The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140193 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2019_20200116ID#* 20140193 Version* 1 Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt Initial Review Completed Date 01/16/2020 Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/16/2020 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No Type of Mitigation Project:* V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name:* Matthew Reid Project Information ................................................................................... ID#:* 20140193 Existing IDr Project Type: Project Name: County: Email Address:* mattdreid@gmail.com Version: *1 Existing Version r DMS r Mitigation Bank Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project Catawba Document Information Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: HenryFork_96306_MY4_2019.pdf 12.21MB Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted... Signature Print Name:* Matthew Reid Signature:* MONITORING YEAR 4 ANNUAL REPORT Final HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE Catawba County, NC DEQ Contract No. 005782 DMS Project No. 96306 Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103 Expanded Service Area Data Collection Period: February 2019 - November 2019 Final Submission Date: December 23, 2019 PREPARED FOR: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 PREPARED BY: 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: 704.332.7754 Fax: 704.332.3306 Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 December 23, 2019 Mr. Matthew Reid Western Project Manager Division of Mitigation Services 5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102 Asheville, NC 28801 RE: Response to MY4 Draft Report Comments Henry Fork Mitigation Project DMS Project # 96306 Contract Number 005782 RFP Number 16-005298 Catawba River Basin – CU# 03050103 Expanded Service Area Catawba County, North Carolina Dear Mr. Reid: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 4 report for the Henry Fork Mitigation Project. The following Wildlands responses to DMS’s report comments are noted in italics lettering. DMS comment; Please add callout on CCPV for location of bank repair on UT1. Wildlands response; A callout has been added to CCPV Figure 3.2 to note the location of the bank repair on UT1. DMS comment; On Page 1-4, the report mentions minor bank repairs are planned on UT1 Reach 2 near 102+75. This stationing does not correspond to UT1 Reach 2 according to the CCPV. Please update accordingly. Wildlands response; The stationing has been corrected in the report text. DMS comment; Page 1-5 describes a narrow footpath through the easement near vegetation plot 5 for the purpose of the frisbee golf course. During the on-site meeting held January 16, 2019 with Wildlands, IRT and DMS, the IRT expressed concern with the trail and indicated it would need to discontinue by the time of closeout. Wildlands indicated they would communicate this to the adjacent land owner. Meeting minutes are attached. Wildlands response; Text has been added to this paragraph to be consistent with the January 16, 2019 meeting minutes. DMS comment; For clarity, consider adding the consecutive day number for each gage on the groundwater gage plots instead of using the currently shown 20 day bar. The gage 8 plot shows 19 days which corresponds to the consecutive days for that gage. All the other gages use the 20 day bar. Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 The 20 day bar adds some confusion to the plots without a description of what it corresponds too (8.5% of the growing season). Wildlands response; For clarity, the number of consecutive days is now shown instead of the 20 day bar on all groundwater gage plots. Digital Files Review DMS comment; Wetland 1, 2, B, G, N, and R features in the DMS geodatabase do not match what is reported in the monitoring report asset table. Please provide DMS with features for these wetlands that accurately characterize the creditable assets. Wildlands response; A new shapefile called “ALL_Wetlands” has been added to the electronic support files that correctly matches the creditable assets. DMS comment; DMS cannot open the "Henry Fork In-Stream Flow Gage with..." file. Please confirm that the file cannot be opened, and if it cannot, provide a new file. Wildlands response; Yes, Wildlands is able to open the file that was provided to DMS in the electronic support files. Please let us know if there continues to be an issue with opening the file. Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring Report. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x101 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Andrea S. Eckardt, Ecological Assessment Team Leader aeckardt@wildlandseng.com Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Henry Fork Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore 3,057 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams and enhance 2,626 LF of intermittent streams, enhance 0.68 acres of existing wetlands, rehabilitate 0.25 acres of existing wetlands, and re-establish 3.71 acres of wetlands in Catawba County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 4,807.667 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 4.221 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) (Table 1). The Site is located near the city of Hickory in Catawba County, NC, in the Catawba River Basin; eight-digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03050102 and the 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030 (Figure 1). The project’s compensatory mitigation credits will be used in accordance with the In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the expanded service area as defined under the September 12, 2006 PACG memorandum, and/or DMS acceptance and regulatory permit conditions associated with DMS ILF requirements. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030, Lower Henry Fork, was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in DMS’ 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan. The project streams consist of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Henry Fork River on the site of a former golf course, referred to herein as UT1, UT2, UT1A, and UT1B (Figure 2). The project also consists of several wetland restoration components, as well as buffer planting along Henry Fork. The project watershed consists of agricultural, forested, and residential land uses. The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to meet DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed. The established project goals include: • Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses; and • Correct modifications to streams, wetlands and buffers; • Improving and re-establishing hydrology and function of previously cleared wetlands; • Reducing current erosion and sedimentation; • Reduce nutrient inputs to streams and wetlands, and to downstream water bodies; • Improve instream habitat; and • Provide and improve terrestrial habitat, and native floodplain forest. The Site construction and as-built surveys were completed between November 2015 and March 2016. Monitoring Year (MY) 4 assessments and site visits were completed between February and November 2019. Per Inter-agency Review Team (IRT) guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation and channel cross-sectional dimensions were omitted during MY4. Visual observations, substrate data, hydrology data, and management practices are included in this report. To preserve the clarity and continuity of reporting structure, this report maintains section and appendix numbering from previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections are denoted in the table of contents. Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY4. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. All project streams recorded at least one bankfull event or greater in MY4; therefore, the bankfull performance standard has been met for the Site. Vegetation appears to be performing adequately to attain the MY5 density requirement of 260 stems per acre. Fourteen of the fifteen groundwater monitoring gages installed on the Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for MY4. The MY4 visual assessment revealed a few areas of concern including pockets of invasive plant species, areas of low stem vigor, isolated areas of bank scour, and beaver activity which will continue to be monitored and adaptive management will be performed as needed. Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL ii HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................1-1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.4 Wetland Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................... 1-4 1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-5 Section 2: METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................2-1 Section 3: REFERENCES .................................................................................................3-1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Figures and Tables Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contact Table Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data Figure 3.0-3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Table 5a-e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs Vegetation Photographs* Appendix 3* Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9 Planted and Total Stems Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 10a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary* Table 11a-b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Section)* Table 12a-b Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary* Cross Section Plots* Pebble Count Data Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary Groundwater Gage Plots & Stream Gage Plots Monthly Rainfall Data *Content not required for Monitoring Year 4 Report Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 1-1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Site is located near the city of Hickory in Catawba County, NC, in the Catawba River Basin; eight-digit CU 03050102 and the 14-digit HUC 03050102010030 (Figure 1). Access to the Site is via Mountain View Road, approximately one mile southwest of Hickory, North Carolina. Situated in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed consists of agricultural, forested, and residential land uses. The drainage area for the Site is 178 acres. (0.28 square miles). The project streams consist of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Henry Fork River on the site of a former golf course, referred to herein as UT1, UT2, UT1A, and UT1B. Stream restoration reaches included UT1 (Reach 1 and 2) and UT1B, together comprising 3,057 LF of perennial stream channel. Stream enhancement reaches included UT1A and UT2, together totaling 2,626 LF. Stream enhancement activities for UT1A and UT2 were the same as for restoration reaches, however the tributaries are intermittent, and as such were credited as enhancement. The riparian areas of the tributaries, as well as a 100 foot-wide buffer of the Henry Fork, were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Wetland components included enhancement of 0.68 acres of existing wetlands, rehabilitation of 0.25 acres of existing wetlands and re-establishment of 3.71 acres of wetlands. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2016. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2016. A conservation easement has been recorded and is in place on 48.06 acres (Deed Book 03247, Page Number 0476- 0488) within a tract owned by WEI-Henry Fork, LLC. The project is expected to generate 4,807.667 SMUs and 4.221 WMUs. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information for this project. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the Site in Figure 2. 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Catawba River Basin. The Site will help meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and provide numerous ecological benefits within the Catawba River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Henry Fork project area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project goals established were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed. The following project specific goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) include: • Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses; and • Correct modifications to streams, wetlands and buffers; • Improving and re-establishing hydrology and function of previously cleared wetlands; • Reducing current erosion and sedimentation; • Reduce nutrient inputs to streams and wetlands, and to downstream water bodies; • Improve instream habitat; and • Provide and improve terrestrial habitat, and native floodplain forest. The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives: Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 1-2 • Decommissioning the existing golf course and establishing a conservation easement on the Site will eliminate direct chemical fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide inputs; • Resizing and realigning channels to address stream dredging and ditching. Planting native woody species in riparian zones which have been maintained through mowing. By correcting these prior modifications, the channels and floodplains will provide a suite of hydrologic and biological function; • Restoring appropriate stream dimensions and juxtaposition of streams and wetlands on the landscape. Wetlands will be enhanced through more frequent overbank flooding, and also by reducing the drawdown effect that current ditched channels have on wetland hydrology, thereby enhancing wetland connectivity to the local water table. The project will extend existing wetland zones into adjacent areas and support wetland functions; • Removing historic overburden to uncover relic hydric soils. Roughen wetland re-establishment. Restore streams for wetland benefit. Each of these will bring local water table elevations closer to the ground surface. Create overbank flooding, and depressional storage for overland and overbank flow retention. Decrease direct runoff, and increase infiltration; • A native vegetation community will be planted on the Site to revegetate the riparian buffers and wetlands. Conduct soil restoration through topsoil harvesting and reapplication, and leaf litter harvesting and application from adjacent forested areas. This will return functions associated with buffers and forested floodplains, as well as enhance soil productivity and bring native biological activity and seed into the disturbed areas; • Constructing diverse and stable channel form with varied stream bedform and installing habitat features, along with removing culverts. These will allow aquatic habitat quality and connectivity enhancement; and • Placing a portion of the right bank Henry Fork floodplain under a conservation easement, and planting all stream buffers and wetlands with native species. Creating a 100 foot-wide corridor of wooded riparian buffer along that top right bank area and re-establishing native plant communities, connectivity of habitat within Site and to adjoining natural areas along the river corridor. 1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment Annual monitoring was conducted during MY4 (February to November 2019) to assess the condition of the project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in the Henry Fork Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015). 