° °u
U
cn vi O O ti O N lD O v
c �
p m i •v
} 7 L
V to
d
'A
u
co
In
In

m
m
N
3
o
z
�u
Ln
N
s
on
V
d
O
S
fY
ut O m
O " — m
w in
L
V
c
m
i
m Y W
m E O C
fC
L
i f0 W
m Q L m Q N
L
G1
C O -O m -O D
O t c -o i t \
i
N m x
-o
vcli
N m m
x 3 E E 3 3 cow
N
u
N
_ 3
m m
O N a m .� N
U
ar"iY
cm -I c�-I c-I N c-I Ol N
c �
O
co
}
W
d
N
VI
u
o
—
Y
f0
CO
V
N
+
�
O
c-i
0
1
O
ri
ti
0
rn
}
O
N O
n r
n n
(;j)
00
uoi;ena13
tD
O �
n n

Cli
§
�
� »
. \
� d !
\
\
§
@ -a
,
\
a
ƒ
u
to
3
/
-
aj
m
_Qj
|
&/){
_ Qj
)
)(\\x ~)
[
/ / § / E $ ± § \ \
u
^ j
cF)c w \ a
§
_D
_ � _ _
-
2
a
a
a
7
'
& G_m
j

m
q 1 ! G , / -
4
t
f � j
4 �I
III
ei
V
O C
O
m f0 m
•�
L
ut m � C
_
�
m v ",� O O •� O
L w t m m
i
m
m Q t m� Q t N
ut C Y m c- O- — m °- t N
-O
L
C O -O m, 7-o u C O
u L C -° Y m L O m \ m
CL
N m X c 6
° aj N.§ m m v° 0 3 m
3 E E 3 t 3 a° ° coo
m
u
x
o v 3
_
m m
O
U
Ln of o .-i of o ti Lri .4 v
c �
O
m .v
}
V
L
d
In
n
V
u
0
v
Q
c
a
0
a
v
Q
O
}
C
O
m
m
y
o
M
Y
m
�
L
m
m
o
cy
O
'
Y
C
f0
m
O
N
M
W
ri
�I
T
o
ti
O
Ot
m vt
n n
V
n
(;j)
uoi;ena13
m
n
N
n

cli
0
3
� « .
k
- -
7
5
\y23\ai
§
%//?32)/J®) wrj 4
C
\j\§)\/\\ij \\
§
^ �(
-°-- zLn �-1
cli
-
2
Ln
j
z
.
|
.
.
|
|
/
�
:
|
.
;
\
�
|
|
.
�
\
—
|
|
|
|
|
\
_
7
=
ƒ
.
.
|
~
�
\
�
k
ƒ
.
|
|
|
.
e
�
�
\
& u� a,

cli
E§22
o
0
0
j\\}
y y}a <<y
\� )
_
. !
k
3
\
& ( ) {
_
)
)(\\x
m
[
/ / § / E $ ± § \ \
m
^ )/
a
§
rj
- c - _ _ i
-
2
Ln
j
}
G
j
)
§
ƒ
_
§
|
& u� a,

cli
/ o
y
a�
2}»
k
3
\aj
& ( ) {
�
_
)
)(\\\/\\ ~)
[
/ / § / E $ ± § \ \
m
^ )/
\ a
$
- ° ^ - -
-
2
Ln
j
}
)
�
\
ƒ
_
§
|
&
G_m

OJ
C
O
O O N
pp o N
Y O p
V N
2 O
a E O cy e�
0 o z >
V co
GJ N
N O
N N Ln Y
N Q Ln c
u u o 2
O
N
Q
C
O
Q
O
a
v
Q
0
o
c
0
m
�
�
m
t
Y
c
f0
m
I
I
o
�
+
�
3
O
3
c
m
O
N
M
W
ri
�I
T
O
O
O\i
�
r
m
n
(;�)
uoi;enal3
� v
n r
n
f
Re
ION
" 3
ei
s
V
N O C
� O] O 0
O N
V N
v ° v
-o ° •°A c
m � o aJ aJ w
L ut C OJ Q O- — OJ °- L i' N -O
G1 C O -O 5 -O -O U C O
N O 7 N
i O U O ° ai O� O OJ \ m
N O] x c -O
GJ O N -6 OJ M OJ -6 -0 3 m
x 3 E E 3 t 3 ac ° coo
cc
u o v 3
p U
Ln a
c
p m ai
i •v
} w
V n
d
V
u