1.2.1 Stream Assessment MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require morphological surveys; therefore no cross- sectional survey was performed this year. In general, MY4 pebble counts in UT1 and UT1B indicate maintenance of coarser material in the riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment tables, Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) Figures 3.0- 3.2, and reference photographs and Appendix 4 for pebble count plots. 1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches. During MY4, all stream reaches recorded at least one bankfull event. Multiple bankfull events had been recorded in previous monitoring years on all reaches; therefore, the performance criteria has been met for the Site. Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 1-3 In addition to monitoring bankfull events, intermittent streams must be monitored to demonstrate that stream flow regimes are sufficient to establish an Ordinary High Water Mark, specifically a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of normal rainfall. The stream gages indicated each stream recorded between 150-300 days of consecutive flow. Presence of baseflow was observed in UT1, UT1A, and UT1B during each site visit. UT2 was observed with baseflow during all site visits except for the period with lower than normal amounts of rainfall from September to October. These observations confirm data recorded by the stream gages. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots. 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require detailed vegetation inventory and analysis; therefore no vegetation plot monitoring was performed this year. Visual assessment in MY4 indicate that planted stems are surviving, and the Site should be on track to meet the MY5 density requirement of 260 stems per acre. 1.2.4 Wetland Assessment In total, there are fifteen GWGs currently on the Site. Seven groundwater hydrology gages (GWGs) were established during the baseline monitoring within the wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones (GWGs 1 – 4 and 6 – 8). Two additional gages (GWG 5 and 9) were installed within the wetland re- establishment areas during 2017 (MY2) in order to further assess wetland performance. During the initial GWG installation, GWG 3 was installed in a seep where hydrology was much stronger than the surrounded area; therefore, GWG 3 was relocated in January 2017 (MY2) to an area that was more representative of the surrounding wetlands. The transducer for GWG 5 was replaced at the beginning of MY4 due to abnormal data in MY3 and to ensure accurate water level data is being reported. In February and March 2019 (MY4), six additional GWG were added to the Site. Three gages (GWG 10 – 12) were installed to better define the wetland re-establishment area within the right floodplain of UT1 Reach 2. The remaining three gages (GWG 13 – 15) were installed in locations adjacent to wetland enhancement areas to provide groundwater data to support the potential expansion of these wetland areas. Following construction, gages were distributed so that the data collected would provide a reasonable indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland components on the Site. Additional gages have been added to further refine this data. A gage was established in an adjacent reference wetland and is being utilized to compare with the hydrologic response within the restored wetland areas at the Site. A barotroll logger (to measure barometric pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with gage transducer data) was installed on the Site. The rainfall data is collected from an existing NC CRONOS station (Hickory 4.8 SW, NC). All monitoring gages were downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained on an as needed basis. A soil temperature gage was also installed on Site in October 2016. Wildlands is using the soil temperature probe data to confirm the dates defined in the WETS table for Burke County, NC. The WETS growing season is not available for Catawba County; however, a growing season is defined for historic weather data collected at the Hickory Regional Airport in Burke County, which is approximately 3 miles as the crow flies from the Site. The growing season from Burke County, which runs from March 20th to November 11th (236 days), is being used for hydrologic success. The final performance standard established for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 20 consecutive days (8.5%) of the defined growing season under typical precipitation conditions. Of the fifteen GWGs, fourteen met the success criteria for MY4. Of the gages that met, the percentage consecutive days of the growing season ranged from 15% to 100% of the growing season. While GWG 8 was the only gage that did not meet criteria, the measured maximum consecutive days was short by Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 1-4 only one day. GWGs 5, 10, and 13 achieved the success criteria for 100% of the growing season with plots showing similar hydroperiods indicating comparable groundwater hydrology in those areas. The remainder of the GWGs follow the hydroperiod of the reference gage. Refer to the CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology summary data and plots. 1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Plan Vegetation In MY4, minor areas of invasive plant populations are found within the conservation easement. These species include: Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Creeping primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak). Areas of dense sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) monocultures were also identified and treated within the planted areas in the Site. Wildlands contracted with a provider for invasive species/sweet gum treatment that occurred in November 2019. Visual assessments in MY4 continued to reveal areas with low stem vigor/height and poorer herbaceous cover on the lower portion of the Site (UT2 and UT1 Reach 2 floodplains). Though the herbaceous cover in these areas remains less established in comparison to the rest of the Site, it has improved over time from previous monitoring years. The floodplains of UT2 and UT1 Reach 2 were addressed in the fall of MY4 with an additional seeding and amendment application. These areas will continue to be monitored and Wildlands will implement further remedial action such as supplemental planting if necessary. Streams Following a large storm event in June 2019, isolated areas of bank scour were noted along UT1. In August 2019, minor repairs were performed on UT1 Reach 1 on the pool near station 106+00 consisting of regrading the outside meander bend and replanting the banks with established vegetation transplanted from the floodplain. Additional minor bank repairs, in part related to beaver activity, are planned for an area of bank scour on UT1 Reach 2 near station 124+75 and to be completed in the winter of 2019/2020. Continuing in MY4, low flow (water present, but low velocity) in UT1A and UT2 was observed with some vegetation within the channel. A defined baseflow channel is still present and as woody vegetation becomes more established and shades out in-stream vegetation, the baseflow channel is expected to become less vegetated. In November 2019, additional live-stakes were planted to supplement the woody vegetation along the banks where needed on UT1A and UT2 in order to improve stream shading. During MY2, a portion of UT1 Reach 1 was found to be flowing subsurface and surface repair and plugging of this area was completed in December 2017 in order to address the issue. The repair has remained effective throughout MY4. Several beaver dams have been removed