cli
0k(
E§0
ot to
to 2
,fCL0
j\\}
( � �
}
)
» _
s
�
e
200
�
,
<
\
^ �
\
�
�
)
txo
-
_
k
ai
\
-\\ai
txo
|
y[\2
cocli
7\\§J{/\ Q
E
/ , § / E $ ± § / \
u
3 i
a
§
:
_ _ _ _ _ i
co -
2
< r
r r
a
7
'
&
G_m
j

m
C
O
m O N
pp 0O N
O
O N
E O
0 o m
cu
p Z }
m u pp
i m �
m 0 ._
0
I
I
I
I
I
v
a
v
0
a
y�1
O
>
t y M,l t r�
,�� 4• E
oYW
aj
N
o
w
Ell
aj
'Hy "'� I Jl•• 1N �
rn
3�
I
I
m
N
N
M
W
r
o m
O ° v
L
m
m
I
N
m O m w
O Q m Q Q E ul
ar Q o- .� ar t -o
i
Ol
O ��" -6 m -6 7 O C m N C
— U L C O m a L O m \ m
m m x
o o 0
Q
i
N m m v 3 m
x 3 E E 3 t 3 aIi o wcc
m m
N
I
7 m^ I, N r, ^ �? O m
U
O
n limn vi O _O
c
v
m >mMm
In
L
(11)
UO!Ienal3

aJ
O
N
Q
C
;X
O
A+ s �
�d�2,y � ��•F `�
y jj� O
Ql
o
M L
�
a
'4
3
o'
N
c
m
O
N
N
M
W
'~
to
v O
C
E
v
s _ a] O
O N aJ
_ aJ
f0
N ut •�
a] � C
p N D aj w bA
w -6 O
.
_� C
a) C
S=
N O O- 2 s= ut
O
aj
C O -6 — -6 -O U C N -6
N 6 7 N O
c o v o 0 m—
F
>
N v m 3
x 3 E E 3 t 3 aai cow
a] N
M
I
7 m N m lD m m^ V1 n O
U
O
Y N I, O O n O N Ln n .--�
c -
a] i OJ
m
tO
O
N(;j)
Lo
uOi;enal3

OJ
O
v
Q
c
Y
s
U1
i
C
N
O
OJ
C
CO
\
N
Y
C
CO
�
N
M
0000
ri
_
O
bA
O
CY w cli
_ O
N
•�
C
N
ut
N N
bA
p
-6 C O .�
N w S= �
C
_
2 S=
ut
O
C
O -6 °- — -6 -O
N 6 7
N O
.0
c
OJ (a L O
N o v o 0
m—
F
>
F ai
v° 3
x 3 E E 3 t 3 a°i
cow
7
N CO lq O .--� to O V1 p p
f0 N
O
�n co o .—i of o ti � .�
°
co7
cli
v
++
u
�
n n r
LL
d
r,
n n r
N
'A(;j)
uOi;ena13
O
u

Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1- 2022
Parameter
MONITORING
CONDITIONSDESIGN •
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 1 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 1 0.9
0.9
1.2
6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
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
1.0
1.1
1.0
1 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)z
0.0130
0.0120
0.0109
Other
--
--
--
Parameter
UT1
Riffle Only
Min I Max
n
Min I Max
Min Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.1
1
5.0
8.0
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
4.2
1
11.0 1 18.0
55.5
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
1
0.4
0.3
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1
0.5 1 0.6
0.6
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
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)z
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 1- 2022
Parameter
CONDITIONS
UT3
MONITORING
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
1
21.0
52.6
1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
1
0.5
0.6
1
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
1
0.6
1
0.8
0.9
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
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)z
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

§
§
§
§
0
0
{�
§
§
§
0
}�
{�
{0
0
§
§
§
[
0
0(jm\)32
0�§m)):;
\�}:/§:c
}�//
§
§
§
§
�
00
0
0
}
0
\�
0
§�
°§))a)
3§)m/}m;
�\\
\\��\\
U.
00��\\
�10
00

APPENDIX D. Hydrology Data

2
a
N
O
n
}
n
N
O
�D
}
�D
N
O
rIL
}
Z
N
O
rIL
N
O
rIL
}
M
N
O
rIL
}
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
O O
O
O
\
-- --
O
C
N
C
.N..
ro N
O
z
O
z
m
O O
Z
ti
u
t
�
U
N
N
N
t
w
R
>
>
>
m
0)
C
GJ
O_
R
c.�
N
� N
C M
Y O
^y
E mm O N
N
Vf O
m O L
O
O f6
f0 p Z }
CO U to
4- O 'i
O
a cn c
O
H U
O
N
O
n
}
n
N
O
�D
}
�D
N
O
rIL
}
Z
N
O
rIL
N
O
rIL
}
M
N
O
N
N
}
N
O
00
00
�
N
�
L
Q
.0
N
ate-+
}'
ate-+
O
a is
Ctu
ccn
C
a
E
O
~
(n u
N u
i
O
c
� a
LU a
Z
c
Q

m
E
E )
= In
N C:
GJ O
N
m W O N
+ p N
'a O
m E o
_ L
}/ � iQ 0
O Z }
m U top
N N '�
rl 4- GJ N O
d t
Q N C
O
H V 0
N
O
n
n
N
O
l0
N
bA
�
N
O
m
v
C
C
aj
U
Ln
�CC
G1
C
a
O
Q
N
O
O
N
T
Ln
2
�
�
v
7
w
0
O
N
U
N
CO
CX
C
M
N
O
N
C�
C
0
0
O
>- o
>- o
>- o
>- o
> o
LO
>' o
°
\
>' o
>- o
v
M c-I
0
f0 �
0
f6 Ol
0
M l0
0
0
�n
l0
0
(0 m
n
f6 -I
0
00
0
r1
.4
N
oo
c-I
m
M c-I
rn
Z c-I
oo
� c-I
rn
� .--I
0
co
r-
"-I
O
" N
c}
C
Ln
Q
0
I
Ln
N
3
c-I
N
M
u1
1.0
I"
co
m
rI
c-I
rI
IN
V
0
V1
N
N
N
O
N
c-I
c-I
c-I
N
N
O
N
V1
\
M
O
C
O
(O
v
N
h0
C
O
u

3
O
LL
E 4J
f6 N
d C:
N O
Co 0 N
oA N
0 N
O '
E
L
O O M
U �
O
CO U dA
CM v O
O
w d &
CLco
O
H U 0
N
O
n
n
N
O
l0
t0
'L
N
'i
l0
U
NO
y�j
N
Ln
U
�
C�
C
dA
C
0)
C0)
C
�
N
O
�
0
O
H
m
0
�+
N
N
c�i
�
M
U
X
m
N
O
N
(14
N
p 0
0
0
0 0
(Y1 fV
0 `1
C,
m r j
-1 m
c)
0 r-i
u
U
`L° N
cv
m
s
m v
L
U
ri
(V
ly)
a v
D
D
D
co
U
� N
> O
N
U
U
OJ
o
U L
0 OO
M =
N 2
� y
y v
U N
N p
N U
aj
U m
U m
Ln

m
U
(ul) uollelldl:)aJd
N O
.ti ti W t0 � N O
Ln M N .--I O a,
n n n n n n ID
r,
(4) uollena13

(ul) uollelldl:)aJd
N O
.ti ti W t0 � N O
-;t M N .--I O a, 00
�o ID ID ID ID Ln Ln
r, r,
(4) uollena13

(ul) uollelldl:)aJd
N O
.ti ti W t0 � N O
O a, 00
(4) uol;ena13

(ul) uollelldl:)aJd
N O
.ti ti W t0 � N O
to zdl M
n n n n n n n
(4) uollena13

m
U
(ul) uol;e;ldl:)aad
N O
n n n
(:}) uol4enal3
m
n

P
O O �0
O Z t
O] U an aJ
aJ C OC
aJ
aJ LL ! m
Q V) c y
o ai
u 0 2 3
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
m
0
ZZOZ/bL/LL
I
uoseas SuimoJE) }o pu3
I
o
z
a
U
p
C
I
I
V
K
T
f0
�
0
O
m
I
r-I
N
I
N
Ln
C
IfC
V
w
W
L
Q�
�
Im
Im
Y
3
I
UJ
�
�
3 N
a
f0
ati
0
V1 �
C �
O �
a+ O
I
w
CLO
a+ _
I
a_
C
O
�
E
I
0
O
O
0
00
C
N
Q
T
N
I
T
cu
>
J
C
O
V
I
CX
C
�
I
Q
Q
CF)
ll1
'
I
�
UJ
J
`w
ZZOZ/SL/£
uoseas BuimoJE) }o WE!JS
I
I
�
�
I
I
�
LL
C
�
:a
I
�
U
p
a
2.
0
O O O O O O O O 0
I