in MY4 throughout the lower portion of UT1 Reach 2. The beaver activity has been limited to the lower portion of the project and off site before the tributary reaches Henry Fork. Beaver activity will continue to be monitored and managed throughout closeout. Wetlands In previous monitoring years, wetland hydrology had been weak in the wetland rehabilitation areas upslope of UT1 Reach 2 (GWGs 2 – 3) and at the head of UT2 (GWG 8). As discussed in section 1.2.4, all GWGs except for GWG 8 met or exceeded the success criteria indicating that groundwater levels have continued to recharge in MY4, bolstered by strong winter rainfall totals, as well as above average growing season rainfall. Three of the additional gages (GWGs 10 – 12) were installed at the beginning of MY4 ensure adequate representation of the hydrology in the wetland re-establishment area upslope of Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 1-5 UT1 Reach 2. The three remaining gages (GWGs 13 – 15) added in MY4 were installed adjacent to wetland enhancement areas to provide hydrology data to support the potential expansion of these areas to offset any loss of wetland re-establishment areas where GWGs are not meeting success criteria. Conservation Easement There is an approved narrow footpath through the easement near vegetation plot 5 for the purpose of frisbee golf that Wildlands has allowed on a conditional basis and to discontinue by the time of closeout. This has continued to be monitored to ensure that it does not violate easement terms or threaten stream assets. The minor mowing encroachments that were observed in MY1 and MY2 have been resolved. While there has been a stop to the encroachment issues, the Site boundary and prior problem areas will continue to be monitored for easement enforcement. Quarterly site visits will continue to be conducted to monitor and address any areas of concern. If necessary, future adaptive management will be implemented to improve herbaceous cover, treat and control invasive plants, and address hydrology issues. Please refer to Appendix 2 for CCPV Figures 3.0- 3.2. 1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY4. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. All project streams recorded at least one bankfull event or greater in MY4; therefore, the bankfull performance standard has been met for the Site. Vegetation appears to be performing adequately to attain the MY5 density requirement of 260 stems per acre. Fourteen of the fifteen groundwater monitoring gages installed on the Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for MY4. The MY4 visual assessment revealed a few areas of concern including pockets of invasive plant species, areas of low stem vigor, isolated areas of bank scour, and beaver activity which will continue to be monitored and adaptive management will be performed as needed. Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on DMS’s website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request. Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 2-1 Section 2: METHODOLOGY Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using either a Trimble or Topcon handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report – FINAL 3-1 Section 3: 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. 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, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf. North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS). 2019. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Hickory 4.8 SW. Accessed November 2019. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities. http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/RBRPCatawba2007.pdf North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology. http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2015). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC. APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables 03050102010030 03050101090020 03050102020020 03050102010020 03050102030010 03050101100011 03050101140010 Proje ct Location Hyd rologic Unit Cod e (14) DMS T arge ted Local Watersh e d Figure 1 Vicinity MapHe nry Fork Mitigation SiteDMS Proje ct No. 96306Monitoring Ye ar 4 - 2019 Catawba County, NC ¹0 10.5 Mile s T h e subject proje ct site is an environm ental restoration site of th e De partm ent of Env ironm ental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Service s (DMS) and is encom passe d by a re cord ed conse rvation ease m ent, but is bord ered by land und e r private owne rsh ip. Accessing th e site m ay re quire traversing areas near or along th e easem e nt bound ary and th erefore access by th e general public is not pe rm itted . Access by auth orized personnel of state and fe d eral age ncie s or th eir d e signe es/contractors involv ed in th e d eve lopm ent, ove rsigh t,and steward sh ip of th e restoration site is pe rm itte d with in th e te rm s and tim efram e s of th eir d efine d roles. Any inte nd ed site visitation or activity by any pe rson outsid e of th e se prev iously sanctioned roles and activites requires prior coord ination with DMS. Directons to Site:T h e site is located in western Catawba County, NC, T h e site is south we st of th e City of Hickory. T h e proje ct is located on th e old Henry River Golf Course. From Ash eville, NC, take US‐40 East approxim ately 75 m ile s to US‐321 in Hickory, NC. Take exit 42 forUS‐321 South and continue approxim ately 1.2 m ile s. T ake exit for NC‐127 South – continue on NC‐127 South for 0.3 m iles, th en turn righ t on Fle etwood Drive. Follow to th e end (approxim ately 0.2 m iles) and turn righ t onto State Road 1192, Mountain View Road . T h e e ntrance to th e Henry Fork site is at th e end of th e road , approxim ate ly 0.7 m ile s on Mountain View Road . Henry Fork Mountain View Ro a d UT1 Reach 1Upper UT1 A UT1B UT2 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1Lower Catawba County, NC ¹0 300150 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Henry Fork River Planted Buffer Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Re-establishment Wetland Enhancement Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map Henry fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 DMS Project No.96306 Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 4,807.667 N/A 3.880 0.341 N/A N/A N/A N/A Proposed Stationing/ Location* Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio Credits (SMU/WMU)* 100+00 to 103+02 P1 1:1 302.000 103+02 to 114+71 P1 1:1 1,169.000 114+71 to 126+99 1,499 P1/P2 1:1 1,228.000 180+00 to 186+57 353 P1 1.5:1 438.000 150+00 to 153+58 478 P1 1:1 358.000 200+00 to 219+69 1,915 P1 1.5:1 1,312.667 Floodplain near UT1 Reach 2 N/A Planting, hydrologic improvement 1:1 2.480 Floodplain near UT2 N/A Planting, hydrologic improvement 1:1 1.230 Floodplain between UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A 0.18 Planting, hydrologic improvement 1.5:1 0.120 Floodplain between UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A 0.01 Planting, hydrologic improvement 1.5:1 0.009 Floodplain between UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A 0.003 Planting, hydrologic improvement 1.5:1 0.002 Floodplain near UT1A 0.02 Planting 2:1 0.009 East hillslope near UT1A 0.06 Planting 2:1 0.028 East hillslope near UT1A 0.08 Planting 2:1 0.039 East hillslope near UT1 Reach 2 0.04 Planting 2:1 0.018 East hillslope near UT1 Reach 2 0.06 Planting 2:1 0.028 East hillslope near UT1 Reach 2 0.13 Planting 2:1 0.065 Floodplain towards river from UT2 0.08 Planting 2:1 0.042 Floodplain upslope of UT2 0.02 Planting 2:1 0.012 Floodplain upslope of UT2 0.07 Planting 2:1 0.035 Floodplain in footprint of Pond 3 near head of UT1 Reach 2 0.06 Significant improvement to wetland