O O �0
CO U an N
N C OC
UJ
N O ! f6
Q V) c y
o v
P
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
m
0
I
ZZOZ/bL/LL
uoseas BuimoJE) }O pu3
I
o
z
a
U
UJ
C
I
I
V
K
T
f0
�
I
O
O
m
N
U
w
I
N
�
C
fC
V
w
E
L
Q�
�
Y
3
I
UJ
�
c
3 N
Q
�
i
O
v1 �
I
C �
O �
a+ p
�
I
w
CLO �
C
I
�
p
I
O
�
O
0
00
N
I
C
N
Q
T
m
T
>
N
L
-p
to
J
7
V
—
C
O
V
X
I
O.
Q
Ln
I
cu
J
`w
ZZOZ/SL/£
uoseas SUIMOJE) }O lVelS
I
I
�
�
I
I
L L
C
�
:a
I
�
U
UJ
a
0
O O O O O O O O
I
NO uORe-13

v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
Co
L
O
m
I
I
0
m
ZZOZ/bL/LL
uoseas BuimoJE) }o pu3
I
o
z
a
U
UJ
C
I
V
K
f0
�
Q
O
m
I
M
Gl
I
N
V
C
fC
V
Cu
W
L
Q�
�
Im
Im
Y
3
I
Cu
�
�
3 N
a
f0
+�+
O
V7 �
I
C �
O �
a+ O
�
I
w
CLO �
I
C
O
�
—
I
o
O
�
O
O
CO
N
I
C
N
Q
T
N
I
T
Cu
>
f0
�
IC
O
IV
CX
C
I
Q
Q
�
M
Irq
—Cu
Cu
`w
ZZOZ/SL/£
uoseas SuimoJE) }o lWelS
I
I
�
�
I
I
�
LL
C
:a
I
U
v
a
O O O O O O O O 0
I
NO uORe-13

ai
in
O
Y
a 0 N N
++ N E
m 0
O Z O M +�+
W
O]O
ate+ w
V
?> N C OC
0 0 O `) O ayi
c
L C
u u 0 2 3
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
ZZOUVI/LL
m
0
I
uoseas suimoJE) }o pu3
o
a
I
z
U
UJ
C
I
V
w
m
�
I
O
O
M
Gl
O
Q
Ln
C
fC
V
w
W
L
Q�
�
Y
3
I
UJ
�
c
+�+
O
V7 �
I
C �
O �
a+ O
�
I
w
CLO �
I
c
O
�
I
0
o
O
�
O
O
00
N
I
C
T
Q N
T
>
W
7
V
�
IC
-
O
V
I
X
I
O.
Q
00cu
I
ZZOZ/SL/£
J
`w
uoseas SuimoJE) }o lWels
�
I
I
�
I
I
�
LL
C
M
:a
I
U
v
a
O O O O O O O O
I
NO UORe-13

ai
in
c
O
a 0 N N
++ N E
m 0
O O +�+
W
ate+ Z O w
O] V an w
?> N C OC
'a O 'O O
v a ++ ro
o Q `n o Cu
0 c
L C
u u o 2 3
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
Co
L
O
m
I
I
0
m
0
I
ZZOZ/bL/LL
u0seas SuimoJE) 10 pu3
I
o
z
a
U
UJ
C
I
I
V
K
T
f0
�
I
O
O
m
LA
I
N
N
�
C
IfC
V
w
W
L
�
Y
3
I
Cu
�
�
3 N
I
a
f0
+�+
O
V7
I
C
O �
a+ O
�
I
w
CLO 0
m
Ir
C
O
�
E
I
0
O
O
0
CO
N
I
C
N
Q
T
N
I
T
>
Cu
�
IC
O
V
I
X
0
I
O.
Q
Ln
I
>
Cu
`w
ZZOZ/sL/£
uoseas
2lull,
}o ljels
0
I
LL
C
:a
I
I
U
v
a
O O O O O O O 1-9 O
I