functions 1.5:1 0.039 UT1 Reach 1 Valley (Pond 1)0.16 Planting 2:1 0.066 Buffer (square feet)Upland (acres) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A PROJECT COMPONENTS Reach ID Restoration (R) or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage/Acreage* Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 MITIGATION CREDITS Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset STREAMS UT1 Reach 1 Upper 1,392 Restoration 302 UT1 Reach 1 Lower Restoration 1,169 UT1B Restoration 358 UT2 Enhancement 1,969 UT1 Reach 2 Restoration 1,228 UT1A Enhancement 657 Wetland A Rehabilitation 0.18 Wetland B Rehabilitation 0.013 WETLANDS Wetland 1 Re-establishment 2.48 Wetland 2 Re-establishment 1.23 Wetland H Enhancement 0.06 Wetland I Enhancement 0.08 Wetland C Rehabilitation 0.003 Wetland G Enhancement 0.02 Wetland M Enhancement 0.13 Wetland N Enhancement 0.08 Wetland J Enhancement 0.04 Wetland K Enhancement 0.06 Wetland R Rehabilitation 0.06 Wetland S Enhancement 0.13 Wetland P Enhancement 0.02 Wetland Q Enhancement 0.07 Enhancement I 2,626 N/A N/A Wetland Re-Establishment N/A 3.71 N/A COMPONENT SUMMATION Restoration Level Stream (LF)Riparian Wetland (acres)Non-Riparian Wetland (acres) Restoration 3,057 N/A N/A Preservation N/A N/A N/A * Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream ceneterlines for Monitoring Year 2 after discussions with NC IRT. Wetland Rehabilitation N/A 0.25 N/A Wetland Enhancement N/A 0.68 N/A Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No.96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 DMS Project No.96306 Bare Roots Live Stakes Plugs Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 March 2016 March 2016 Final Design - Construction Plans October 2015 October 2015 Construction November 2015 - March 2016 March 2016 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery Mitigation Plan August 2015 September 2015 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 March 2016 March 2016 March 2016 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey March 2016 May 2016Vegetation Survey March 2016 Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey October 2016 December 2016Vegetation Survey September 2016 Year 1 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2 May-September 2016 Year 1 Invasive Species treatment June & July 2016 Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2016 Stream Survey April 2018 November 2018 June & August 2018 Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey April 2017 December 2017Vegetation Survey July 2017 Year 2 Invasive Species Treatment August 2017 Year 3 Monitoring Vegetation Survey September 2018 Year 3 Invasive Species Treatment Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey 2020 December 2020Vegetation Survey 2020 Year 4 Monitoring Stream Survey N/A Vegetation Survey N/A Year 4 Invasive Species Treatment October 2019 November 2019 Year 4 Bank Repair on UT1 Reach 1 August 2019 Year 4 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2 March 2019 - November 2019 Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey 2022 December 2022Vegetation Survey 2022 Year 6 Monitoring Stream Survey N/A December 2021Vegetation Survey N/A 1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. N/A - Not applicable Table 3. Project Contact Table Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Designer Jake McLean, PE Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 167-B Haywood Rd. Asheville, NC 28806 828.774.5547 Seeding Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc. 780 Landmark road Willow Spring, NC 27592 Seed Mix Sources Green Resource, LLC Construction Contractor Land Mechanics Designs, Inc. 780 Landmark road Willow Spring, NC 27592 Planting Contractor Bruton Natural Systems, Inc P.O. Box 1197 Fremont, NC 27830 Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs 704.332.7754, ext. 110 Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Son Nursery Bruton Natural Systems, Inc Wetland Plants, Inc. Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No.96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT1B UT2 1,497 1,232 658 358 1,969 106 129 23 31 49 39.5 32.5 27.25 31.25 27 P P I P I III IV/V IV/V III IV/V --------------- --------------- 0.024-0.056 0.0043-0.017 0.0095-0.016 0.015-0.077 0.0032 Supporting Documentation N/A Henry Fork Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Catawba County listed endangered species. June 5, 2015 email correspondence from USFWS stated "not likely to adversely affect" northern long-eared bat. No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014) N/A Floodplain development permit issued by Catawba County. N/A Physiographic Province Inner Piedmont Table 4. Project Information and Attributes PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name Henry Fork Mitigation Site County Catawba County Project Area (acres)48.06 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)35°42'12.98"N, 81°21'53.20"W PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION River Basin Catawba USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03050102 (Expanded Service Area for 03050103) USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03050102010030 Drainage Area (acres) DWR Sub-basin 03-08-35 Project Drainage Area (acres)178 Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 5% CGIA Land Use Classification 39% - Herbaceous/Pasture, 36% - Forested, 25% - Developed, >1% - Water REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION Parameters Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest NCDWR Stream Identification Score NCDWR Water Quality Classification C Morphological Desription (stream type) Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre-Restoration Underlying Mapped Soils Codorus loam, Dan River loam, Hatboro Loam, Poplar Forest gravelly sandy loam 2-6% slopes, and Woolwine-Fairview complex Drainage Class Soil Hydric Status Slope FEMA Classification N/A* Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration 0% REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Regulation Applicable?Resolved? Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes PCN prepared USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3885.Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes PCN prepared Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)N/A N/A Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)No N/A *The project site reaches do not have regulated floodplain mapping, but are located within the Henry Fork floodplain. FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes*No impact application was prepared for local review. No post-project activities required. Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A!A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF Henry Fork Mountain View Road 2 Sheet 1 Sheet 2 UT2 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1Lower UT1A UT1B UT1 Reach 1Upper XS 2 XS 8 XS 1XS 10XS 4XS 11XS 6 XS 9XS3 XS 7 XS 5 XS 13XS 1 4 XS 12 1 SG 4 SG 2 SG 3 SG 1 GWG 3 GWG 9 GWG 8 GWG 7 GWG 6 GWG 1 GWG 2 GWG 5 GWG 4 GWG 15 GWG 14 GWG 13 GWG 12 GWG 10 GWG 11 1 7 8 9 5 6 2 3 4 14 11 12 10 13 15 Reference Gage Catawba County, NC ¹0 250 500 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Re-establishment Wetland Enhancement Henry Fork River Planted Buffer Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Cross-Section (XS) Bankfull Line !P Reach Break GF Photo Point !A Stream Gage (SG) !A Reference Gage !A Barotroll Gage Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY4 !A Criteria Met !A Criteria Not Met Vegetation Plot - MY3 Criteria Met Areas of Concern - MY4 Asian spiderwort & Creeping Primrose Asian spiderwort Cattail Japanese honeysuckle & Chinese privet Japanese honeysuckle & Multiflora Rose Japanese honeysuckle Low Stem Density Low Stem Vigor/Height Poor herbaceous cover Bank Scour Beaver Dam (removed) Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (KEY) Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF Henry Fork Vegetation i n channel th r o u g h wetland are a Walking path maintained by adjacent landowner UT2 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 Lower UT1A XS 8 XS 4 XS 11XS 6 XS3 XS 7 XS 5 XS 13XS 14 XS 12 SG 4 SG 2 SG 3 GWG 3 GWG 9 GWG 8 GWG 7 GWG 6 GWG 1 GWG 2 GWG 5 GWG 4GWG 15 GWG 14 GWG 13 GWG 12 GWG 10 GWG 116 7 8 9 5 14 11 12 10 13 15 4 12 20 14 21 16 15 17 18 24 27 19 11 13 25 10 28 23 22 26 Reference Gage Catawba County, NC¹0 150 300 Feet 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Re-establishment Wetland Enhancement Henry Fork River Planted Buffer Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Cross-Section (XS) Bankfull Line !P Reach Break GF Photo Point !A Stream Gage (SG) !A Reference Gage !A Barotroll Gage Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY4 !A Criteria Met !A Criteria Not Met Vegetation Plot - MY3 Criteria Met Areas of Concern - MY4 Asian spiderwort & Creeping Primrose Asian spiderwort Japanese honeysuckle & Chinese privet Japanese honeysuckle Low Stem Vigor/Height Poor herbaceous cover Bank Scour Beaver Dam (removed) Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1) Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A !A GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF Mountain View Road 2 Vegetation in channel Ponding/low flowin UT2 Very soft/sinkingsediment in riffle Walking path maintained by adjacent landowner Stream repair complete summer 2019 UT1 Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1Lower UT1A UT1B UT1 Reach 1Upper XS 2 XS 8 XS 1XS 10XS 4 XS 9XS3 XS 7 XS 5 XS 1 4 1 SG 2 SG 3 SG 1 GWG 3 GWG 6 GWG 1 GWG 2 GWG 5 GWG 12 GWG 10 GWG 11 1 6 7 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 2 1 8 6 7 9 5 4 3 12 20 14 21 15 27 19 11 13 10 28 26 29 Catawba County, NC ¹0 125 250 Feet Conservation Easement Wetland Rehabilitation Wetland Re-establishment Wetland Enhancement Henry Fork River Planted Buffer Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Cross-Section (XS) Bankfull Line !P Reach Break GF Photo Point !A Stream Gage (SG) !A Reference Gage !A Barotroll Gage Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY4 !A Criteria Met !A Criteria Not Met Vegetation Plot - MY3 Criteria Met Areas of Concern - MY4 Asian spiderwort & Creeping Primrose Asian spiderwort Cattail Japanese honeysuckle & Chinese privet Japanese honeysuckle & Multiflora Rose Japanese honeysuckle Low Stem Density Low Stem Vigor/Height Poor herbaceous cover Bank Scour Beaver Dam (removed) Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2) Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Henry Fork Mitigation Site UT1 Reach 1 (1,497 LF) Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 39 39 100% Depth Sufficient 33 33 100% Length Appropriate 33 33 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)33 33 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)33 33 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.81 81 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.70 70 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.81 81 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 81 81 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 46 46 100% 1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table UT1 Reach 2 1,232 LF Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 13 14 93% Depth Sufficient 14 15 93% Length Appropriate 14 15 93% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)14 15 93% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)14 15 93% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 2 40 98%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2 40 98%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.11 12 92% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.8 9 89% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 9 89% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 11 12 92% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 6 6 100% 1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table UT1A (658 LF) Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 14 14 100% Depth Sufficient 13 13 100% Length Appropriate 13 13 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)13 13 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)13 13 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.3 3 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.3 3 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 6 6 100% 1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table UT1B (358 LF) Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100% Depth Sufficient 8 8 100% Length Appropriate 8 8 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)8 8 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)8 8 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.27 27 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.24 24 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.27 27 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 27 27 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 12 12 100% 1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table UT2 (1,969 LF) Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As-Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 35 35 100% Depth Sufficient 32 32 100% Length Appropriate 32 32 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)32 32 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)32 32 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.N/A N/A N/A 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.N/A N/A N/A 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 3 3 100% 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Planted Acreage 15 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (Ac) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 3 0.05 0.3% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 1 0.03 0.2% 4 0.1 0.5% Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 4 1.6 10.8% 8 1.6 11.3% Easement Acreage 48 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (SF) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 45 3.1 6.5% Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0.0% Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Total Cumulative Total Stream Photographs Photo Point 1 – view upstream UT1B (10/16/2019) Photo Point 1 – view downstream UT1B (10/16/2019) Photo Point 2 – view upstream UT1B (10/16/2019) Photo Point 2 – view downstream UT1B (10/16/2019) Photo Point 3 – view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/16/2019) Photo Point 3 – view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/16/2019) Photo Point 4 – view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/16/2019) Photo Point 4 – view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/16/2019) Photo Point 5 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 5 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 5 – view upstream of UT1B (10/16/2019) Photo Point 6 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 6 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 7 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 7 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 8 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 8 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 9 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 9 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 10 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 10 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 11 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 11 