ai
in
c
O
a 0 N N
++ N E
m 0
O Z O M +�+
W
O]O
ate+ w
V
?> N C CC
'a O 'O -
v a ++ ro
o Q `n o ayi
0 c
L C
u u o 2 3
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
Co
L
O
m
I
I
0
m
0
ZZOZ/bL/LL
I
uoseaS SuimoJE) }o pu3
o
z
a
U
p
C
I
V
K
f0
�
I
O
O
m
lG
G1
I
N
L
C
fC
V
Cu
W
L
Y
3
Cu
�
tm
3 N
a
f0
i
O
v1 �
I
C �
O �
a+ O
�
I
Cu
� O
w
C
C O
�
Io
0
Co
°
Q
T
f0
�
I
�
C
O
IV
cX
C
O.
Q
�
Ic-I
>
Cu
`w
ZZOZ/SL/£
uoseaS BuimoJE) }o:WelS
I
I
�
LL
C
:a
I
U
v
a
0
O O O O O O O O
I

P
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
ZZOZ/bL/LL
m
I
uoseas BuimoJE) }o pu3
o
a
I
z
U
p
C
I
V
K
f0
�
I
O
O
m
n
Gl
I
N
Ln
C
IfC
V
w
W
L
Q�
�
Im
Im
Y
3
I
UJ
�
to
�
3 N
a
f0
i
O
v1 �
I
C �
O �
a+ O
�
I
w
C
C O
�
I
O
�
O
O
00
N
C
T
Q N
T
>
u
N
L O
0
7
V
�
I
-
�
C
O
V
I
X
I
O.
Q
00cu
I
ZZOZ/SL/£
J
`w
uoseas SuimoJE) }o :Wels
�
I
I
�
I
I
�
LL
C
�
:a
I
U
p
a
0
O O O O O O O O
I
NO UORe-13

v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
m
IF
ZZOZAVII
uoseas SuimoJE) }o pu3
I
CP
o
z
a
U
p
C
I
V
K
f0
�
I
0
O
m
00
it
0)
ttoL
I
N
C
fC
V
w
W
L
Q�
�
Y
3
I
UJ
-M
txo
N
a
0
O
0
ati
0
V1
C �
O
?
a+ O
�
I
w
CLO �
I
C
O
�
I
0
o
O
O
0
00
N
I
C
Q
>
I
0
u
7
V
C
IV
(c0
Q
Q
C
00
>
J
`w
ZZOZ/SL/£
uoseas suimoig }o els
I
�
�
I
I
�
LL
C
:a
I
U
v
a
O O O O O O O O
I
NO UORe-13

v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
ZZOZ/bL/LL
m
0
I
uoseas BuimoJE) }o pu3
o
a
I
z
U
UJ
C
I
V
K
f0
�
I
O
O
m
n
cU
G1
I
N
C
IfC
V
w
W
L
Q�
�
Im
Im
Y
3
UJ
�
�
3 N
I
a
f0
i
O
v1 �
I
C �
O �
a+ O
�
I
w
O
w
a_
C
C O
�
IE
o
0
m
° Tcu
Q N
,
T
L 'p
(0
J
f0
C
O
IV
cX
C
Ln
Ic
O.
Q
ZZOZ/SL/£
J
`w
uoseas SuimoJE) }o WIS
I
I
I
�
LL
C
:a
I
U
p
a
O O O O O O O O 0
I

v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
W
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
ZZOZ/bL/LL
m
uoseas SuimOJE) }O pu3
I
o
a
I
c
z
U
UJ
C
I
I
V
=O
i
f0
I?
I
O
O
m
O
r-I
N
N
�
C
P
L
Q�
3
I�
W
7 N
I
Q
m
O O
N
I60
N i
O
V7 �
I
C y
O pp
a+ C
v
(Q
L Q
U
Y
I
C
C O
V]
E
I
O
N
O
OO
m
L
v
I
Y
y
N
>
CL p
L
I
T
0
J
V •Y
cc
W
7
V
�
IC
-
O
V
I
X
I
O.
Q
N
I
>
ZZOZ/SL/£
J
`w
uoseas SuimOJE) }O lWels
�
I
I
�
I
I
�
LL
C
m
:a
I
U
p
a
O O O O O O O O 0
I
NO uORe-13

P
v
(ul)
uol;e;ldl:)aad
w
c-I 01
to
M
O
U
N
a
L
I
O
n
co
L
O
m
I
I
0
ZZOZ/bL/LL
m
uoseas BuimoJE) }o pu3
I
o
a
I
z
U
UJ
C
I
I
V
K
T
f0
�
I
O
O
m
a --I
a --I
N
N
Ln
C
E
UJ
L
Q�
N
Y
�
3
I
N
� N
ai i
O
V7 �
I
C y
O pp
a+ C
w
(Q
Q
U
�
Y
I
C
CC
V7
ccO
C C
I
C
O
N
O
�
OO
m
L
v
I
Y
y
N
cu
CL O
L
T
0
u
fC N
V 2
I
m
W
V I
�
I
U
�
C
O
V
I
X
c
V1
I
I
O.
Q
cu
ZZOZ/SL/£
`w
uoseas BUIMOJE) }o WIS
�
I
I
�
I
I
�
LL
C
�
:a
I
�
U
UJ
a
0
O O O O O O O O
I
NO UORe-13

APPENDIX E. Project Timeline and Contact Info

Table 14. Project Activity and Reporting History
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1- 2022
Activity or Deliverable
Project Instituted
Data Collection Complete Task Completion or
Deliverable Submission
N/A October 9, 2018
Mitigation Plan Approved
December 2020 December 2020
Construction (Grading) Completed
N/A July 2021
As -Built Survey Completed
August -September 2021 September 2021
Planting Completed
N/A February 2022
Baseline Monitoring
Document (Year 0)
iStream Survey
August -September 2021 April 2022
February 2022
lVegetation Survey
Invasive Treatment
July, November 2022
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
August 2022
November 2022
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
Istream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Table 15. Project Contact Table
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100090
Monitoring Year 1- 2022
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Eric Neuhaus, PE
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
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754

APPENDIX F. Additional Documentation

ktr4
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
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 MYO 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 MYO 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 MYO 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
ENGINEERING
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.
Wildlan ds' 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, INC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
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.
Wetland A
81.253774TW 35.404B295°N
Streams x
I& Pq Add 5electiorc NMSekect By Attributes +V Zoom To ®®Switch ® Clear 0 Delete 8 Copy Highirghte& ®a Dnsele
4BJECTIU * Shape" Shape_Lergth Name Approach Lengh_LF Realignment Foaficdt
14 PolylineZ 49.673367 Carpenter Branch R1 Restoration 49.573357 No fJo
P PolylineZ 4304078 CB Rl As Built Deviat,,, De., 43.374073 YE -
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

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 26, 2022
ATTN: Ms. Kim Isenhour
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
RE: Carpenter Bottom Mitigation Site - MYO Report Comments
Catawba River Basin — CU# 03040101, Gaston County
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02062
NCDWR Project No. 20190049
DMS Project ID No. 100090, Contract # 7731
Dear Ms. Kim Isenhour,
Thank you for your comments in the email dated July 7, 2022 referencing the Carpenter Bottom
Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 0 (MYO) Report. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed
these comments and our responses are noted below.
Kim Isenhour, USACE:
1. How deep are the floodplain pools where the relic channel meander features were located? On
recent site visits, we've noted several instances of floodplain pools being left as open water in areas
where the mitigation plans calls for planted buffers. The majority of these pools have been deep
enough that they will not dry seasonally and allow for herbaceous or woody vegetation
establishment.
Wildlands Response: At the location of the relic channel meander features, the floodplain pool
is around 1.5' deep. The floodplain pools were designed with a max depth of 2.0' and were
intended to draw down seasonally. Vegetation growth will be monitored in floodplain pools and
reported on in the MY1 report.
Kim Isenhour, USACE response (July 28, 2022): These features should be no more than 18-inches
deep and should dry seasonally (ideally toward the end of spring), not draw down. The idea is
that the pools will have dry periods that prevent predator species from surviving. The size of
constructed ephemeral pools should be limited to prevent the formation of gaps within the tree
canopy and minimize the risk of invasive plant colonization. You should also take into account
the target vegetation community for the project. For example, ephemeral pools may develop
herbaceous vegetative growth that may persist for a long period rather than the targeted
forested community.
Wildlands Response: The condition of the floodplain pools is discussed in more detail in
section 2.6 — Wetland Hydrology Assessment of the MY1 report. Two of the four
floodplain pools were existing wetland areas protected during construction, so their
hydrologic functionality and their vegetation communities are assumed to be
comparable to the existing conditions. When the Site was assessed on September 1,

2022, three of the pools had dried up completely and only the most upstream pool had
a small area of standing water approximately 0.5 feet deep. The targeted forested
community can still develop an enclosed canopy over and around these floodplain pools
as they are only 27-feet wide. Consequently, these four pools are not a concern for the
success and functionality of the completed project. See the MY1 report for photo
documentation of the floodplain pools.
2. In future monitoring years, please capture some of the wetland rehabilitation areas with mobile veg
plots.
Wildlands Response: Mobile veg plots will be positioned to capture wetland rehabilitation areas
starting in MY2 as mobile vegetation plots are typically stationary between MYO and MY1.
3. Thank you for including the soil profile descriptions at each groundwater gauge. It would have been
helpful to include a table with the pre -construction gauge data.
Wildlands Response: A summary table of pre -construction gage data will be included in future
as -built monitoring reports.
4. Pebble counts were included in the data. Do you plan to keep this as a performance standard
through monitoring?
Wildlands Response: Pebble counts were included in the MYO report as part of the baseline
data collection as described in the Mitigation Plan. However, pebble counts will not be collected
for the MY1-MY7 reports, unless requested by the IRT or deemed necessary based on best
professional judgement. This is documented in Section 3.3 (Stream Assessment) of the MYO
report.
5. Photo Point 12, outside the easement, appears to be a source of offsite sediment/nutrients.
Wildlands Response: Sediment in photo point 12 is from recent fencing work at the Site.
Upstream of UT4 is wooded and stable.
Erin Davis, NCDWR:
1. DWR would like to reiterate DMS' comments/questions on the high riffles and gauge ben tonite seals.
WEI's responses were fine, but please closely observe these areas during MY1 and address as
needed.
Wildlands Response: These items/concerns will be noted in future monitoring reports.
2. What are the max. depths of the floodplain pools? (may include response in MY1 report)
Wildlands Response: The floodplain pools were designed with a max depth of 2.0' and were
intended to draw down seasonally. Vegetation growth will be monitored in floodplain pools and
reported on in the MY1 report.
DWR appreciated that invasives were inventoried and treated pre -construction. And we were glad to
see woody debris was added to the floodplain pools. DWR is ok with the proposed credit release. No
site visit requested.
Wildlands Response: Thank you for your comments.
Todd Bowers, USEPA:
1. 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%. Morphological

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
surveys conducted throughout the Site show all streams as stable and functioning as designed.
Eleven groundwater wells were established at baseline conditions to monitor wetland hydrology
within both wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas. Wetland hydrologic data will be
collected and reported during MY1. No adaptive management plan needed at this time. No issues of
conservation easement encroachment.
Wildlands Response: Thank you, we acknowledge the comments.
2. Table 2a: I recommend adding a visual confirmation that the objective of excluding livestock from
the conservation easement is being met. Visual confirmation can include no sign of hoof shear or
cattle excrement within the project boundaries. Trampled streams and vegetation, broken fence,
destroyed banks from hooves and excrement would be positive indications of that objective not
meeting standards.
Wildlands Response: A visual confirmation of cattle exclusion will be added to Table 2A in the
MY1 report.
Overall, I am very satisfied with the report and the work that Wildlands has completed at the
site. Having not been able to visit this location, I really appreciated the detailed ground -level stream
and veg plot photos to illustrate the amount of work implemented. I recommend the appropriate
credit release (Milestone 2) for warm stream and riparian wetland mitigation units for this
monitoring milestone. I have no other substantial comments at this time.
Wildlands Response: Thank you, we acknowledge the comments.
As requested, Wildlands has addressed these comments and the updates are included in the MY1
Report. A copy of this comment/response letter will be included in the Appendix of the MY1 Report. If
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Eric Neuhaus
Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]