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 12 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 12 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 13 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 13 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/16/2019) Photo Point 14 – view upstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 14 – view downstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 15 – view upstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 15 – view downstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 16 – view upstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 16 – view downstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 17 – view upstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 17 – view downstream UT1 R2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 18 – view upstream UT1A (9/5/2019) Photo Point 18 – view downstream UT1A (9/5/2019) Photo Point 19 – view upstream UT1A (9/5/2019) Photo Point 19 – view downstream UT1A (9/5/2019) Photo Point 20 – view upstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 20 – view downstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 21 – view upstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 21 – view downstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 22 – view upstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 22 – view downstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 23 – view upstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 23 – view downstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 24 – view upstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 24 – view downstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 25 – view upstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 25 – view downstream UT2 (9/5/2019) Photo Point 26 – view upstream UT1 R2 (9/6/2019) Photo Point 26 – view downstream UT1 R2 (9/6/2019) Photo Point 26 – UT1 R2 floodplain overview (9/5/2019) Photo Point 27 – view upstream UT1 R2 floodplain (9/5/2019) Photo Point 27 – view downstream UT1 R2 floodplain (9/5/2019) Photo Point 28 – UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (10/16/2019) Photo Point 28 – UT2 floodplain overview (10/16/2019) Photo Point 29 – UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (10/16/2019) APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data Vegetation assessment and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4 APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Cross-sectional morphological surveys and analysis not required in Monitoring Year 4 Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 UT1R1, Reachwide min max Riffle Pool Total Class Percentage Percent Cumulative SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 6 6 6 6 Henry Fork Stream Mitigation DMS Project No. 96306 Particle Class Diameter (mm)Particle Count Reach Summary Very fine 0.062 0.125 2 2 2 8 Fine 0.125 0.250 2 5 7 7 15 Medium 0.25 0.50 5 5 5 20 Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 4 5 5 25 Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 25SAND Very Fine 2.0 2.8 25 Very Fine 2.8 4.0 25 Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 4 4 29 Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 3 32 Medium 8.0 11.0 1 1 2 2 34 Medium 11.0 16.0 6 5 11 11 45 Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 8 11 11 56 Coarse 22.6 32 8 7 15 15 71 Very Coarse 32 45 8 8 8 79 Very Coarse 45 64 8 8 8 87GRAVEL Small 64 90 2 1 3 3 90 Small 90 128 6 1 7 7 97 Large 128 180 1 1 1 98 Large 180 256 2 2 2 100COBBLE Small 256 362 100 Small 362 512 100 Medium 512 1024 100 Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 50 50 100 100 100 D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 0.3BOULDERTotal Reachwide Channel materials (mm) 11.4 18.7 56.1 115.7 256.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm) Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock UT1R1, Reachwide UT1R1, Reachwide Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 UT1R1, Cross-Section 1 min max Class Percentage Percent Cumulative SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 4 4 4 Henry Fork Stream Mitigation DMS Project No. 96306 Particle Class Diameter (mm)Riffle 100- Count Summary Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 Fine 0.125 0.250 2 2 6 Medium 0.25 0.50 6 Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 8 Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 8SAND 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 6 6 13 Medium 11.0 16.0 13 Coarse 16.0 22.6 6 6 19 Coarse 22.6 32 6 6 25 Very Coarse 32 45 8 8 33 Very Coarse 45 64 16 15 48GRAVEL Small 64 90 20 19 67 Small 90 128 8 8 75 Large 128 180 12 12 87 Large 180 256 14 13 100COBBLE Small 256 362 100 Small 362 512 100 Medium 512 1024 100 Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 104 100 100 D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 18.6BOULDERTotal Cross-Section 1 Channel materials (mm) 47.4 66.2 167.0 224.6 256.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm) Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock UT1R1, Cross-Section 1 UT1R1, Cross-Section 1 Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 UT1R1, Cross-Section 4 min max Class Percentage Percent Cumulative SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 4 4 Henry Fork Stream Mitigation DMS Project No. 96306 Particle Class Diameter (mm)Riffle 100- Count Summary Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 Fine 0.125 0.250 4 Medium 0.25 0.50 1 2 6 Coarse 0.5 1.0 6 Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 6 12SAND Very Fine 2.0 2.8 12 Very Fine 2.8 4.0 12 Fine 4.0 5.6 12 Fine 5.6 8.0 12 Medium 8.0 11.0 1 2 14 Medium 11.0 16.0 2 4 18 Coarse 16.0 22.6 18 Coarse 22.6 32 3 6 24 Very Coarse 32 45 2 4 27 Very Coarse 45 64 3 6 33GRAVEL Small 64 90 9 18 51 Small 90 128 6 12 63 Large 128 180 5 10 73 Large 180 256 12 24 96COBBLE Small 256 362 2 4 100 Small 362 512 100 Medium 512 1024 100 Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 51 100 100 D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 13.7BOULDERTotal Cross-Section 4 Channel materials (mm) 66.1 88.3 213.7 251.9 362.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm) Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock UT1R1, Cross-Section 4 UT1R1, Cross-Section 4 Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 UT1B, Reachwide min max Riffle Pool Total Class Percentage Percent Cumulative SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 7 9 9 9 Henry Fork Stream Mitigation DMS Project No. 96306 Particle Class Diameter (mm)Particle Count Reach Summary Very fine 0.062 0.125 9 Fine 0.125 0.250 4 3 7 7 16 Medium 0.25 0.50 1 10 11 11 27 Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 9 12 12 39 Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 39SAND Very Fine 2.0 2.8 39 Very Fine 2.8 4.0 39 Fine 4.0 5.6 39 Fine 5.6 8.0 39 Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 2 41 Medium 11.0 16.0 3 1 4 4 45 Coarse 16.0 22.6 4 2 6 6 50 Coarse 22.6 32 3 3 6 6 56 Very Coarse 32 45 8 1 9 9 65 Very Coarse 45 64 4 5 9 9 74GRAVEL Small 64 90 5 5 10 10 84 Small 90 128 7 2 9 9 93 Large 128 180 2 2 4 4 97 Large 180 256 2 2 2 99COBBLE 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 50 51 101 100 100 D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 0.3BOULDERTotal Reachwide Channel materials (mm) 0.8 22.0 89.5 151.1 362.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm) Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock UT1B, Reachwide UT1B, Reachwide Reachwide and Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 UT1B, Cross-Section 10 min max Class Percentage Percent Cumulative SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 2 4 4 Henry Fork Stream Mitigation DMS Project No. 96306 Particle Class Diameter (mm)Riffle 100- Count Summary Very fine 0.062 0.125 4 Fine 0.125 0.250 4 Medium 0.25 0.50 3 6 10 Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 2 12 Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 2 14SAND Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 2 16 Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 2 18 Fine 4.0 5.6 18 Fine 5.6 8.0 1 2 20 Medium 8.0 11.0 20 Medium 11.0 16.0 7 14 33 Coarse 16.0 22.6 8 16 49 Coarse 22.6 32 6 12 61 Very Coarse 32 45 5 10 71 Very Coarse 45 64 7 14 84GRAVEL Small 64 90 3 6 90 Small 90 128 90 Large 128 180 2 4 94 Large 180 256 2 4 98COBBLE Small 256 362 1 2 100 Small 362 512 100 Medium 512 1024 100 Large/Very Large 1024 2048 100 BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 100 51 100 100 D16 = D35 = D50 = D84 = D95 = D100 = 3.0BOULDERTotal Cross-Section Channel materials (mm) 16.6 23.3 63.5 194.8 362.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Individual Class PercentParticle Class Size (mm) Individual Class Percent MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000Percent Cumulative (%)Particle Class Size (mm) Pebble Count Particle Distribution MY0-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 MY3-04/2018 MY4-03/2019 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock UT1B, Cross-Section 10 UT1B, Cross-Section 10 APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots MY Method MY1 Crest Gage Crest & Stream Gage Crest & Stream Gage MY1 Crest Gage Crest & Stream Gage Crest & Stream Gage MY3 Stream Gage Stream Gage Stream Gage MY1 Crest Gage MY2 Crest & Stream Gage MY1 Crest Gage MY2 Crest & Stream Gage * N/A, no bankfull events recorded. ** U, Unknown Stream Gage Stream Gage5/29/2018 6/9/2019 N/A 6/9/2019 UT2 N/A 4/24/2017 2/7/2018 10/8/2017 MY3 10/31/2019 8/24/2019 10/31/2019 UT1B MY4 MY4 UT1A 10/31/2019MY4 U MY2 4/24/2017 10/8/2017 6/9/2019 10/11/2018 6/9/2019 4/25/2018 5/29/2018 9/16/2018 10/11/2018 10/26/2018 UT1 Reach 2 MY4 Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Reach Date of Occurrence Stream Gage 10/31/2019 N/A MY2 4/24/2017 10/8/2017 2/7/2018 MY3 Year 1 (2016)Year 2 (2017)Year 3 (2018)Year 4 (2019)Year 5 (2020)Year 6 (2021)Year 7 (2022) Reference No/18 Days (8%) Yes/59 Days (25%) Yes/79 Days (34%) Yes/61 Days (26%) GWG 1 No/0 Days (0%) Yes/23 Days (10%) Yes/48 Days (20%) Yes/42 Days (18%) GWG 2 Yes/ 29 Days (12.3%) No/7 Days (3%) No/12 Days (5%) Yes/39 Days (17%) GWG 3 4 Yes/236 Days (100%) No/3 Days (1%) No/5 Days (2%) Yes/35 Days (15%) GWG 4 No/3 Days (1.3%) Yes/25 Days (11%) Yes/46 Days (20%) Yes/68 Days (29%) GWG 5 3 N/A Yes/189 Days (80%) Yes/102 Days (43%) Yes/236 Days (100%) GWG 6 Yes/79 Days (33.5%) Yes/89 Days (38%) Yes/96 Days (41%) Yes/76 Days (32%) GWG 7 No/7 Days (3.0%) Yes/21 Days (9%) Yes/44 Days (19%) Yes/44 Days (19%) GWG 8 No/1 Days (0.4%) No/14 Days (6%) No/11 Days (5%) No/19 Days (8%) GWG 9 3 N/A No/13 Days (6%) Yes/20 Days (9%) Yes/68 Days (29%) GWG 10 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/236 Days (100%) GWG 11 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/61 Days (26%) GWG 12 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/36 Days (15%) GWG 13 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/236 Days (100%) GWG 14 6 N/A N/A N/A Yes/67 Days (28%) GWG 15 6 N/A N/A N/A Yes/45 Days (19%) N/A, not applicable 1Growing season dates March 20 - November 11 2Success criteria is 20 consecutive days 3GWGs 5 and 9 were installed on April 7, 2017. 4GWG 3 was relocated in January 2017. 5GWGs 10 -13 were installed on February 20, 2019. 6GWGs 14-15 were installed on March 7, 2019. Gage Success Criteria Achieved2/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season1 (Percentage) Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201942 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #1 Gage error beginning on 8/14/2019 has been resolved. Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201939 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #2 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201935 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #3 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201968 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #4 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/2019236 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #5 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201976 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #6 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201944 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #7 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201919 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #8 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201968 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #9 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/2019236 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #10 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201961 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #11 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201936 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #12 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/2019236 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #13 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201967 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #14 Groundwater Gage Plots Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Start of Growing Season3/20/2019End of Growing Season11/11/201945 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 Rainfall (in)Water Level (in)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 Criteria Level Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #15 Recorded In-stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 30 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 921.2 921.4 921.6 921.8 922.0 922.2 922.4 922.6 922.8 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall UT1B - #1 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull Henry Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT1B -#1 175 consecutive days of stream flow Recorded In-stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 30 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall UT1 - #2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull Henry Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT1 -#2 317 consecutive days of stream flow Recorded In-stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 30 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 873.0 873.5 874.0 874.5 875.0 875.5 876.0 876.5 877.0 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall UT1A - #3 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull Henry Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT1A -#3 317 consecutive days of stream flow Recorded In-stream Flow Events Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 30 days JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 873.0 873.5 874.0 874.5 875.0 875.5 876.0 876.5 877.0 877.5 878.0 Rainfall (in)Water Level (ft)Monitoring Year 4 -2019 Rainfall UT2 - #4 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull Henry Fork: In-Stream Flow Gage for UT2 -#4 150 consecutive days of stream flow Monthly Rainfall Data Henry Fork Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96306 Monitoring Year 4 - 2019 1 2019 rainfall collected by NC CRONOS Station Hickory 4.8 SW, NC 2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Conover Oxford Shoal, NC 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19Precipitation (in)Date Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019 2019 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile