20140193 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20210114

ID#* 20140193 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/14/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/14/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140193
Existing IDt
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Henry Fork
County: Catawba
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: HenryFork_96306_MY5_2020.pdf 20.75MB
Rease upload only one PDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 5
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 005782
DMS Project No. 96306
USACE No. 2014-00538
DWR No. 20140193
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Data Collection Period: January— November 2020
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2020
Final Submission Date: January 8, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
INC
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

% &V
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R ING
January 8, 2021
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY5 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 5 report for the Henry Fork Mitigation Project. DMS's comments are noted
below in bold. Wildlands' responses to those comments are noted in italics.
DMS comment: Please add the following information to the title page:
o USACE # 2014-00538
o DWR # 20140193
Wildlonds response: The USACE and DWR numbers hove been added to the title page.
DMS comment: Executive Summary: Please update the WMUs from 4.221 to 4.222. This is the official
WMU total used on the debit ledgers.
Wildlonds response: The WMUs hove been updated from 4.221 and 4.222 in the Executive Summary and
Project Overview. Toble 1 was also updated with the official WMU total used on the debit ledgers.
DMS comment: Vegetation Areas of Concern: The report indicates a supplemental planting occurred
in March 2020. Please include a brief description of the supplemental planting effort. Include
approximate number of bare roots, live stakes, or containerized plants that were installed and the
approximate acreage of the replant area.
Wildlonds response: Text was added to section 1.2.5 to describe the supplemental planting effort that
occurred in March 2020.
DMS comment: Wetlands: GWG 8 has failed to meet success criteria for five monitoring years. Please
update the report with the acreage of wetland re-establishment that is at risk of not meeting success
criteria. Please be prepared to discuss this area during the 2020 credit release meeting.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands response: Text has been added to section 1.2.5 indicating the acreage of wetland re-
establishment that is at risk of not meeting criteria. A map figure showing this at risk area has been
included in Appendix 6. Wildlands will be prepared to discuss this area during the 2020 credit release
meeting.
DMS comment: The report discusses the wetland addendum letter submitted to DMS on October 6,
2020 and includes the letter in the appendix. Please also include that the IRT responded on October
28, 2020 with several concerns regarding the addendum and include the IRT email in the appendix.
Please also note that the wetland addendum request is not resolved at this point.
Wildlands response: The IRT comments from October 28, 2020 and the subsequent email responses from
Wildlands have been included in Appendix 6. It is noted in the report text that the wetland addendum
request has not been resolved at the time of the annual monitoring report submittal.
DMS comment: Groundwater Gage Plots: The note at the bottom of the graphs regarding the barotroll
malfunction is unclear. It says the data collected during the February and April 16-17 malfunctions
were omitted, but then then says the readings conducted during April 16-22 was verified and
included. Is the April 16 date in the verified statement supposed to be April 21? Please review and
revise as necessary.
Wildlands response: The note at the bottom of the groundwater gage plots has been revised and
simplified to indicate that the data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted
from the reported data.
DMS comment: All but GWG 8 are meeting success criteria; however, most are meeting the success
criteria using the barotroll from another site. Are any of the gages meeting the 8.5% or 20 consecutive
day success criteria earlier in the growing season before the barotroll failure? Please be prepared to
discuss how the barotroll is used to calibrate data and the effects of using one from offsite during the
credit release meeting.
Wildlands response: All the GWGs, except GWG 8, had additional intervals of meeting the 20 consecutive
day success criteria earlier in the growing season before the onsite barotroll failure on August 1, 2020:
GWG 1: 3/20 to 4/8 (20 consecutive days)
GWG 2: 3/20 to 4/10 (22 consecutive days)
GWG 3: 3/20 to 4/10 (22 consecutive days)
GWG 4: 4/23 to 6/7 (45 consecutive days)
GWG 5: 4/23 to 8/1 (100 consecutive days)
GWG 6: 4/23 to 7/17 (85 consecutive days)
GWG 7: 4/23 to 5/15 (22 consecutive days)
GWG 9: 4/23 to 7/2 (70 consecutive days)
GWG 10: 4/23 to 8/1 (100 consecutive days)
GWG 11: 4/23 to 6/7 (45 consecutive days)
GWG 12: 3/20 to 4/16 (28 consecutive days)
GWG 13: 4/23 to 8/1 (100 consecutive days)
GWG 14: 4/23 to 5/16 (23 consecutive days)
GWG 15: 4/23 to 5/15 (22 consecutive days)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands will be prepared at the 2020 credit release meeting to discuss that the barotroll is used to
calibrate the groundwater gage pressure based on the local atmospheric pressure. The positive pressure
difference is then used to calculate the depth of water above the groundwater gage sensor. In addition,
the offsite barotroll data (Owl's Den Mitigation Site) that was used after 81112020 was plotted against
the onsite barotroll data available earlier in the year with the sites' elevation difference taken into
account to verify that the offsite barotroll was an appropriate substitution to use.
Digital Files Review
DMS comment: The stream gauge data excel spreadsheet will not open, which is likely caused by
macros. Please resubmit these data in excel, ensuring that the spreadsheet can be open.
Wildlands response: Wildlands is able to open the stream gage data spreadsheet that was provided to
DMS in the electronic support files. There is a large amount of data associated with the stream gages
since they are programmed to collect measurements every 30 minutes. Therefore, the stream gage
spreadsheet usually requires more time than a typical excel file to fully open.
Enclosed please find one (1) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 828-545-3865 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
#Wy- At &c'-
Jake McLean
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
�i
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Henry Fork Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) 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
4.222 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) (Table 1). The Site is located near the City of Hickory in Catawba
County, INC, 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 DIMS acceptance and regulatory permit conditions associated with
DIMS ILF requirements. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030, Lower Henry Fork, was identified
as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in DIMS' 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 DIMS 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;
• Correct modifications to streams, wetlands, and buffers;
• Improve and re-establish hydrology and function of previously cleared wetlands;
• Reduce current erosion and sedimentation;
• Reduce nutrient inputs to streams and wetlands and 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) 5 assessments and site visits were completed between January and November
2020.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY5. Geomorphic
surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the baseline with minor deviations
due to natural sediment transport processes, and streams are functioning as intended. All project
streams recorded at least one bankfull event or greater in MY5. The bankfull performance standard had
been met for the Site in MY4. The vegetation assessment resulted in an average planted stem density of
564 stems per acre and is exceeding the interim success criterion of 260 stems per acre for MY5 and on
track to meet the performance criteria of 210 stems per acre in MY7. In addition, all fifteen vegetation
plots exceeded this requirement. Fourteen of the fifteen groundwater monitoring gages installed on the
Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for MY5. The MY5 visual assessment revealed a few
areas of concern including pockets of invasive plant species and areas of low stem growth. Areas of
concern will continue to be monitored and adaptive management will be performed as needed.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL iii

HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Plan...........................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary......................................................................................................1-6
Section 2: METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES.................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General 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 Current Condition Plan View Maps
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 9a-c
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-c
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a-e
Monitoring —Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
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
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL iv

Appendix 6 Wetland Addendum
Wetland Addendum Letter — October 6, 2020
Response to IRT comments from October 28, 2020
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located near the City of Hickory in Catawba County, INC, 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 were credited as enhancement. The riparian areas of the tributaries, as well as a 100-
foot wide buffer along the project side of 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 4.222 WMUs. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years. Close-out is 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;
• Improve and re-establish hydrology and function of previously cleared wetlands;
• Reduce 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.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-1

The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• 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 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;
• Planting a native vegetation community 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 and habitat connectivity within Site to adjoining natural areas along the river
corridor.
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between January and November 2020 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
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted in April and June 2020. Throughout the Site, the cross-
section survey results indicate that channel dimensions are stable and continuing to function with
minimal adjustments. Along UT1 Reach 1 and Reach 2, the establishment of juncus/herbaceous
vegetation along the edge of water (XS1, XS4, and XS5 riffles) is causing the channel to narrow
somewhat; however, this is not an indicator of instability. The pool max depth has decreased since as -
built for the XS2 along UT1 Reach 1 but does not seem to be representative to the pools in this reach.
Cross -sections along UT1A display some deposition with decreased cross -sectional areas but have
maintained max depths and are still functioning as a single thread channel. Similarly, along UT1B, cross -
sections show some deposition but to a lesser extent than UT1A with minimal change in cross -sectional
areas compared to as -built. The cross -sections along UT2 have retained stable dimensions throughout
the monitoring period thus far.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

In general, MY5 pebble counts in UT1 and UT1B indicate a maintenance of coarser material in the riffle
features and finer particles in the pool features. Please refer to Appendix 4 for the cross-section plots,
pebble count plots, and morphology summary tables.
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. The success criteria were met for the project after MY4.
During MY5, all stream reaches recorded at least one additional bankfull event.
In addition to monitoring bankfull events, intermittent streams must be monitored to demonstrate a
minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of normal rainfall. Stream gages installed on
intermittent channels (UT1A and UT2) indicated each stream recorded at least 117 consecutive days of
baseflow. The number of consecutive days was likely longer than what is reported due to a malfunction
with the on -site barotroll. A new barotroll will be installed on the Site before the start of MY6. The
presence of baseflow was also observed in UT1, UT1A, UT1B, and UT2 during each site visit; thereby,
confirming recorded stream gage data. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 15 vegetation plots (VPs) were established during baseline monitoring within the project
easement area using standard 10 by 10 meter plots. Vegetation plots are monitored in accordance with
the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et
al., 2008). The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre
in the planted riparian and wetland corridor at the end of the required seven-year monitoring period.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site is the survival of at least 260 stems per acre at
the end of MY5.
The MY5 vegetative survey was completed in July 2020 and resulted in an average stem density of 564
planted stems per acre for the Site with a range of 445 — 648 planted stems per acre per plot. The Site,
as well as all 15 vegetation plots (100%) are exceeding the MY5 density of 260 planted stems per acre.
The MY5 average stem height for all plots is about 6 feet. The vegetation plots with the lowest average
heights and vigor (health scores) included VP 6, 7, and 11. These vegetation plots are located within or
near the wetland re-establishment areas and saturated soil conditions are deterring some stem growth.
Please refer to section 1.2.5 for further discussion about areas of low stem vigor/height.
Approximately 81% of the planted stems monitored in vegetation plots are thriving with a health score
of 3 or greater. The planted tree species with the highest health scores included willow oak (Quercus
phellos), river birch (eetula nigra), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). About 15% of the stems have a vigor of 2 or less indicating some damage is present, and
about 1% of the monitored stems were missing in MY5. The poor tree health is a result of suffocation
from herbaceous plants or vines, insects, deer, wet or dry soil conditions, or other unknown factors.
There was only a stem mortality of 3% between MY3 and MY5 vegetation assessments. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, Current Condition Plant View (CCPV) Figures for vegetation
plot locations, and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
Following construction, groundwater gages (GWGs) were distributed so that the data collected would
provide a reasonable indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland components on the Site.
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
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

groundwater levels with gage transducer data was installed on the Site. The onsite barotroll quit
working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from a nearby mitigation
site (Owl's Den Mitigation Site) which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Site.
A new barotroll will be installed at the beginning of MY6 (2021). 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, as needed. 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 20t" to November 11t" (237 days in 2020), 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.
In total, there are fifteen GWGs currently installed on the Site. Seven of the groundwater hydrology
gages (GWGs) were established during the baseline monitoring within the wetland rehabilitation and re-
establishment zones (GWGs 1— 4 and 6 — 8). During the initial GWG installation, GWG 3 was installed in
a seep where hydrology was much stronger than the surrounded area; therefore, Wildlands relocated
GWG 3 in January 2017 (MY2) to an area that was more representative of the surrounding wetlands.
Wildlands also installed two additional gages (GWG 5 and 9) within the wetland re-establishment areas
during 2017 (MY2) in order to further assess wetland performance near where GWGs were not meeting
criteria. 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 of the 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.
Of the fifteen GWGs, fourteen met the success criteria for MY5. Of the gages that met, the percentage
of consecutive days of the growing season with ground water levels within the first 12 inches of the
ground surface ranged from 11% to 89%. GWG 8 did not meet the success criteria for MY5 with a
measured maximum 14 consecutive days during the growing season or four days short of the success
criteria. GWGs 5, 10, and 13 achieved the success criteria for at least 89% of the growing season with
plots showing similar hydroperiods to one another and indicating comparable groundwater hydrology in
those areas. The remainder of the GWG's hydroperiods were like that of the reference gage. Monthly
rainfall data in 2020 indicated higher than normal rainfall amounts occurred during the months of
January, April, May, June, August, September, and October. Lower than normal rainfall amounts
occurred only during the month of March. Please 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 MY5, minor areas of invasive plant populations were found within the conservation easement. These
species include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), Creeping primrose (Ludwigia peploides), Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak)
and kudzu (Pueraria montana). Invasive treatments occurred in July and September 2020, particularly
focusing on small areas of kudzu and in -stream vegetation and have hindered establishment of those
species within the Site. Areas of dense sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) populations that were
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

treated in November 2019 have reduced monocultures of the species and allowed desirable tree species
to become established.
Visual and vegetation assessments in MY5 continue to reveal some areas of low stem vigor/height on
the lower portion of the Site (UT2 and UT1 Reach 2 floodplains) that are represented by vegetation plots
6, 7, and 11 where plots are exceeding the density performance standard but some of the planted stems
display lower vigor and/or stunted heights. However, these areas are showing signs of improvement
with desired volunteer species including river birch, sycamore, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and
cottonwood (Populus deltoides) naturally starting to develop and herbaceous vegetation filling in
previously observed bare areas. In March 2020, a supplemental planting effort installed 100 bare roots
and 150 1-gallon container plants in approximately 1.5 acres of the Site where low stem vigor/height
had been noted.
Streams
Isolated areas of bank scour along UT1 (near stations 106+00 and 124+75), that were first noted in MY4,
were repaired in the August 2019 and January 2020 by regrading and replanting the banks with live
stakes and established vegetation transplanted from the floodplain. The repairs have remained stable
and effective, even after several large precipitation events in 2020.
The on -site intermittent streams (UT1A and UT2) that received full restoration approach but are
credited at a reduced enhancement ratio, have continued to maintain single channel morphology. In
previous years, low flow and some vegetation within the channel had been noted along these reaches.
Flow was observed during each site visit in MY5. Some deposition was noted along UT1A as observed
within the cross -sections, but the stream continues to retain dimensions with minor changes. Similar
minor localized aggradation was noted along UT1 Reach 1 downstream of the wetland enhancement
area in the footprint of the old pond bed. In March 2020, additional live stakes were planted along the
few bank areas that were lacking woody vegetation to improve stream shading. As the woody
vegetation continues to become established, the baseflow channel is expected to become stronger and
less vegetated.
A few beaver dams were removed at the beginning of MY5 throughout the lower portion of UT1 Reach
2. No beaver dams were observed during the fall 2020 site walk. Though their presence continues to
occur, they are less frequent and their effects less severe on the Site. The less frequent impounding of
the streams has benefitted the Site by allowing the floodplain vegetation to become established and not
backing up flow from tributaries to UT1 (UT1A and UT2). Beaver activity will continue to be monitored
and managed until closeout.
Wetlands
Wetland hydrology continues to be weak in the wetland rehabilitation area 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 MY5, bolstered by strong winter rainfall totals, as
well as above average growing season rainfall. To ensure adequate representation of the hydrology in
the wetland re-establishment area upslope of UT1 Reach 2, three additional gages (GWGs 10-12) were
installed at the beginning of MY4. In addition, GWGs 13 — 15 were added in MY4 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 (GWG 8) are not meeting success
criteria.
In September 2020, Wildlands staff determined that approximately 0.051 acres of the wetland re-
establishment area, represented by GWG 8, is at risk of not meeting success criteria for wetland
hydrology. A wetland addendum letter was submitted to DIMS on October 6, 2020 to identify additional
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-5

wetland areas that have been created by the project and formally request the inclusion of these created
wetland areas for credit in order to offset those identified as at risk. Currently, at the submittal of the
Final Henry Fork Mitigation Site's MY5 annual report, the wetland addendum request has not been
resolved. A copy of the wetland addendum letter, the 15-day review period comments received from
the IRT on October 28, 2020, and Wildlands' responses to the IRT's comments from the 15-day review
period, and follow-up response from the IRT are included in Appendix 6.
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 along the floodplain of UT1
Reach 1 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 for mapped areas of concern.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY5. Geomorphic
surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions closely match the baseline with minor deviations
due to natural sediment transport processes, and streams are functioning as intended. All project
streams recorded at least one bankfull event or greater in MY5. The bankfull performance standard had
been met for the Site in MY4. The vegetation assessment resulted in an average planted stem density of
564 stems per acre and is exceeding the interim success criterion of 260 stems per acre for MY5 and on
track to meet the performance criteria of 210 stems per acre in MY7. In addition, all fifteen vegetation
plots exceeded this requirement. Fourteen of the fifteen groundwater monitoring gages installed on the
Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for MY5. The MY5 visual assessment revealed a few
areas of concern including pockets of invasive plant species and areas of low stem growth. Areas of
concern 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 DIMS
upon request.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 1-6

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 5 Annual Report — FINAL 2-1

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).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Hickory 4.8 SW. Accessed
November 2020.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), 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.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2016). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -
Built Baseline Report. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

03050101100011
0305010,1090020
LjD49 Viexo,- �11
�/ r bYrew Creeh
1`
Hildebri -- -
/
f
jf
03050102010020
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
�Wv
-NTILI)LAIIDS rk�
CN01 n,=CF rA
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Lanolr-Rhyne•
collage
H Hickor�r'� 0305010.!11001
2nd Ave 8W
102030010 1
1207
`0 a f
AValle
ClAyy�k7Va11ey'$ivdSf_ Hills
Mail
t _
' 03050102010030 -
r
a
a
C
ch'rch fits
1 4
Rr��r 0
9ry'P
a
Directons to Site:
The site is located in western Catawba County, NC, The site is
southwest of the City of Hickory. The project is located on the old
Henry River Golf Course. From Asheville, NC, take US-40 East
approximately 75 miles to US-321 in Hickory, NC. Take exit 42 for r
US-321 South and continue approximately 1.2 miles. Take exit for
NC-127 South — continue on NC-127 South for 0.3 miles, then
turn right on Fleetwood Drive. Follow to the end (approximately 0.2
miles) and turn right onto State Road 1192, Mountain View Road.
The entrance to the Henry Fork site is at the end of the road,
approximately 0.7 miles on Mountain View Road.
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Catawba County, NC

Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
0 150 300 Feet Henry fork Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS 1` DMS Project No. 96306
FNGIN FF 2IN rB Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Catawba County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
MITIGATION
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R
RE
Totals 4,807.667 N/A 3.880 0.342 N/A N/A
PROJECT• ••
N/A N/A
N/A
Proposed Stationing/ Existing Footage/ Restoration (R) or
Credits
Reach ID Approach
Restoration Footage/Acreage*
Mitigation Ratio
Location* Acreage Restoration Equivalent
(SMU/WMU)*
STREAMS
UTl Reach 1 Upper
100+00 to 103+02
P1
Restoration
302
1:1
302.000
1,392
UTl Reach 1 Lower
103+02 to 114+71
P1
Restoration
1,169
1:1
1,169.000
UTl Reach 2
114+71 to 126+99
1,499
P1/P2
Restoration
1,228
1:1
1,228.000
UT1A
180+00 to 186+57
353
P1
Enhancement
657
1.5:1
438.000
UT1B
150+00 to 153+58
478
P1
Restoration
358
1:1
358.000
UT2
200+00 to 219+69
1,915
P1
Enhancement
1,969
1.5:1
1,312.667
WETLANDS
Planting,
Wetland 1
Floodplain near UT1
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
2.48
1:1
2.480
Reach 2
improvement
Planting,
Wetland 2
Floodplain near UT2
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
1.23
1:1
1.230
improvement
Planting,
Wetland A
Floodplain between UT1
0.18
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.18
1.5:1
0.120
Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Planting,
Wetland B
Floodplain between UT1
0.01
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.013
1.5:1
0.009
Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Planting,
Wetland C
Floodplain between UT1
0.003
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.003
1.5:1
0.002
Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Wetland G
Floodplain near UT1A
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.009
Wetland H
East hillslope near UT1A
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.028
Wetland I
East hillslope near UT1A
0.08
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.039
Wetland j
East hillslope near UT1
0.04
Planting
Enhancement
0.04
2:1
0.018
Reach 2
Wetland K
East hillslope near UT1
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.028
Reach 2
Wetland M
East hillslope near UT1
0.13
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.065
Reach 2
Wetland N
Floodplain towards river
0.08
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.042
from UT2
Wetland P
Floodplain u2pslope of
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.012
UT
Wetland q
Floodplain u2pslope of
0.07
Planting
Enhancement
0.07
2:1
0.035
UT
Floodplain in footprint of
Significant
Wetland R
Pond 3 near head of UT1
0.06
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.06
1.5:1
0.039
Reach 2
wetland functions
Wetland S
UT1 Reach 11Valley (Pond
0.16
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.066
Restoration Level
COMPONENT
Stream (LF
SUMMATION
Non-Riparian Wetland Buffer (square) Riparian Wetland (acres) Upland (acres)
(acres) feet)
Restoration
3,057
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement)
2,626
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Re -Establishment
N/A
3.71 N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Rehabilitation
N/A
0.25 N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Enhancement
N/A
0.68 N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A 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.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Activity or Report�
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete
August 2015
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
September 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans
October 2015
October 2015
Construction
November 2015 - March 2016
March 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
March 2016
March 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2016
March 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
March 2016
May 2016
Vegetation Survey
March 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
October 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey
September 2016
Year 1 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2
May -September 2016
Year 1 Invasive Species Treatment
June & July 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
July 2017
Year 2 Invasive Species Treatment
August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey
September 2018
Year 3 Invasive Species Treatment
June & August 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
N/A
November 2019
Vegetation Survey
N/A
Year 4 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2
March 2019 - November 2019
Year 4 Bank Repair on UT1 Reach 1
August 2019
Year 4 Invasive Species Treatment
October 2019
Year 5 Bank Repair on UT1 Reach 2
January 2020
November 2020
Year 5 Beaver Maintenance
February 2020
Year 5 Supplemental Planting
March 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
June 2020
Vegetation Survey
July 2020
Year 5 Invasive Species Treatment
July & September 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
'Seed 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
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
167-B Haywood Rd.
Jake McLean, PE
Asheville, NC28806
828.774.5547
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
780 Landmark road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
780 Landmark road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Plugs
Wetland Plants, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Project Name
PROJECT INFORMATION
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
County
Catawba County
Project Area (acres)
148.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
PROJECT
Physiographic Province
35"42'12.98"N, 81"21'53.20"W
WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION
Inner Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03050102 (Expanded Service Area for 03050103)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03050102010030
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)
178
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Parameters
39%- Herbaceous/Pasture,
REACH SUMMARY
UT1 Reach 1
36%- Forested, 25%- Developed, >1% - Water
INFORMATION
UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT113 UT2
Length of Reach (linearfeet) - Post -Restoration
1,497
1,232 658 358 1,969
Drainage Area (acres)
106
129 23 31 49
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
39.5
32.5 27.25 31.25 27
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
I
P
I
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
III
IV/V
IV/V
III
IV/V
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
---
---
I ---
Slope
1 0.024-0.056
0.0043-0.017
1 0.0095-0.016
0.015-0.077
0.0032
FEMA Classification
N/A*
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration
Regulation
0%
REGULATORY
Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
PCN prepared
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
DWQ 401 Water
Waters ofthe United States - Section 401
Yes
PCN prepared
and Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
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.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found
to be impacted (letter from SHPO
dated 3/24/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes*
No impact application was prepared for local
review. No post -project activities required.
Floodplain development permit
issued by Catawba County.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
*The project site reaches do not have regulated floodplain mapping, but are located within the Henry Fork floodplain.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

f�a � � •M�- � '4�fM k Y _ , .`�!- i iY � �r era �. �_
4.
I
I wkl'y�'
4 L
t
t
yt1 4 _
t
t
t
1
♦ L.N1:JW ❑
Barotroll 6
•GWG 5 XS 5 SG 2
GWG 6 +
1 GWG3
j � .XS 4 GWG 2
j, XS3 + ,GWG11 GWG,12.
1
1.
v
XS 2
a Conservation Easement Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY5 \ 1Q ' ". •
�,W t
Wetland Rehabilitation Criteria Met t♦ �''
Wetland Re-establishment ♦ Criteria Not Met J;� �� \♦♦ � Z �'' —•!
Wetland Enhancement Vegetation Plot - MY5 \
Henry Fork River Criteria Met Upper
Planted Buffer Areas of Concern - MY5
Stream Restoration Chinese Privet & Multiflora Rose, \
Stream Enhancement I Ja anese hone suckle R. Chinese rivet i
p Y
�C
Cross -Section (XS)
0 Japanese honeysuckle & Multiflora Rose
-•---
Bankfull Line
Japanese honeysuckle
QQ
Reach Break
® Low Stem Density
,.,� +
�•
0
Photo Point
Low Stem Vigor/Height
Stream Gage (SG)
Poor herbaceous cover
1
rm:r
♦
Reference Gage
Aggradation
Barotroll Gagey'
A
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
kt�0 250 500 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
WI LD LAI\ D S r
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
NOIN-LE NG Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Catawba County, NC

i Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Cross -Section (XS)
-- Bankfull Line
QQ Reach Break
0 Photo Point
Stream Gage (SG)
♦ Reference Gage
Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY5
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY5
0 Criteria Met
Areas of Concern - MY5
® Japanese honeysuckle & Chinese privet
0 Japanese honeysuckle
Low Stem Vigor/Height
® Aggradation
� � - fail •
7SID
J�
~ � CS•J . ,� r. 4.
5
`emu 4i •�
� � y
1•
Oft Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
0 150 300 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
WILDLAI\DS n
I i I i I DMSProject No. 96306
ENGIN=ER NG
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Catawba County, NC

GWG 5 ��._. `000000000♦
►00000000♦
GWG 6 oioioioioioioioio
14 �� ♦ ♦ 000000� _
Areas of Concern - MY5
0 Chinese Privet & Multiflora Rose
K-1 Japanese honeysuckle & Multiflora Rose
= Japanese honeysuckle
Low Stem Density
Low Stem Vigor/Height
Poor herbaceous cover
Aggradation
kt�
VVILDLAI\DS rk�
CNGIN-LE NG
t �
t � t
Ountain View t la t Ro.•
3 `--
It I
i
Upper/
t /
0 100 200 Feet
I i I i I
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Catawba County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
1
125
92%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
36
39
92%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
31
33
94%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
33
33
100%
4, Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
33
33
300%
FI
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend(Glide)
33
I
33
I
300%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extentthat mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
81
81
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
70
70
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
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%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
46
46
1—
baseflow.
Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
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
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
14
14
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
15
15
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
15
15
100%
4, Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
15
15
300%
FI
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend(Glide)
15
15
300%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extentthat mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
12
12
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
'"Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
6
6
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
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
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
1
150
77%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
14
79%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
10
13
77%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
13
13
100%
4, Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
13
13
100%
FI
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend(Glide)
13
I
13
300%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extentthat mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
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%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
'"Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
6
6
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Scl. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
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
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
1
30
92%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
11
91%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
7
8
88%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4, Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
8
8
100%
FI
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend(Glide)
8
8
300%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extentthat mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
24
24
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
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%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
'"Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
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
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
35
35
100%
1. Bed
Depth Sufficient
32
32
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
Length Appropriate
32
32
100%
4, Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
32
32
300%
FI
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend(Glide)
32
I
32
I
300%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extentthat mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures'
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%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Planted Acreage 15
Mapping
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.01
1
0.01
0.07%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.01
1
0.03
0.18%
criteria.
Total
2
0.04
0.3%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.1
6
0.90
6.16%
year.
Cumulative Total
8
0.94
6.4%
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
11
1.25
2.6%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0.0%

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1—view upstream UT1B (411512020) 1 Photo Point 1—view downstream UT1B (411512020) 1
Photo Point 2 — view upstream UT1B (411512020) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream UT1B (411512020) 1
Photo Point 3 —view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (411512020) 1 Photo Point 3 — view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (411512020) 1

Photo Point 4 — view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (411512020) 1 Photo Point 4 — view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (411512020) 1
Photo Point 5 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 5 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
Photo Point 5 —view upstream of UT1B (411512020) 1

Photo Point 6 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 6 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
Photo Point 7 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 7 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
Photo Point 8 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 8 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1

Photo Point 9 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 9 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
Photo Point 10 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 10 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
Photo Point 11— view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 11—view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1

Photo Point 12 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 12 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
Photo Point 13 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1 Photo Point 13 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (411512020) 1
�.`
as
Photo Point 14 —view upstream UT1 R2 (411512020) Photo Point 14 — view downstream UT1 R2 4 15 2020

Photo Point 15 —view upstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 15 — view downstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1
Photo Point 16 —view upstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1
Photo Point 17 —view upstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 17 — view downstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1

Photo Point 18 —view upstream UT1A (411512020) 1 Photo Point 18 — view downstream UT1A (411512020) 1
Photo Point 19 —view upstream UT1A (411512020) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream UT1A (411512020) 1
Photo Point 20 — view upstream UT2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 20 — view downstream UT2 (411512020) 1

Photo Point 21—view upstream UT2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 21— view downstream UT2 (411512020) 1
Photo Point 22 — view upstream UT2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 22 — view downstream UT2 (411512020) 1
Photo Point 23 —view upstream UT2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 23 — view downstream UT2 (411512020) 1

Photo Point 24 — view upstream UT2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 24 — view downstream UT2 (411512020) 1
Photo Point 25 —view upstream UT2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 25 — view downstream UT2 (411512020) 1
h
Photo Point 26 — view upstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1 Photo Point 26 — view downstream UT1 R2 (411512020) 1

•
4
ry
AI
41,
x
Y
floodplain overview
��"'�y?�: a°
��'r ��
i�
•a5
����y�e�rr"�'`.
do ` �,�
_ e��!'
a°� 4i .�
�".
Y
4
1:
Photo Point 28 — UTI RI Lower floodplain overview (411512020)
Photo Point 28 — UT2 floodplain overview (411512020)

Photo Point 29 — UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (411512020) 1

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1 - (0713012020) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (0713012020) 1
I Vegetation Plot 3 - (0713012020) I Vegetation Plot 4 - (0713012020) I
Vegetation Plot 5 - (0713012020) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (0712912020) 1

Elk
Y,
W
a �
Its
,� 3w
r � T`

rm
417
TTVk�»'.Cz r a
H
4 Ik
qy MA## s=
A
ry Y

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Plot
MYS Success Criteria
Tract Mean
1
Y
100
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Report Prepared By
Mimi Caddell
Date Prepared
10/5/2020
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 HENRY FORK MYS.mdb
Database Location
L:\Active Projects\005-02143 Henry Fork AVL\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5-2020\Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix ofthe count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
land missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
96306
project Name
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Required Plots (calculated)
15
Sampled Plots
15

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
11
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0001
96306-WEI-0002
96306-WEI-0003
96306-WEI-0004
96306-WEI-0005
96306-WEI-0006
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
15
3
3
3
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
6
1 6
6
4
4
4
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
3
3
3
6
6
6
1 1
1 1
1
1 3
3
3
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
3
4
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssasylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Pinus rigida
Pitch Pine
Tree
4
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
2
2
2
4
4
8
3
3
22
3
3
10
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
Rhus aromatica
Sumac
Shrub
2
5
salix
Willow
Shrub Tree
3
salixnigra
Black Willow
Tree
salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
Stem count
14
14
16
16
16
27
15
15
23
16
16
26
11
11
45
13
13
21
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
Species counti
5
1 5
1 6
1 4
1 4
1 7
5
1 5
1 7
4
4
6
5
5
6
5
5
16
Stems per ACRE
1 567
1 567
1 648
1 648
1 648
1 10931
607
1 607
1 931
1 648
1 648
1 1052
445
445
1821
526
526
1 850
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0007
96306-WEI-0008
96306-WEI-0009
96306-WEI-0010
96306-WEI-0011
96306-WEI-0012
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
4
4
4
8
3
3
3
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
5
3
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
9
2
2
2
3
3
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
31
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
1 1
1 1
1
5
5
5
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssasylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Pinus rigida
Pitch Pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
1 47
3
3
26
2
2
13
1
1
1
5
5
11
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
11
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus aromatica
Sumac
Shrub
salix
Willow
Shrub Tree
salixnigra
Black Willow
Tree
salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
Stem count
14
14
21
14
14
61
15
15
57
16
16
35
11
11
11
16
16
56
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
Species counti
5
1 5
1 5
1 6
1 6
1 7
5
1 5
1 7
6
6
7
6
6
6
5
5
7
Stems per ACRE
1 567
1 567
1 850
1 567
1 567
1 24691
607
1 607
1 2307
1 648
1 648
1 1416
445
445
445
648
648
2266
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorin¢ Year 5 - 2020
Scientific Name Common Name
r. -
Species Type
I i
96306-WEI-0013 96306-WEI-0014 96306-WEI-0015
MY5(8/2020) MY3(9/2018) MY2(7/2017)
MY1(9/2016) MYO(3/2016)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
14
14
16
19
20
12
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
11
11
34
12
12
17
12
12
100
12
12
22
13
13
13
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
8
7
8
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
34
34
73
34
34
45
34
34
52
35
35
35
37
37
37
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
46
46
46
49
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
52
57
57
57
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
3
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
10
26
31
10
17
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
13
16
30
2
7
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
Pin us rigida
Pitch Pine
Tree
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
S
7
7
7
42
42
160
43
43
271
44
44
460
44
44
108
57
57
57
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
11
10
19
7
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
Rhus aromatica
Sumac
Shrub
7
8
Salix
Willow
Shrub Tree
3
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
1
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
1
1
Stem count
12
12
12
13
13
19
13
13
51
209
209
481
217
217
567
220
220
803
222
222
350
243
243
264
size (ares)
1
1
1
15
15
15
15
15
size (ACRES)
0.02471
0.02471
0.02471
0.3707
0.3707
0.3707
0.3707
0.3707
Species count
6
6
6
6
6
7
3
1 3
7
7
7
16
7
7
15
7 7
14
7
7
1 14
7
7
11
Stems per ACRE
486
486
486
526
526
769
526
1 526
1 2064
564
564
1298
1 585
1 585
1 1530
M 594
1 2166
599
1 944
656
656
712
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Failsto meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 2, UT1A and UT2
Parameter
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
I
Max
Upper
Lower
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Reference Cross Section Number
XS9
XS8
XS5,XS6
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.4
12.5
15.2
16.3
10.1
6.2
7.5
10.5
6.6
5.65
Floodprone Width (ft)
17.9
23.1
18
19.8
23
T
46
150
200
60
110
96.7+
31.4
81.3
149.8+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.82
0.51
0.58
0.9
0.40
0.85
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.30
0.85
0.95
1.5
0.80
1.2
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area(ft')
6.1
2.8
7.5
7.8
8.3
3.2
4.4
9.7
2.5
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
56.0
30.7
34.4
12.3
12.1
12.9
11.4
17.0
7.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.2
2.3
1
4.6
24.2
1
32.37
8.0
1 14.7
9.2+
4.8
15.9
1
20.3
Bank Height Ratio
2.7
1.9
2.9
7.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
5.3/N/A
0.28/0.34
SC/0.04
N/A
0.34
0.04
Silt/Clay
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
23.3
51.9
10.8
32.9
3.45
52.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.4 1.7
6.7
N/AZ
0.002
0.0080
0.005
0.0210
0.0020
0.0080
0.0000
0.0230
0.0010
0.0395
0.0000
0.0144
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
15.4
83.1
10.2
47.5
10.28
60.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/Az
1.3
2.5
0.8
1.5
0.0
1.8
2.2
3.5
0.9
2.6
1.6
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
38.1
N/AZ
N/AZ
20
86
12
53
15
68
49
136
29
53
28
87
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
8
83
8
37
9
58
7
84
7
36
8
59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
25
51
13
25
14
24
25
58
9
25
13
24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
19.2
39.2
15.3
29.4
14.7
25.3
2.4
5.5
1.4
3.8
2.3
4.2
Meander Length (ft)
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
120
210
63
100
65
156
123
210
61
100
63
158
Meander Width Ratio
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
92.3
161.5
74.1
117.6
68.4
164.2
11.7
20.0
9.2
15.2
11.2
28.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri,Y/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SCIY/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.18/2.8/38/62/128-180
SC/SC/SC/SC/0.25/4.0/11.3-16
SC/SC/SC/SC/SC/8.0/45-64
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft
0.8-1.6
0.7
0.18-0.25+4
0.06
0.13
0.05
0.00
0.11
0.13
0.07
0.07
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power Ca acit W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.2
0.036
0.077
0.24-0.28
0.04
0.08
0.24-0.28
0.04
0.08
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
5.3%
6.1%
2.4%
5.3%
6.1%
2.4%
5.3%
6.1%
2.4%
Rosgen Classification
Modified B4c3
Modified B6c3
Modified F63
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
2.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.2
1
1.4
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
18.3
6.1
10.2
14
6
5
13
4
4.0
6.7
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
61
19
29
Q-Mannings
18.3
6.1
10.2
14
6
5
13
4
4.0
6.7
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
922
415
1,174
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,499*
353
1,915
1,228
657
1,969
1,232
658
1,969
Sinuosity
1.55
1.05
1.03
1.39
1.06
1.65
1.3
1.6
1.7
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z
---
---
---
0.0016
0.0018
0.0037
0.0043
0.0016
0.0019
0.0023
0.0063
0.0018
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--
--
---
0.0016
0.0018
0.0037
0.0043
0.0016
0.0019
0.0037
0.0060
0.0015
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT1 Reach 2, and UT1B.
The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
°The 25-year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
5Sinuosity on UT1 Reach 2 is calculated by drawing a valley length line that follows the proposed valley, the existing valley is poorly defined
*Does not include last 150' to tie-in to Henry Fork.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 1 and UT1B
Parameter
PRE -RESTORATION
UTl Reach 1
CONDITIONDESIGN
UT1B
UT1 Reach 1
UT113
UT1 Reach 1
UT113
Min
Max
Min
Max
Upper
Lower
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Reference Cross Section Number
XS3,XS4
XS1,XS2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.2
3.3
2.7
3.1
6.0
7.0
5.5
6.9
7.3
5.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.7
11.4
17.5
19.8
15
20 403
10
15
51.3
118.3+
13.2
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.40
0.49
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.3
0.55
0.75
0.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftz
1.8
2.1
1.9
2
2.4
1
3.4
2.1
2.9
1
3.5
2.2
Width/Depth Ratio
5.1
5.7
3.7
1
5.1
12.3
14.7
15.8
37.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0
3.6
1.7
2.5
2.5
T
2.9 5.73
1.8
1
2.7
7.0
1
17.1+
6.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
3.1
1.7
2.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
16/8.3
6.9/5.3
8.3
5.3
17.1
11.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
I
---
---
8.0
47.3
11.3
41.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.041
0.21
N/AZ
0.056
0.092
0.067
1
0.110
0.0142
0.0987
0.0259
0.0978
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
4.3
33.4
5.6
20.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/AZ
N/AZ
0.6
1.5
0.7
1.3
0.9
2.8
0.5
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
10.4
20.5
N/AZ
12
35
11
28
10
60
7
43
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Az
N/Az
6
28
5
21
10
26
4
19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Az
N/Az
14
30
10
18
8
31
8
32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Az
N/Az
2.3
4.3
1.8
3.3
1.2
4.5
1.5
5.9
Meander Length (ft)
N/Az
N/Az
52
104
46
92
56
104
48
90
Meander Width Ratio
N/Az
N/Az
9
15
8
17
8
15
9
17
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.18/2.80/38/62/128-180
FS/SC/SC/0.14/8.9/45/128-180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ftZ
2.3-3.1
1.3-2.4
1.0-1.2
0.91
0.87
1.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.17
0.048
0.07-0.17
0.048
0.07-0.17
0.048
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
5.9%
7.9%
5.9%
7.9%
5.9%
7.9%
Rosgen Classification
Modified Low W/D 134a / E4b4
Modified 135a / E5b4
B4a
134a C4bs
134a'
134a
134a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.8
5.3
3.8
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.3
2.6
3.9
3.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
8.5
11.4
8
10
15
9
7.6
12.6
8.7
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
30
24
Q-Mannings
8.5
11.4
8
10
15
9
7.6
12.6
8.7
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
1,271
338
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,392
478
1,471
358
1,497
358
Sinuosity
1.0
1.1
1 1.11
1.16
1
1.30
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slo e ft ft z
0.0477
1
0.0527
0.0500
0.0565
0.0369
0.0598
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
0.0477
0.0527
0.0500
1
0.0565
0.0241
1
0.0612
0.0602
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
Z Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT1 Reach 2, and UT1B.
3 UT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is more typical of a C.
the Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
5UT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is more typical of a C.
6UT1B is classified in existing conditions as a sand bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment and
channelization resulting in a less steep stream). The restored stream, with slopes exceeding 2% grade throughout the reach, will be a
gravel dominated stream, and is classified as such.

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Parameter
UT to Catawba River Reach 1
UT to Catawba River Reach 2
UT to Lyle Creek
REFERENCE
Vile Preserve
REACH DATA
UT to South Crowders
Group Camp Tributary
UT to Gap Branch
Upstream UT1 to Henry Fork
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min' Max'
Min'
Max'
Reference Cross Section Number
XS2
XS3
XS4
XS1
XS3
XS1
XS3
XS1
XS2
XS3
XS4
XS2
XS1
XS2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.4
9.7
12.3
8.6
7.0
6.2
5.7
6.1
8.4
4.4
4.2
6.2
3.2
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
79
52
53
48.9
45.2
200+
200+
25.5
31.2
8.6
10.6
20.9
6.3
13
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area(ft)
17.6
11.4
13.2
4.1
3.5
5.3
4.5
6.4
8.7
3.6
3.4
3.8
1.9
3.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
1 8.2
11.5
18.3
13.9
1 7.4
7.2
1 5.7
8.2
5.5
5.2
10.1
5.2
16.4
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8+
5.8+
2.5+
30+
4.2
3.7
1.9
2.5
3.4
2.0
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
D50 (mm)
1.8
75.9
0.2
0.4
19.7
0.3
19.0
34.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0114
1 0.0605
0.0142
1
0.3451
0.0055
1 0.0597
0.0063
0.0202
1 0.0664
0.0105
1 0.1218
0.0110 1 0.1400
0.0500
0.0700
Pool Length (ft)
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.5
N/A
1.3
1.4
1.3
3.0
1.8
2.8
1.5
N/A
Pool Spacing (ft)
31
60
19
46
15
28
44.8
28
63
9
58
18 27
14
25
Pool Volume (ft)
----
----
----
----
Pattern----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
55
23
21
19
81
15.5
16.5
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
31
56
29
52
19
32
27
50
9
20
8.0
11.8
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.8
5.1
2.4
4.2
2.2
4.6
4.4
8.8
1.5
2.4
1.9
2.7
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
65
107
52
79
39
44
29
45
45
72
31
34
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
5.7
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.1
4.2
9.6
13.3
3.6
3.8
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.3/0.4/1.8/12.8/25/90
.5/29.8/75.9/170.8/332.0/>2048.
-/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/2/-
0.8/12.1/19.7/49.5/75.9/180.0
SC/0.1/0.3/16.0/55.6/128.0
0.4/8/19.0/102.3/256.0/>2048
2.8/16/34/64/101/128-180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.60
1.60
0.25
1.09
0.22
0.10
0.04
0.05
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
---
---
---
---
--
Rosgen Classification
E5
E3b/C3b
C5
E5
E4
E51b
Slightly entrenched 134a/A4
134a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.9
1 3.5
6.3
2
1 2.1
3.3
1
3.2
3.3
1 4.4
3.6
1 3.4
5.0
5.4
1 3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
58
83
8
16
25
12
19
12
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-LISGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
--
Sinuosity
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.2
1.6
N/A
1.1
Water Surface Slope ft ft z
I --
--
--
--
--
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--
--
--
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.

Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1 & UTl Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate'
Base
Cross
MYl
-Section
MY2
1, UT1
MY3
Reach
MY4
1 [1111��
MYS
MY6 MY7
OF
Base
Cross
MYl
-Section
MY2
2, UT1
MY3
Reacir���
MY4
MY5
MY6 MY7
P"
Base
Cross
MYl
-Section
MY2
3, UT1
MY3
Reach
MY4
1 •..
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)'
906.1
906.1
906.1
906.1
N/A
906.2
901.9
901.9
901.9
901.9
N/A
901.8
878.3
878.3
878.3
878.2
N/A
878.1
Low Bank Elevation
906.1
906.1
906.1
906.2
906.2
901.9
901.9
901.9
901.9
901.8
878.3
878.3
878.3
878.2
878.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.3
6.8
7.1
7.8
5.5
8.8
9.6
10.9
11.3
12.2
7.8
7.7
9.6
10.0
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)2
51
51
52
55
55
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.5
1 0.5
0.6
1.2
1 1.0
0.9
1 0.7
0.4
1.2
1.0
0.9
1 0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.2
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.1
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
3.5
2.9
3.3
4.3
3.4
10.7
9.5
10.0
8.0
5.1
9.1
8.1
8.8
9.0
8.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
15.7
15.0
14.3
8.8
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.0
10.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1 1.0
---
---
---
---
-
-
.
20
.
•..
Dimension and Substrate'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
I MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)'
877.6
877.6
877.6
877.5
N/A
1
877.7
873.5
873.5
873.5
873.4
N/A
873.6
872.7
872.7
872.7
872.8
N/A
872.8
Low Bank Elevation
877.6
877.6
877.6
877.5
877.6
873.5
873.5
873.5
873.5
873.5
872.7
872.7
872.7
872.8
872.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9
7.4
7.6
6.9
4.9
10.5
11.1
10.9
11.2
10.6
8.8
8.8
9.2
10.7
9.8
Floodprone Width (ft)2
118+
118+
118+
60+
60+
97+
97+
97+
75+
73+
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
2.9
3.2
3.1
2.8
1.9
9.7
10.1
9.3
10.1
8.7
8.8
7.2
6.8
8.4
7.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.2
17.1
18.7
16.8
12.7
11.4
12.1
12.7
12.4
12.8
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
17.1+
16.0+
15.5+
8.6+
12.2+
9.2+
8.7+
8.9+
6.7+
6.9+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 0.9
Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
2 Floodprone width in MY3 through MY7 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1A, UT1B, & UT2
Cross -Section
7, UTIA (Pool)
Cross -Section
8, UTIA
(Riffle)
Cross -Section
9, UTIB
(Pool)
Cross -Section
r
Dimension and Substrate'
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)'
874.9
874.9
874.9
874.8
N/A
11, UT2
MY4
875.2
875.0
875.0
875.0
874.9
N/A
12, UT2
MY4
875.2
922.9
922.9
922.9
923.1
N/A
MY4
923.0
922.1
922.1
922.1
922.2
N/A
14, UT2
MY4
922.3
Low Bank Elevation
874.9
874.9
874.9
874.8
875.2
875.0
875.0
875.0
874.9
875.0
922.9
922.9
922.9
923.1
923.0
922.1
922.1
922.1
922.2
922.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.6
5.8
4.5
4.2
5.0
6.6
6.3
7.7
6.5
4.9
5.5
5.9
6.9
8.3
6.9
5.4
5.9
4.3
6.5
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)2
---
---
---
---
---
31+
81+
79+
85+
86+
---
---
---
---
---
38
56
54
56
60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (W)
2.0
1.6
2.5
2.3
1.6
5.0
4.2
4.0
5.6
4.5
2.2
2.0
1.0
2.52.0Bankfull
Width/Depth Ratio---
M.3
---
17.0
17.3
A24.917.9
15.4
---
---
---
---
---
13. 2
17.3
19.6
17.0
16.3Bankfull
Entrenchment Ratio---
---
48+
12.8+
17.5+
---
---
---
------
6.99.4
12.5
8.610.6Bankfull
Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate'
---
Base
MYl
Cross -Section
MY2
MY3
---
(Pool)
MYS
MY6
MY7
1.0
Base
1.0
MYl
Cross -Section
MY2
MY3
0.8
(Riffle)
MYS
MY6
MY7
---
Base
---
MYl
---
MY2
---
MY3
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
1.0
MYl
1.0
Cross -Section
MY2
1.1
MY3
0.9
(Riffle)
MYS
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation(ft)'
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
N/A
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
N/A
876.1
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.0
N/A
875.0
875.2
875.2
875.2
875.2
N/A
875.2
Low Bank Elevation
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.0
875.0
875.2
875.2
875.2
875.3
875.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.2
11.5
11.1
10.8
10.9
8.1
9.1
8.6
8.0
8.3
7.8
8.2
10.0
12.0
10.9
7.4
6.9
7.5
8.5
8.0
Floodprone Width (ft)2
---
---
---
---
---
81+
51+
51+
51+
51+
---
---
---
---
---
150+
150+
150+
59+
59+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.4
14
1.5
1.3
1.9
1.6
1.7N18
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.9Bankfull
Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
8.6
95
9.7
8.5
5.7
5.5
6.0
5.3
8.8
8.1
9.4
8.0
4.2
3.844
4.83.1Bankfull
Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
---
R
11.550
12.3
121
E
---
---12.912.7
126
14.820.4Bankfull
R.
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
------10.1+5.6+
5.9+
6.3+
---
---20.3+
21.8+
20.1+
7.0+7.4+Bankfull
Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
'Priorto MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
' Floodprone width in MY3 through MY7 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.

Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1 Reach 1
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9
7.3
6.8
7.4
7.1
7.6
6.9
7.8
N/A
4.9
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
51
118+
51
118+
52
118+
55
60+
55
60+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
1 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.75
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.8
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.9
3.5
2.9
3.2
3.1
3.3
2.8
4.3
1.9
3.4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.8
15.7
17.1
15.0
18.7
14.3
16.8
8.8
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
1 17.1+
7.5+
16.0+
7.3+
15.5+
7.0
8.6+
10.1
12.2+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.0
D50 (mm)
35.9
37.9
56.1
87.0
87.3
93.6
73.0
104.7
66.2
88.3
47.7
68.5
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
8.0
47.3
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0142
0.0987
Pool Length (ft)
4.3
33.4
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.9
2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
10
60
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
26
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8
31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.2
4.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
56
104
Meander Width Ratiol
8
1 15
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
134a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,497
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0369
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0241
1 0.0612
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1 Reach 2
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.1
10.9
11.2
N/A
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
97+
97+
97+
75+
73+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
9.7
10.1
9.3
10.1
8.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
12.1
12.7
12.4
12.8
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2+
8.7+
8.9+
6.7+
6.9+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm)
Silt/Clay
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23.3
51.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0230
Pool Length (ft)
15.4
83.1
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.2
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)l
49
1 136
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7
84
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
58
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.4
5.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
123
210
Meander Width Ratiol
11.7
1 20.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,232
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0037
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%

Table 12c. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1A
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.6
6.3
7.7
6.5
N/A
4.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
31+
81+
79+
85+
86+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio
17.0
17.3
24.9
17.9
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.8
31.9+
10.3+
13.1+
17.5+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10.8
32.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0395
Pool Length (ft)
10.2
47.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.9
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)l
29
1 53
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7
36
Radius of Curvature (ft)
9
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.4
3.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
61
100
Meander Width Ratiol
9.2
1 15.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
658
Sinuosity (ft)
1.6
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0063
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0060
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1B
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.4
5.9
4.3
6.5
N/A
5.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
38
56
54
56
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.2
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
17.3
19.6
17.0
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio
6.9
9.4
12.5
8.6
10.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
D50 (mm)l
11.0
40.2
69.0
68.5
23.3
47.7
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
11.3
41.2
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0259
0.0978
Pool Length (ft)
5.6
20.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.5
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
43
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
4
19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8
32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.5
5.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
48
90
Meander Width Ratiol
9
1 17
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
134a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
358
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0598
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0602
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%

Table 12e. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT2
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.4
8.1
6.9
9.1
7.5
8.6
8.0
8.5
N/A
8.0
8.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
81
150+
51+
150+
51+
150+
51+
59+
51+
59+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
1 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2
1.3
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.2
5.7
3.8
5.5
4.4
6.0
4.8
5.3
3.1
4.9
Width/Depth Ratio
11.5
12.9
12.7
15.0
12.3
12.6
12.1
14.8
14.2
20.4
Entrenchment Ratio
10.1
29.0+
5.6+
21.8+
5.9+
20.1+
6.3+
7.0+
6.1+
7.4+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
D50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3.45
52.29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0144
Pool Length (ft)
10.28
60.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
28
87
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
8
59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13
24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.3
4.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
63
158
Meander Width Ratiol
11.2
1 28.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,969
Sinuosity (ft)
1.7
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0018
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0015
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
N/A
0%

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 1-UT1 R1
104+28 Riffle
908
907
906
0
v
w
905
904
35 45 55 65
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.8
width -depth ratio
55.4
W flood prone area (ft)
10.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 2-UT1 R1
105+36 Pool
903
902
Y
W
901
0
Y
(0
W
900
899
40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) — MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.2
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
29.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 3-UT1 R1
113+46 Pool
880
879
878
c
0
877
v
w
876
875
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
10.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2019
Cross -Section 4-UT1 R1
113+64 Riffle
879
878
Y———————————————--------- — — ———————— — —
— --- -- —-------------
c
0
v 877-
w
876
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.9
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
5.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.2
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 5-UT1 R2
121+63 Riffle
876
875
874
---
---------- - - - - -------- - - - - --
0
873
v
w
872
871
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
8.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.6
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
73.1
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 6-UT1 R2
122+09 Pool
875
874 NO
873
c
0
872
v
w
871
870
30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.8
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
10.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 7-UT1A
182+00 Pool
877
876
875
0
v
w
874
873
30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.0
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
5.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 8-UT1A
182+16 Riffle
877
876
Y
W
Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(0
a' 875
u,
874
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+ MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
5.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
86.0
W flood prone area (ft)
17.5
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 9-UT1B
151+92 Pool
925
924
923
0
v
w
922
921
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
7.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 10-UTIB
152+05 Riffle
925
924
Y
W
923
0
�Y
(0
W
922
i
921
40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+ MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.7
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
5.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.3
width -depth ratio
60.1
W flood prone area (ft)
10.6
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 11-UT2
206+86 Pool
877
876
Y
W
C
Y
>
a' 875
u,
874
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) — MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 12-UT2
207+26 Riffle
878
877
c
876——— — — — — -- ————————— — — — — —— ——————————————————————
0
v
w
875
874
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.3
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.2
width -depth ratio
51.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 13-UT2
212+15 Pool
877
876
Y
W
875
0
�Y
(0
W
874
873
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) — MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) —MY3 (04/2018) tMY5 (04/2020) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Cross -Section 14-UT2
212+58 Riffle
877
876
Y
W
C
_0
(0
a'i 875 \0110
u,
874
5 15 25 35 45
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) MY1 (10/2016) MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018)
+ MY5 (04/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.0
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.4
width -depth ratio
59.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.4
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1R1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
SPC�O
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
4
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
4
6
6
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
27
Fine
5.6 1
8.0
1
1
2
2
29
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
3
5
5
34
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1 4
5
5
39
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
3
7
7
46
Coarse
22.6
32
5
3
8
8
53
Very Coarse
32
45
6
5
11
11
64
Very Coarse
45 1
64
7
3
10
10
74
Small
64
90
7
1
8
8
82
Small
90
128
7
2
9
9
91
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
96
Large
180
256
3
3
3
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Totall
50
1 51 1
101 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.5
D35 —
12.2
D50 =
27.5
D. =
96.7
D95 =
167.6
D100 =
362.0
UT1R1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
Silt/Clay
Boulder
a d
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
70
e
60
j
3 50
E
40
�?
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-05/2016 - MY1-10/2016 - MY2-04/2017 - MY3-04/2018 - MY4-03/2019 --*-- MY5-06/2020
UT11111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
u
60
`m
a
50
R
40
v
30
m
3
20
10
0
OOtiOytiS Otis O� ti ti ,L`b
b yco 'b y'y ,y<o �,LC� ,3'L b� 6b �i0 ti,L'b 40
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 0 MYl-10/2016
0 MY2-04/2017 0 MY3-04/2018 0 MY4-03/2019 0 MY5-06/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1R1, Cross -Section 1
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
6
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
12
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
25
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
33
Ver Coarse
32
45
14
14
47
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
65
Small
64
90
6
6
71
Small
90
128
20
20
90
Large
1 128
180
2
2
92
Large
180
256
6
6
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
102
100
100
Cross -Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
17.8
D35 =
33.4
D50 =
47.7
D. =
114.5
D95 =
213.4
D100 =
362.0
UT1R1. Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
e 70
j 60
R
50
3
E
40
lj
w 30
u
m 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-05/2016 — MYl-10/2016 — MY2-04/2017 — MY3-04/2018 — MY4-03/2019 --o— MY5-06/2020
UT1111, Cross -Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
u
60
w
a
50
N
40
v
30
m
3
20
10
0
oo�'LoytiS oti5 Oy 1 'L ,Lu
b h� W y1 yCo �,tio 3ti b5 bb �O 'p y�0 "0 �g ytiti �O,yb mop boo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 0 MYl-10/2016
0 MY2-04/2017 0 MY3-04/2018 0 MY4-03/2019 0 MY5-06/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1R1, Cross -Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percents a
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000 1
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
SPCSO
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
16
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
28
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
32
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
44
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
48
Small
64
90
10
10
58
Small
90
128
10
10
68
Large
128 1
180
20
20
88
Large
180
256
8
8
96
Small
256
362
2
2
98
Small
362
512
2
2
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
8.0
D36 =
34.8
Dsu =
68.5
D. =
168.1
D95 =
245.0
D100 =
512.0
UT1R1. Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
a d
Gravel
gp
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
70
e
60
j
50
3
v' 40
30
u
20
aw
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-05/2016 - MYl-10/2016 - MY2-04/2017 - MY3-04/2018 - MY4-03/2019 t MY5-06/2020
UT11111, Cross -Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
u
60
`m
a
50
N
40
v
30
m
3
20
10
0
�'L .Lh by o� 'v ti ti$
00 oti o
b yro W yti y<o ,L<o ,5'L 05 0. �O .tiW ticbO h� Oti yti ,ti0b9> ��
ti ti ti 3 h do do �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 0 MYl-10/2016
0 MY2-04/2017 0 MY3-04/2018 0 MY4-03/2019 ■ MY5-06/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1113, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
11
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
6
9
9
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
25
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
27
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
27
Fine
4.0
5.6
27
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
30
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
32
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
8
8
40
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
10
10
50
Very Coarse
32
45
2
1
3
3
52
Very Coarse
45
64
11
3
14
14
66
Small
64
90
9
4
13
13
79
Small
90
128
3
9
12
12
90
Large
128
180
2
1
3
3
93
Large
180
256
4
4
4 1
97
Small
256
362
3
3
3
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
1
100
Totall
52
1 51 1
103 1
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.3
D35 =
18.3
D50 =
33.9
D. =
105.8
1395 =
211.8
13100 =
362.0
UT16. Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
70
Silt/Clay
Boulder
a d
Gravel
Cobble
'0
Bedrock
e
4)
16 50
3
40
�?
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-05/2016 - MYl-10/2016 - MY2-04/2017 - MY3-04/2018 - MY4-03/2019 t MYS-06/2020
UT1B, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
u
60
`m
a
50
R
40
v
30
m
3
20
10
0
Op yti5 .L5 O� ti ti ,L`b
pp�
b yco 'b y'y ,y<o ,LC� ,3'L b� 6b �i0 ti,L'b 40
ti ti ti b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 0 MYl-10/2016
0 MY2-04/2017 0 MY3-04/2018 0 MY4-03/2019 0 MY5-06/2020

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
�CSO
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
8
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
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
32
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
40
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
48
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
60
Small
64
90
8
8
68
Small
90
128
18
18
86
Large
128
180
12
12
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
HJUMMIJUJUSHULar
Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.1
D35 =
25.7
D50 =
47.7
D. =
123.1
1395 =
165.3
D100 =
362.0
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
Sand
90
gp
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
70
e
60
j
3 50
E
40
�?
30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Class Size (mm)
10)00
- MYO-05/2016 - MYl-10/2016 - MY2-04/2017 - MY3-04/2018 - MY4-03/2019 t MYS-06/2020
UT16, Cross -Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
u
60
`m
a
50
N
40
v
30
m
3
20
10
9JJA.
0
Ld
o6ti tip by oy ti ti tiro
o. o. o
n 5� w titi ti� ti� 3ti a5 �° �o 1p 411 le +11 ';titie tioar o01
ti
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 0 MYl-10/2016
0 MY2-04/2017 0 MY3-04/2018 0 MY4-03/2019 ■ MY5-06/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Reach
UT1 Reach 2
MYl
Date of Occurrence
N/A
Crest Gage
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
2/7/2018
Stream Gage
4/25/2018
5/29/2018
9/16/2018
10/11/2018
10/26/2018
MY4
6/9/2019
10/31/2019
MY5
5/21/2020
6/19/2020
8/15/2020
9/2/2020
9/17/2020
9/25/2020
10/11/2020
11/12/2020
UT1A
MY1
Unknown
Crest Gage
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
10/11/2018
Stream Gage
MY4
6/9/2019
10/31/2019
MY5
4/13/2020
6/19/2020
8/15/2020
11/12/2020
UT1B
MY1
N/A
Crest Gage
MY2
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY4
6/9/2019
Stream Gage
8/24/2019
10/31/2019
MY5
6/19/2020
8/15/2020
11/12/2020
UT2
MY1
N/A
Crest Gage
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
2/7/2018
Stream Gage
5/29/2018
MY4
6/9/2019
10/31/2019
MY5
1/12/2020
1/24/2020
3/25/2020
4/30/2020
5/21/2020
6/19/2020
8/15/2020
9/2/2020
9/18/2020
9/25/2020
10/11/2020
11/12/2020
N/A, no bankfull events recorded.

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
���ummary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years I through 7
Success Criteria Achieved2/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season' (Percentage)
Gage Year 1 (2016) Year 2 (2017) Year 3 (2018) Year 4 (2019) Year 5 (2020) Year 6 (2021) Year 7 (2022)
No/18 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/79 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/63 Days
Reference
(8%)
(25%)
(34%)
(26%)
(27%)
No/0 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/48 Days
Yes/42 Days
Yes/27 Days
GWG 1
(0%)
(10%)
(20%)
(18%)
(11%)
Yes/ 29 Days
No/7 Days
No/12 Days
Yes/39 Days
Yes/49 Days
GWG 2
(12.3%)
(3%)
(5%)
(17%)
(21%)
Yes/236 Days
No/3 Days
No/5 Days
Yes/35 Days
Yes/49 Days
GWG 34
(100%)
(1%)
(2%)
(15%)
(21%)
No/3 Days
Yes/25 Days
Yes/46 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/64 Days
GWG 4
(1.3%)
(11%)
(20%)
(29%)
(27%)
Yes/189 Days
Yes/102 Days
Yes/236 Days
Yes/202 Days
GWG 5'
N/A
(80%)
(43%)
(100%)
(85%)
Yes/79 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/76 Days
Yes/116 Days
GWG 6
(33.5%)
(38%)
(41%)
(32%)
(49%)
No/7 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/89 Days
GWG 7
(3.0%)
(9%)
(19%)
(19%)
(38%)
No/1 Days
No/14 Days
No/11 Days
No/19 Days
No/14 Days
GWG 8
(0.4%)
(6%)
(5%)
(8%)
(6%)
No/13 Days
Yes/20 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/90 Days
GWG 9'
N/A
(6%)
(9%)
(29%)
(38%)
GWG 10'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/236 Days
Yes/202 Days
(100%)
(85%)
GWG 11 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/61 Days
Yes/113 Days
(26%)
(48%)
GWG 12'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/36 Days
Yes/61 Days
(15%)
(26%)
GWG 13 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/236 Days
Yes/202 Days
(100%)
(85%)
GWG 14'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/67 Days
Yes/89 Days
(28%)
(38%)
GWG 15'
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/45 Days
Yes/89 Days
(19%)
(38%)
N/A, not applicable
'Growing season dates March 20 - November 11
Success criteria is 20 consecutive days (8.5%) of the growing season.
'GWGs 5 and 9 were installed on April 7, 2017.
°GWG 3 was relocated in January 2017.
5GWGs 10 -13 were installed on February 20, 2019.
6GWGs 14-15 were installed on March 7.2019.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
C
0
0
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #1
W
c
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
oW
o
20
0p
8.0
6
27 days
0 m
0
10
t
— —
0
7.0
N
w
0
6.0
5.0
-10
4.0
3. -20
c
m
�
3.0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
a
a
Y >
Ln 0 z
U
0'
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #2
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
49
C i T C 75 W Q +-' > U
�° LL g Q � Q v°'i O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
C
4.0
c
.m
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
C
C
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #3
v
W o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
O
C N
20
3 \
3
8.0
49 days
10
t
Y
—
W
7.0
0
N
6.0
-20
4.0
v
c
'm
m
a
3.0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
C -0 i
Q
T C bD Q +-' >
Q m O z
U
o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
c
C
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #4
W o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
N
20
3\
3�
8.0
6 No
64 days
2
w
w
10
fc
— —
-°a
c
w
7.0
0
N
6.0
10-V
5.0
%- — — —
— —
— — — —
3
-20
4.0
v
c
'm
m
a
-30
3.0
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
11
IlAt
1111110.0
-60
C i
�° LL Q
T C bD
-a Q
Q +-' >
m O z
U
o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
c
0
C
0
N Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #5
v
cn O
on Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
C
,n o
20
p
OO
N
O
8.0
C 202 days 2
0 m
0
10
a
N
-00
c
w
7.0
0
IL 0%.
-A A
6.0
-10
Wp
��l V
5.0
3
-20
4.0
c
io
s
3.0
-30
-40
1
2.0
-50 1.0
L111-60 0.0
C i T C 75 bD Q +-' > U
Q ' Ln O 0 0 � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
c
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #6
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
o
W
20
00
��
8.0
l7 \
116 days
o
o
r
10
t
N
0a
7.0
0
w
6.0
V
All�k A1r"n,**kT"
5.0
-10
20
4.0
v
c
'm
m
cc
3.0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
111
L
0.0
-60
C i
Q
T C 75 to
Q
Q
m O z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level
O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
3. -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
C i T C 75 W Q +-' > U
�° LL g Q � Q v°'i O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 ,m
c
.m
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
3. v
-20
a
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C
0
v henry rorK orounawaier page ff6
o Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
_ O
� N
0 p
0m
0
t=
Y
N
C
0
n O
to N
C O
_ N
14 days 2
0
0
c
W
Y > U
v g cu
a g < (n o z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 ,m
c
.m
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
C
0
C
0
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #9
W o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
a,
20
3
8.0
90 days
10
fc
— —
00
c
w
7.0
0
N
6.0
IV,
�J!Jv�
5.0
-10
3
4.0
3. -20
r4 V
c
io
s
3.0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
ill
0.0
-60
C -0 i
Q
T C 75 W
! '
� a
Q +-' >
N O °
z
U
o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
C
O
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #10
°
v
W o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
;; o
20
c p
00�
W o
8.0
\
202 days
°
�m
C7 �
10
t
o `i
7.0
0
w
6.0
10
v
_
3
3. -20
4.0
v
c
'm
m
cc
3.0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
0.0
-60
C -0 i
LL g Q
T C W Q
Q m
O z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 — — Criteria Level O
Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
C
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #11
o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
N o
� o
c o
20
00
3�
8.0
6
113 days
o
\
\
10
i+
0
7.0
(n
W
0
lk44
6.0
I � A
ry��
-10
��
�������
������
5.0
v
�=
-20
4.0
v
c
'm
m
a
3.0
-30
-40
2.0
1.0
-50
"Ju0.0
-60
C -0 i
a<
T C bD
Q +-' > U
Ln o z o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 — — Criteria Level
O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
20
10
0
-10
v
v -20
v
m
-30
-40
-50
-60
Y > U
v 2! Q g Q (n O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 ,m
c
.m
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
c
0
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #13
o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
� O
20
3 \
6 No
202 day'.
0m
0
10
Y
0
N
-10
v
3. -20
v
-30
-40
c
0
,n o
W N
S O
_ N
o
8.0
l7 �
w �
0
c
w
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
s
3.0
2.0
-50 1.0
L1-60 0.0
C i T C 75 bD Q +-' > U
Q 0 Ln O 0 0 � Q Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 — — Criteria Level O Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
C
0
C
0
N
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #14
v
W
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
20
0
8.0
89 days
2
10
fa
N
—
c
w
7.0
0
NO
6.0
5.0
-10
3
4.0
-20
c
m
�
-30
-
3.0
2.0
-40
Aal
1.0
-50
11 1 11
111
11
10.0
-60
a
� a
Y >
0 z°
U
o
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 — — Criteria Level O
Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitorine Year 5 - 2020
c
c
v
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #15
v
W o
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
o
O
� N
20
3 \
3
8.0
89 days
2
m
°a
10
t
Y
—
W
7.0
0
N
6.0
c -10
5.0
3
20
4.0
c
io
s
3.0
-30
NN
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
111.
A jai
::�Lli
-60
I0.0
C i
�
T C 75 bD Q
a Ln
+-' >
0 z
U
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 — — Criteria Level O
Manual GWG Measurements
Note: The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during the February and April malfunctions was omitted from the
reported data. In addition, the barotroll quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork
Mitigation Site.

Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
923.0
922.5
922.0
x
a
921.5
a
m
3
921.0
920.5
920.0
Stream Gage 1 - UT1B
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
@ n c on n d > u
O Z
Rainfall — UT1B - SGl Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull
6.0
5.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 -4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during those dates were omitted from the reported data. In addition, the barotroll
quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork Mitigation Site.

Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Stream Gage 2 - UT1
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
875 6.0
874
5.0
873
4.0
x
c
a
872
�
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — . — — — — — — — — . — — — — — _
3.0 —Fm
c
m
3
a[
871
2.0
870IV
1.0
869
ILL
0.0
c @ n c on n > u
O z o
Rainfall — UTl - SG2 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Hankfull
The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 - 4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during those dates were omitted from the reported data. In addition, the barotroll
quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork Mitigation Site.

Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Stream Gage 3 - UT1A
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
876.0 8.0
875.5
123 days
7.0
875.0
6.0
874.5
5.0
5
874.0
ic
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _
4.0 w
m
3 873.5
oc
3.0
873.0
2.0
872.5
1.0
872.0
0.0
c a n c on n > u
O Z o
lllllllllllllllllllllllll�Rainfa1l —UTIA-SG3Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • •Hankfull
The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 -4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during those dates were omitted from the reported data. In addition, the barotroll
quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork Mitigation Site.

Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Stream Gage 4 - UT2
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
877.0 5.0
876.5
117 days
4.5
876.0
4.0
875.5
3.5
IM
vvvWv4Qv1" r- - -"
r 875.0
3.0
c
i
874.5
2.5
w
c
w
3 874.0
2.0 0°
873.5
1.5
873.0
a1.0
872.5
HL11
0.5
872.0
J�k
U11
0.0
c a > c m a > u
¢ O Z
Rainfall — UT2 - SG4 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation • • Hankfull
The barotroll at Henry Fork experienced minor malfunctions in February (2/6 and 2/14 - 2/17) and during April (4/16 -4/17 and 4/21-4/22); therefore, data collected during those dates were omitted from the reported data. In addition, the barotroll
quit working on 8/1/2020 so the remaining data was calibrated using the barotroll from the Owl's Den Mitigation Site which is located in Lincoln, County approximately 15 miles from the Henry Fork Mitigation Site.

Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
12
10
8
C
C
O
m 6
'a
a`
4
2
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
�202ORainfall -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
2020 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

APPENDIX 6. Wetland Addendum

, 0, xz- *v
W1LDLANDS
....II.: P .i..
October 6, 2020
Mr. Matthew Reid
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Wetland Addendum
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96303
DEQ Contract No. 005782
Catawba River Basin — HUC 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Catawba County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Reid,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) conducted a wetland assessment in 2020, Monitoring Year (MY)
5 of 7, to identify additional potential wetland areas on the Henry Fork Mitigation Site (Site) that have
been created by this project. Additional supplemental data including a potential wetland area table,
map figure, groundwater gage plots, photo log, and wetland data sheets have been included with this
addendum letter.
Background
In anticipation of additional wetlands created on the Site after construction, section 8.2 (Wetland
Mitigation Credits) of the Henry Fork Mitigation Plan states: "DMS reserves the right to request
additional wetland credits created by the project. Wetland credits will be proposed based upon
additional gauge data and/or wetland delineation." Therefore, in February and March 2019 (MY4), three
groundwater gages were installed in locations adjacent to credited wetland areas to provide
groundwater data to support the potential expansion of wetland areas on the Site. The purpose of
delineating these extra areas is to offset any wetland credits that may be at risk of losing credit.
Wildlands is not, however, seeking additional wetland credit above the original asset table amount.
Wildlands defends and maintains a 7.2% (17 consecutive day) success criteria in the IRT approved
Mitigation Plan but the USACE commented that a 8.5% (20 consecutive day) success criteria would be
required. Wildlands updated the success criteria in the MYO report. 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 236 day growing season (March 20 through November 11)
under typical precipitation conditions.
Data Collection and Analysis
As stated above, three additional groundwater gages (GWG 13 —15) were installed in February and
March 2019 before the start of MY4 growing season, for the purpose of providing groundwater data to

document additional wetland areas. On June 23, 2020, Wildlands personnel performed a Site
investigation to identify additional potential wetland areas on the Site. Five areas (Wetlands AA through
EE) were delineated and mapped using global positioning system (GPS) data collection and three
wetland data points (DP1— 3) were collected. Please refer to the attached hydrologic data for
groundwater gage plots and summary table of the success criteria for each gage on Site.
Wetlands AA, BB, and CC are located south of Wetland N enhancement area. Before construction and as
a former golf course, this area was identified as a ditch with a linear wetland that fed into intermittent
stream channel UT2. During construction, the outlet of the ditch was plugged thus raising the
groundwater level and creating conditions for anaerobic wetland processes to occur. GWG 15 was
installed in MY4 to be representative of the low area and to document hydrologic conditions for the
proposed wetland areas south of wetland N. For two consecutive years, GWG 15 has achieved the
wetland hydrologic success criteria established for the Site. Wetland data point 1 (DPI) documents the
hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions representative of Wetlands AA, BB, and CC.
Wetland DID is located in the footprint of a former golf course inline pond bed (pond 3) that was filled
during construction. Before construction, UT1 flowed through pond 3 before making its way to the
Henry Fork river. The restoration of UT1 realigned the stream channel and took pond 3 offline. The
restored hydrology of UT1 has allowed for frequent overbank flooding of riparian wetland areas, thus
expanding the hydrologic function into this area. GWG 1 was installed during the MYO baseline data
collection and is in close proximity to Wetland DD. GWG 1 has achieved the wetland hydrologic success
criteria for the Site in MY2 through MY5 thus far. Wetland data point 2 (DP2) documents the hydrology,
vegetation, and soil conditions representative of Wetland DD.
Wetland EE is located in and around the pre -construction footprint of UT1 near the previous UT1A
confluence, adjacent to Wetlands J and K enhancement areas. The restoration of UT1A has increased
the floodplain access from overbank flooding and resulted in a gain in wetland function well beyond the
mapped wetland re-establishment area (Wetland 1). GWG 13 was installed in MY4 and has achieved
wetland hydrologic success criteria for the past two years. Wetland data point 3 (DP3) was collected
near GWG 13 and details the conditions of Wetland EE.
Wetland Credits
The combined area from Wetland AA through EE totals 0.661 acres. Pre -construction, these five areas
were not wetlands and were not identified as such in the approved Jurisdictional Determination for the
Site. Also, the additional wetland areas (AA— EE) were not identified as having hydric soils in the LSS soil
report from the Mitigation Plan. Therefore, a creation credit ratio of 3:1 is proposed for all five wetland
areas where a rise in groundwater elevations have created conditions necessary to support wetland
conditions and promote wetland functions. In total, an additional 0.220 riparian wetland mitigation
units (WMUs) are available to offset any wetland credits that may be determined to be at risk of losing
credit. Please refer to the attached summary table of the additional wetland areas on the Site.
Conclusion
This wetland addendum summarizes the data collection and analysis of five proposed wetlands
(Wetland AA— EE) that have been identified on the Site after construction was complete. Following DMS
and IRT approval of this wetland addendum, Wildland's will document the additional wetland areas in

this year's annual monitoring report. It will be stated in the report that these additional areas are only to
be used as offset if any existing wetland credits are found to be at risk.
Feel free to contact me at 828-545-3865 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jake McLean
Project Manager
[e-mail]

Additional Potential Wetland Areas
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Restoration (R) or
Mitigation
Wetland ID
Location
Existing Acreage
Approach
Restoration Acreage
Credits (WMU)
Restoration Equivalent (RE)
Ratio
Floodplain towards
Wetland AA
N/A
Creation
0.042
3:1
0.014
river from UT2
Wetland BB
Floodplain towards
N/A
Creation
0.097
3:1
0.032
river from UT2
Creation of wetland
Floodplain towards
Wetland CC
N/A
functions that
Creation
0.123
3:1
0.041
river from UT2
I support hydrologic,
Floodplain in
vegetative, and
footprint of Pond 3
Wetland DD
N/A
wetland soils
Creation
0.197
3:1
0.066
near head of UT1
Reach 2
East hillslope near
Wetland EE
N/A
Creation
0.202
3:1
0.067
UT1 Reach 2
Total
0.661
0.220

Map Figure

• `i
i
1
1 Potential Wetland EE
i
♦ 0.202 acres
`♦♦ - '.
♦`♦ Wetland M
♦
\`
♦ Wetland J
♦ Potential Wetland BB 1
0.097 acres Potential Wetland DD 9dwilili0k
♦ Wetland N 0.197 acres 1
Potential Wetland AA i Wetland 1 )
0.042 acres t
\♦ .� �o' ; :Wetland H 1
♦ "�`�`�•- � - �' :\ ism\�\\'i _ � 1
L Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
�q Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
-Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
- Bankfull Line
Reach Break
♦ Reference Gage
+ Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY5
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
0 Potential Wetland Areas
O Wetland Data Point (DP#)
/ O[9 W
\yjj Potential Wetland CC / "h
♦ 0.123 acres _
♦\ Wetland R
- -� Wetland B / a
♦\ Wetland 2 ; •� ,, V.
♦ \,Wetland 2 Wetland 9
♦ Wetland C
♦ '� ufl �r Wetland P
♦ if
0
W land d
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
IWV 0 150 300 Feet Wetland Addendum
WILDLAND S Mk I i I i I DMSProject No. 96306
ENGI N=ER NG
Monitoring Year 5 2020
-
Catawba County, NC

Wetland Data Sheets

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Henry Fork Mitigation Site City/County: Catawba County Sampling Date: 6-23-20
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Jordan Hessler & Mimi Caddell Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.703299 Long:-81.366247 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus Loam (CsA) & Hatboro Loam (HaA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
Vegetation and Hydrology indicators are strong in this area.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
x Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
x Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Ground water gage #15 is near data point 1. See
gage data attached.
Remarks:
2.25" rain event 4 days prior to site visit.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Liquidambarstyraciflua
20
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Acer negundo
10
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 7 (A)
3.
Acerrubrum
5
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Betula nigra
5
No
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40
=Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover:
8
OBL species 60 x 1 = 60
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 35 x 2 = 70
1.
Acer rubrum
5
Yes
FAC
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
2.
Acer negundo
5
Yes
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UP species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 140 (A) 265 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.89
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
10
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
5 20% of total cover:
2
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1.
Juncus effusus
30
Yes
FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2.
Carexlongii
30
Yes
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Carex lupulina 30 Yes OBL
4.
Solidago spp.
5
No
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5.
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
95
=Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
48 20% of total cover:
19
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-8 7.5YR 4/3 80 10YR 5/2 20 D M Loamy/Clayey
8-14 7.5YR 4/3 50 10YR 5/2 50 D M Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Soils look to be transitioning to wetland soils.
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
—Redox Depressions (F8)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (Al6)
(MLRA 147, 148)
X Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph5-2a)
Project/Site: Henry Fork Mitigation Site City/County: Catawba County Sampling Date: 6-23-20
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Jordan Hessler & Mimi Caddell Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.702921 Long:-81.364125 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Codorus Loam (CsA) & Hatboro Loam (HaA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
_Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) _Presence
of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 5
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Groundwater gage #1 is near data point 2. See gage data attached
Remarks:
2.25" rain event 4 days prior to site visit.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Alnus serrulata
10 Yes
OBL
Number of Dominant Species
2. Betula nigra
5 Yes
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
3. Platanus occidentalis
5 Yes
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
20 =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
OBL species 80 x 1 = 80
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 20 x 2 = 40
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UP species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 120 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.20
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
=Total Cover
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1. Leersia oryzoides
60 Yes
OBL
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Carex lupulina
10 No
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3. Juncus effusus 10 No FACW
4•
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
5•
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
height.
7•
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
8.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9
(1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
80 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
40 20% of total cover:
16
height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 4/3 70 7.5YR 4/6 30 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
6-14 7.5YR 3/4 90 10YR 4/2 10 D M Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Abrupt change in soil color at 6".
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
—Redox Depressions (F8)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (Al6)
(MLRA 147, 148)
x Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT.
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph5-2a)
Project/Site: Henry Fork Mitigation Site City/County: Catawba County Sampling Date: 6-23-20
Applicant/Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Jordan Hessler & Mimi Caddell Section, Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR P, MLRA 136 Lat: 35.703183 Long:-81.362086 Datum: NAD83
Soil Map Unit Name: Hatboro Loam (HaA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_Surface Soil Cracks (136)
x Surface Water (Al) _True
Aquatic Plants (1314)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
x High Water Table (A2) —Hydrogen
Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
x Saturation (A3) _Oxidized
Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131) X
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132) _Recent
Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_Drift Deposits (133) _Thin
Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134) _Other
(Explain in Remarks)
_Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_Iron Deposits (135)
x Geomorphic Position (D2)
_Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_Shallow Aquitard (D3)
—Water-Stained Leaves (139)
_Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Saturation Present? Yes x No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Ground water gage #13 is near data point 3. See
gage data attached
Remarks:
2.25" rain event 4 days prior to site visit.
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
1.
Salix nigra
2.
Betula nigra
3.
Alnus serrulata
4.
Platanus occidentalis
5.
6.
7.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
10
Yes
OBL
5
Yes
FACW
5
Yes
FACW
5
Yes
FACW
25
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
13
20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 )
1. Juncus effusus
60
Yes
2. Carex lupulina
10
No
3. Sagittaria latifolia
10
No
4. Typha latifolia
10
No
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
90
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
45
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
5
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UP species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 115 (A) 190 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.65
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
X 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.0'
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
FACW
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
OBL
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
OBL
OBL
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
18 height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' LoC2 Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 RM M Loamy/Clayey Mica flakes mixed in
8-14 2.5YR 3/1 100 Loamy/Clayey
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Black Histic (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (Al0) (LRR N)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
Dark Surface (S7)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
—Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
x Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
—Redox Depressions (F8)
_Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147)
_Coast Prairie Redox (Al6)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

Wetland Photographs

Potential Wetland AA — northern view (612312020) 1 DPI/Potential Wetland BB — eastern view (612312020) 1
Potential Wetland CC — western view (612312020) 1 DP2/Potential Wetland DD — northern view (612312020) 1
Potential Wetland DD — southern view (612312020) 1 DP3/GWG 13/Potential Wetland EE — southwest view

Potential Wetland EE — southern view (612312020) 1

From Mitigation Plan:
Jurisdictional Determination
Hydric Soil Evaluation September 9, 2013 (Proposal Phase)
Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014 (Design Phase)

U.S. ARMY CORPS QF ENGINEERS
WILMNGTON DISTRICT
Action TD: 2014-00538 County: Catawba C:_S_G.S_ Quad: Hickory
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: WE[ — Henry Fork, LLC: 1 AM.. Shown Wilkerson
Address: 1430 South Mint Street Suite 10
Charlotte. NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704-332-3306
Sire (acres): 48 Nearest Town: Hickory
Nearest Waterway: t:Ts to Henry Fork and Henry Fork Coordinates: 35.703751 N. SLW880 W
River Basin/ HIJC- South Fork Catawba (03050102)
Location description. The site is located on a tract of land fparcel Ill 279108883819) which was a part of the farmer
HenryRiver Golf Course at 2575 Mountain View Road in Hickory Catawba County North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property_ Wl strongly suggest you havc
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps- This preliminary deterntination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Progoi n Administrative Appeal Proms (reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request
an approved 7D (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide
new information for "u er consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
R. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section. 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law of
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC S 13344), Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Carps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely inanner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Carps.
C The waters of the -U.S. including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We strongly suggest you bane this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands havc been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published
revelations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the dale of this notification.
There are no waters of the U-S_, to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the Iaw or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAVIA)_ You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Alko
13'10CETM SEP 0 2 209

The Wilmington District is communed to providing the bighest level of support to the public. To help us ensure We
continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http:llrea latory u,saGesurvey.coml.
Copy furnished:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Attn.: Ian Eckardt, 1430 South Mint Street; Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
NCDEMR — Ecosystem Enhancement Progam, Attn.: Paul Wiesner, S itavenscrnft Drive, Suite 102, Asbrville, NC 29801

E: PRELIMWAR'Y A.TRISTACTIONAL T)PTFRMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary ID is not appealable. if you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the ID.
SECnON Ti = RE VEST FOR APPRAL or OBJPCQQONS TO AN INITIAL PRCFFE; D PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (17cscribc your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
praffUed permit in clear concise statements. You .may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONA1, INFORMATION, The appeal is Iimited to a review ofthe administrative record, the Corps memorandum far the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplernertW irrforrrtation that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add niew infofmation or anaiyses to the record.
However, ymi may provide additional information to clarify the iocation of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUFSTIONS OR 1NF0Rftk 110N-
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact.
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Brown CESAD-PDO
828-271-7980 U-S_ Array Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room I OM 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
_ Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any govcninzent
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunitX to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number: - -- -
Signature of appellant or agent- i
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: David Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
Nortb Carolina 213403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]t37

• • - �'•- - �. • • - _ .. fit- L_
4 * i 7-7`
- �$- tip- -M
f�
k
trYtr�� 4Yy
A y
94
G
.jurisdictional Waters of the U-S. were delineated by
. •
i :- ;fir•'
Wldlands Engineering, Inc. on April 3 and 4. 2014.
,iurisdicticnal features verified by the USAGE
on August 20, 2014
_ k
Project Location
Y
Proposed Conservation Easement
O Delineated wetlands
Project Streams
intermittent
�•
-
Perennial
....... pitches;
Data Point Location
E
Figure 3 Site Map
I L D L A N D S 0 150
300 Feet
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin
Et�IGIN�ERitaG3 1 i
I
(o3o5o3Lo3 Expanded Service Areal
Catawba County, NC

Tales. Newry ForkStresxm and Wetland Mitigation Project
Summary of On -Site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Feature
Classification
Length
(lwF)*
Acreage
Watershed:
(ac)
NCDW4
Stream
Scores
USAGE
Stream
Scores
UTi
Perennial RPW
3,071
130
39.5i32.5
54144
UT -.A
Intermittent RPW
353
23
27.15
49
UT13
Perennial RPW
491
3-
31.25
49
UTa
Intermittent RPW
2,94S
66
27
43
Wetland A
Headwater Forest
-
o.i8a
-
-
-
Wetland 8
Headwater Forest
-
0.013
-
-
Wetland C
Headwater Forest
-
0.003
-
-
Wetland D
HeadwaterFurest
-
0.094
-
-
Wetland E
H ea dwate r Fo re st
-
0.004
-
-
-
Wetland F
Headwater Forest
-
0-067
-
-
-
wetland G
Headwater Forest
-
0.021
-
-
-
Wetland H
Headwater Forest
-
0.056
-
-
-
Wetland I
Headwater Forest
-
0.078
-
-
-
Wetland J
Headwater Forest
0.036
-
-
-
Wetland K
Headwater Forest
0,062
-
-
-
Wetland L
Headwater Forest
o.oa
-
-
Wetland M
Headwater Forest_i3i
-
-
-
Wetland N
Headwater Forest
-
0,084
-
-
-
Wetland D
Headwater Forest
-
0.028
-
-
-
Wetland P
Headwater Forest
0.02-3
-
Wetland a
Headwater Forest
o.06
-
Wetland R
Nan -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
_
0.059
-
Wetland S
Non -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
o 15g
Pond i**-
Pond z**
-
0.81
-
Pond 3* *
-
0.20
Pond 4**
-
0.37
*Linearfoatage includes stream length through ponds.
**Ponds are manrna de impoundments and prior discussion with Carps indicates that they will be treated as
streams for quantification of impacts.

HYDRIC SOIL EVALUATION
FOR THE PROPOSED HENRY RIVER MITIGATION SITE
CATAWBA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I
L
Prepared for:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Prepared by:
Jason A. Payne
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1308
September 9, 2013

— 1 — September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purposeof report......................................................................................................................................2
SiteLocation...............................................................................................................................................2
Methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 2
Findings.......................................................................................................................................................2
SoilUnit 1 (S1) — Hydric Soil........................................................................................................................................................3
Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil........................................................................................................................... 3
Soil Unit 3 (S3) — Non-Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil..................................................................................................................3
Soil Unit 4 (S4) — No Evidence of Buried Hydric Soil..............................................................................................................4
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................... 4

— 2 — September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report has been prepared to assist Wildlands Engineering during planning and design
for the proposed mitigation site located at the Henry River Golf Course in Catawba County, NC.
A detailed evaluation was conducted to characterize soils across the site, with a focus on
identifying hydric soils.
SITE LOCATION
The site is located on an approximately 90-acre property, southwest of the intersection of
Highway 321 and Interstate 40, at 2575 Mountain View Road (Parcel# 279108883819), in Hickory,
NC. The evaluation area is situated in the floodplain of, and south of the Henry Fork River, north of
the terminus of Mountain View Road.
METHODOLOGY
The hydric soil evaluation began with a cursory review of NRCS soils maps, recent aerial photos
and a USGS topographic map for the area. The site analysis was performed on July 25, 2013. Soil
auger borings were advanced throughout the study area. The hydric soil status at each location was
noted, and is based upon the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010). During the site evaluation, each soil
boring was assigned to one of four different soil types or units:
• Soil Unit 1 (S1) — Hydric, relatively undisturbed
• Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric soil that has been buried, with hydric indicators in the fill material
• Soil Unit 3 (S3) — Hydric soil that has been buried. Fill material is non-hydric
• Soil Unit 4 (S4) — Non-hydric soil (no evidence of buried hydric soil)
Following the site investigation, field data were compiled to prepare the hydric soil map for the
project.
FINDINGS
Evidence of anthropogenic site manipulation is abundant throughout the study area. One finds
much evidence of ditching and/or channelization of streams across the site. Additionally, fill
material has been placed over a majority of the floodplain area during past construction for the golf
course. The soil beneath is generally undisturbed.
The Soil Units are briefly discussed below and representative soil profile descriptions using the
USDA - NRCS standard nomenclature are appended for hydric soil areas S1, S2 & S3. The attached
"Henry River Project Hydric Soils Evaluation" map illustrates the approximate location of soil borings
and soil map units across the site. Two, separate hydric soil areas were mapped during the
evaluation. The western hydric soil area occupies approximately 1.49-acres, and consists only of S2

-3— September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
and S3 borings. The eastern hydric soil area occupies 3.03-acres, and consists of S1, S2 and S3
borings.
Soil Unit 1 (S1) — Hydric Soil
Soils in this area had no fill material and generally had typical diagnostic soil horizons. While
several hydric soil indicators were present, indicator F3 was the most common.
Indicator F3 - Depleted Matrix. A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more
chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
This soil typically had a silt loam textured surface horizon that ranged from 4 to 8 inches with
oxidized rhizoshperes present. The subsurface textures were generally clay loam, grading to silty
clay, with a matrix color of chroma 2 or less.
Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil
Soil Unit 2 had fill material deposited during construction of the golf course. The soil beneath
the fill was relatively undisturbed. Depth of fill was variable, but ranged from 6-to-12-inches. The
buried soil had a loam textured surface horizon underlain by either loam, clay loam, or sandy clay
loam subsurface horizons and met hydric indicator F3 Depleted Matrix.
Here, the affects of hydrologic manipulation on the site are less pronounced and fill material has
been on -site long enough to develop hydric indicators. While some of the fill material may have
been hydric in origin (deposited from adjoining wetland or dredge from the ditches), most fill
material was sourced from upland areas. There was evidence of active reduction and oxidation
reactions in all borings. The soil either met indicator F3 Depleted Matrix or F6;
Indicator F6 - Redox Dark Surface. A layer that is at least 10 cm (4 inches) thick, is entirely
within the upper 30 cm (12 inches) of the mineral soil, and has:
a. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 1 or less and 2 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentration occurring as soft masses or pore lining, or
b. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and 5 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.
Soil Unit (S3) — Non-Hydric Fill Over Hydric Soil
Soil Unit 3 clearly had fill material deposited during construction of the golf course. The soil
beneath the fill was relatively undisturbed. Depth of fill was quite variable, but ranges from 12-to-
26-inches. The buried soil had a silty clay loam surface horizon underlain by clay, silty clay or clay
loam subsurface horizons. These areas met hydric indicator F3 - Depleted Matrix. While there was
some evidence of recent reduction and oxidations reactions within some fill, it did not meet any of
the hydric indicators.

-4— September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
Soil Unit 4 (S4) — No Evidence of Buried Hydric Soil
Most of Soil Unit 4 evidenced fill material, but in all cases neither the fill material nor the
original soil met any hydric soil indicators within a depth reasonable for remediation. For example,
some borings exhibited fill depths of greater than 36-inches, and were terminated. Since these
areas contained mostly fill material without hydric soil indicators, a representative soil profile
description was omitted.
rnmri iicinm
This report presents information that may be used as reference for planning and design for
the proposed work at the Henry River Mitigation site. Specifically, soil borings provide evidence
of areas where hydric soils are either present or present below fill material. Soil units for each
of these areas were delineated on the attached map. The site hydrology has been altered by
ditching and/or channelization of streams and the addition of the fill material. Subsequently,
opportunities exist for wetland restoration. These findings represent a professional opinion
based on Hydric Soil Investigation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland
mitigation in North Carolina and national criteria for determining hydric soil.

Cf) 0
Cf)
Cf)
0
o
Cf)
Rw
0 >
.0
0 LL
-E
0, o
of 0 'o
C/)
E
'o
O E
E
Cf)
(3)
E
2 o
0 0 o
L2 22-
1E "
Cf)
0
- E
a
o
o
2z
a c,4 m
co co co
0—
z :Q 6 m >
-0
CY)
U)
CY)
(D
tm
(D
0
0 0
0
'02--- 30
0
—1
Cl)
Cl)
0, -,o CL
CY)
CY)
c )
co
U)
—
Cl)
Cf)
—A
0
CL
a)
'M-7-
C:
0
u
4� 4�
Z
76
�
>
C:=3
LU
0
O
ro
ro
4�
r4
g4m

/4G�ly I� `UCH �(C ;•�{ i z5�/'
Ron
Texture
m
ColorStructure Matrix
Mottle Colors
Color)
iiG�l91�
ili��
�
•
[j■Ofi
■��L
�
iiO
�

HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Catawba County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Prepared by:
The
Catena
Group
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
May 13, 2014

INTRODUCTION
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. is considering mitigating a section of the Henry Fork project site in the
Catawba River Basin (03050101). The site is accessed off Mountain View Road (SR 1192) in Hickory,
Catawba County, NC. The Catena Group, Inc. (Catena) was retained to perform a detailed soil
investigation that would, in part, determine the depth of fill material that was previously observed
during a preliminary soil and site.
METHODOLOGY
The field investigation was performed on April 29, 2014. Seventy-two (72) hand -turned auger borings
were advanced throughout the study area on a seventy-five ft by seventy-five ft grid (Figure 1). Each soil
boring was marked in the field with a red pin flag noting the boring number, soil unit number, and either
depth of fill material or depth boring was terminated. Hydric soil status was based upon the NRCS Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils
(Version 7.0, 2010).
RESULTS
There is clear evidence of human manipulation throughout the study area. In addition to ditching
and/or channelization of streams, fill material has been placed over the majority of the study area. Six
Soil Units were created based on data collected from soil borings and are described below and
summarized in Table 1. Table 2 lists the classification and fill depth when applicable for each soil boring
(appended).
Soil Unit 1. Soil Unit 1 had a typical surface diagnostic horizon that met hydric soil indicator F3.
F3 Depleted Matrix. A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less
and that has a minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or 5 cm (6
inches), or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
Soil Unit 2. Soil Unit 2 consists of non-hydric soil that appeared to be undisturbed.
Soil Unit 3. Soil Unit 3 clearly has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation.
The soil material below the overburden was relatively undisturbed and met hydric indicator F3 Depleted
Matrix. The overburden was classified as hydric and met hydric indicator F3 Depleted Matrix.
Soil Unit 4. Soil Unit 4 clearly has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation.
The soil material below the overburden was relatively undisturbed other than a compressed soil
structure and a truncated profile, remnants of past surface manipulations. This material still appeared
to be hydric and met indicator F3 Depleted Matrix. The overburden did not meet any hydric soil
Henry Fork Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014
Catena Job #4172 1

indicator. A typical soil profile for Soil Unit 4 is appended. Soil Unit 4 comprised the majority of the
study site.
Soil Unit 5. Soil Unit 5 clearly has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation.
The overburden material and the soil beneath did not meet any hydric soil indicator.
Soil Unit 6. Soil Unit 6 clear has overburden material deposited as a result of human manipulation. The
surface of the overburden material currently meets hydric indicator F3 Depleted Matrix. The material
below the surface did not currently meet any hydric soil indicator.
Table 1. Summary of Soil Boring Classification and Hydric Indicator (if applicable).
Soil Unit
Classification
Hydric Indicator
1
Undisturbed Hydric Soil
F3
2
Undisturbed Non-Hydric Soil
n/a
3
Hydric Overburden/Buried Hydric Soil
F3
4
Non-Hydric Overburden/Buried Hydric Soil
F3
5
Non-Hydric Overburden/Buried Non-Hydric Soil
n/a
6
Hydric Overburden/Non-Hydric Soil
F3
CONCLUSION
Seventy-two (72) soil borings were advanced throughout the study area. Borings were placed into one
of six Soil Units. The depth of fill material was noted at each boring when applicable. It is anticipated
that Priority 1 stream restoration, combined with limited soil manipulation, has the potential to re-
establish approximately 5.6 acres of wetlands (Figure 1).
The findings presented herein represent Catena's professional opinion based on our Hydric Soil
Investigation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland mitigation in North Carolina
and national criteria for determining hydric soil.
Henry Fork Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014
Catena Job #4172 2

Table 2. Classification of Each Soil Boring and Depth of Fill Material (if applicable).
Boring No.
Soil Unit
Depth of Fill
Boring No.
Soil Unit
Depth of Fill
1
5
N/A
49
2
N/A
2
4
34
50
3
22
3
4
24
51
4
14
4
4
26
52
4
38
5
4
24
53
4
36
6
4
34
54
4
31
7
4
32
55
4
32
8
4
34
56
2
N/A
9
4
27
57
4
27
10
4
13
58
4
15
11
4
18
59
4
8
12
4
16
60
5
N/A
13
4
20
61
5
N/A
14
4
18
62
4
28
15
4
19
63
4
25
16
4
19
64
4
17
17
4
13
65
4
27
18
4
21
66
4
30
19
4
27
67
4
20
20
4
23
68
3
17
31
4
16
69
4
12
32
4
15
70
5
N/A
33
4
24
71
6
N/A
34
5
40
72
4
28
35
4
24
73
5
N/A
37
4
45
74
5
N/A
38
4
29
75
5
N/A
39
2
N/A
76
5
N/A
40
2
N/A
77
4
22
41
2
N/A
78
5
N/A
42
2
N/A
79
5
N/A
44
4
38
80
2
N/A
45
4
38
81
1
N/A
46
2
N/A
82
5
N/A
47
2
N/A
83
5
N/A
48
2
N/A
84
5
N/A
Henry Fork Hydric Soil Investigation May 13, 2014
Catena Job #4172 2

m qy
LL
— cn
un
u-�
m m m m m
m m m CO
m m CO m oLO
h7 7 CD fO44.
N
r•,

The Catena Group, Inc
410-B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919.732.1300
SOIL EVALUATION FORM
Catena Job: 4172 Henry Fork Hyd. Soil Inv.
County: Catawba
Date: 4/29/14
Sheet: 1 of 1
o
=
c
N
a
v
rb o
-a N
s a
Structure / Texture
Consistence /
Mineralogy
Matrix
Color
Mottle Colors
(Quantity, Size, Contrast, Color)
1
Fill
13
O,M parting to
1,M,SBK / C, CL
FI / S, P
Variegated
Ab
18
1,M, SBK parting to
1,M,GR/SL
FIR / SS, SP
10YR 3/1
m,2,D 7.5YR 4/4
Bt
28
1,M,SBK / CL
FI / SS, SP
2.5Y 4/1
m,2,P 10YR 4/4; m,2,P 7.5YR 5/6
BC
36
1,CO,SBK / C
FI / SS,SP
2.5Y 5/2
m,2,P 10YR 4/6; m,2,P 2.5Y 4/6
Evaluated by: MW JR

Jake McLean
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Wiesner, Paul
Cc: Reid, Matthew; Eric Neuhaus; Shawn Wilkerson; Allen, Melonie; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA);
Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Davis, Erin B; Bowers, Todd; Wilson, Travis W.; Munzer,
Olivia; Mimi Caddell; Kristi Suggs
Subject: RE: Request for more information/ DMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Project/ SAW- 2014-00538/Catawba County
Attachments: Supplemental Data - at risk wetland assets.pdf, Henry Fork - Wetland Supplement WLE 12.10.20
Response to IRT Comments from 10.30.20.pdf
Hi Everyone,
I apologize for the delay in getting this response out. Please find our responses below in red text, and a copy of this
email response attached in pdf for your files. We will require additional time to collect vegetation data and do planting
to supplement these areas, but I'm hoping that based on this response we can get some feedback on our proposed
approach to guide us in moving forward with this. Although our perceived wetland credit risk is low based on current
data (see attached pdf), we understand that the IRT has viewed prior credit establishment on the site through a holistic
lens based on the unique nature of this site. Furthermore, we understand that in order to agree to additional crediting
on this site, this should include just effort to enhance ecological uplift and provide associated documentation. If you feel
that the efforts proposed below are not commensurate with the credit being requested, we are amenable to revisit the
ratio requested or the efforts proposed.
Thanks,
Jake
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jake McLean <jmclean@wild landseng.com>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Eric Neuhaus
<[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for more information/ DMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Project/ SAW- 2014-00538/Catawba County
Good afternoon Paul,
The 15-day comment review period for the NCDMS Henry Fork Mitigation Plan Addendum (SAW-2014-00538) closed on
October 28, 2020. Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review followed the streamlined review
process. All comments received during the review process are below.
USACE Comments, Todd Tugwell and Kim Browning:
The Corps requests vegetation data for these proposed wetland areas prior to approving their addition to the wetland
assets.Some areas have woody stems (both planted and volunteer) while some do not. We propose to map areas of
existing high and low density stem counts within the proposed wetlands, and to plant areas of low density during this
dormant season at a rate of 600 stems/acre. We propose to set up 3 vegetation plots to track density and vigor in the
proposed wetlands over the remaining monitoring term - we will do this in a way that includes representation of both
existing and new stems. We also propose to visually monitor the success of new plantings. New plantings are proposed

to consist of wetland and deer -tolerant livestakes which will limit diversity (and transplants from adjacent areas where
available to supplement and diversify species). We have observations of low success with planting bareroot or potted
trees that have already been rooted in a drier hydrologic regime and we have had significant vegetation setbacks and
losses from deer on this site. If deemed acceptable, vegetation data will be provided prior to the credit release meeting
in April, 2021.
Only two of the five areas proposed have gauges in them. This is concerning because the IRT requested these gauges
back in March 2016 if WEI thought the wetland boundaries were going to be different from the approved mitigation
plan. We understand these were requested early on and have no response to counter this concern - gages13, 14, and 15
were installed as soon as we determined we desired to make this request. We feel that GWG1 is representative of
Wetland DID and that GWG's 14 & 15 are representative of Wetlands AA, BB, and CC.
Wetland EE appears to be relatively permanently impounded according to the gauge data, which raises concern whether
this area may be too wet to support trees.
The hydrologic regime of Wetland EE in 2019 was impacted by beaver impoundments - beaver were subsequently
trapped and removed. Related to tree growth - it is true that the variation in topography in all of these wetlands
influences the type of vegetation and habitat supported in each of these areas - some being old irrigation ponds or
having ditch remnants that are emergent in character. Intermittent impoundment by beaver and riverine flooding have
also influenced current vegetation. We proposed to attempt to establish woody vegetation in all of the wetlands, but
recognize that some of the areas may not support this. We can accept that no credit may be offered for wetlands that
do not support woody vegetation.
Prior to approving this addendum we request veg data for the proposed areas, and we would like a map that shows the
areas that are at-risk/not meeting success. Vegetation data will be collected and provided along with other data
specified above. The map showing at -risk areas determined by gage analysis and wetland delineation is attached.
EPA, Todd Bowers:
At this time I have no specific comments on the proposed addendum for the site to provide 0.220 riparian wetland
mitigation units to only be used if proposed wetlands at the mitigation site do not meet the thresholds or performance
standards for success in the current mitigation plan. The created potential wetlands appear to be providing the
appropriate function based on the groundwater gauge data (GWG 13 and 15) and the vigorous vegetation growth shown
in the attached photos.
As stated, the WMUs generated by this supplemental request would only be used to offset credits approved in the
mitigation plan that are not granted due to failure to meet performance.
WRC, Travis Wilson:
Looking at the mapped locations as well at the photos it looks like the vegetation is comprised of emergent and
pioneering species. All wetlands on this site were classified as Headwater forest. If these wetlands are going to be
classified the same they should follow the same planting plan and vegetative success criteria.
As discussed above, there are pockets of deeper water with prolonged inundation. We propose to plant woody species
from the livestake planting plan this winter in areas that have not already revegetated with desired species (river birch,
box elder, alders). Refer to proposed vegetative success monitoring in the response to Corps comments. Further, we
have treatment of cattails visible in the photos scheduled for next year. We request that vegetation criteria be relaxed
to the point of demonstrating successful establishment and progression of woody species in these areas rather than
achieving full term criteria by the currently scheduled close-out date.
DWR, Erin Davis:
Are all of the proposed wetland creation areas outside of the original planted project area? I question whether they
would meet the standard veg density performance standard. One of the areas is sweetgum dominated.
Yes, most of the areas are outside of the planted area. We propose to perform the monitoring as stated above. There
are dense riverbirch and alder thickets in some of the proposed wetland areas, but I don't believe that any areas are
sweetgum monocultures. We have treated some such monocultures on the site within and adjacent to planted areas
and will consider the same treatment in these creations areas where warranted. We do feel that with the difficulty of
deer browsing on this site that establishment of canopy through pioneering species with an eye towards later forest
succession may be better than no canopy.
4

Please reach out if you have any questions.
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 12:34 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B <[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV
(USA) <[e-mail]>; Smith, Ronnie D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; McLendon, C S CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>; Wilson, Travis W. <[e-mail]>; Munzer, Olivia
<[e-mail]>; Byron Hamstead <byron [e-mail]>
Cc: Jake McLean <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul
<[e-mail]>; Eric Neuhaus <[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson
<[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notice of NCDEQ - DMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
(DMS# 96306) - (SAW- 2014-00538) (DWR#20140193) - Catawba 03050102_Catawba County
Good afternoon IRT,
The below referenced Mitigation Plan Addendum Request review has been requested by NCDMS. Per Section
332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule, this review follows the streamlined review process, which requires an IRT
review period of 15 calendar days from this email notification. Please provide any comments by 5 PM on the 15-day
comment deadline shown below. Comments provided after the 15-day comment deadline (shown below) may not be
considered.
At the conclusion of this comment period, a copy of all comments will be provided to NCDMS and the NCIRT along with
District Engineer's intent to approve or disapprove this AMP.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) has prepared a Mitigation Plan Addendum for the Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS#
96306). WEI has identified five additional wetland areas that have developed following site construction. These five
wetland areas were not identified in the approved Jurisdictional Determination (USACE) and they were not identified as
having hydric soils in the LSS soils report from the IRT approved Mitigation Plan. As a result, WEI is proposing a creation
credit ratio of 3:1 for the additional 0.661 acres for a total of 0.220 Riparian WMUs.

WEI is not seeking additional wetland credit above the approved Mitigation Plan and the DMS credit ledger will not be
updated. The purpose of proposing these additional areas for credit is to offset any wetland credits that may be at risk
of losing credit at project closeout. These additional areas have been monitored since March 2019 (MY4) and will
continue to be monitored through project closeout. Upon IRT review and approval of this wetland addendum,
Wildland's will document the additional wetland areas in this year's annual monitoring report (MY5) and through project
closeout.
The site is currently in MY5 (2020) and is scheduled to close in 2023.
Digital copies were uploaded to the IRT SharePoint page (10/6/2020) and DWR's Laser Fiche system (10/6/2020) for IRT
review. A copy is also attached.
15-Day Comment Start: October 13, 2020
15-Day Comment Deadline: October 28, 2020 45-Day DE Decision: November 27, 2020
Project information is as follows:
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project # 96306
Institution Date: 2/15/2014
RFP 16-005298 (Issued: 6/6/2013)
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Catawba County, North Carolina
USACE Action ID: SAW- 2014-00538
DWR#: 20140193
Proposed Mitigation Project Credits:

4,807.667 SMU (cool)
4.222 WMU (riparian)
Full Delivery Provider: Wildlands Engineering Inc. — Contact: Jake McLean, [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>, [phone]
NCDEQ- DMS Project Manager: Matthew Reid, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, (828)
231-7912
The Mitigation Plan Addendum has been uploaded to the IRT/ NCDEQ SharePoint Mitigation Plan Review page and can
be accessed here:
IRT SharePoint page:
Blocked https://ncconnect.sharepoi nt.com/sites/IRT-DMS/SitePages/Home.aspx
Hen ryFrk_96306_M PAddendu m_2020. pdf
Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT
DMS/IRT%20Upload%20Documents%20Here/Forms/Allltems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FIRT%2DDMS%2FIRT%20Upload%20D
ocuments%20Here%2FHenry%20Fork%20%2896306%29%2FHenryFrk%5F96306%5FM PAddendum%5F2020%2Epdf&par
ent=%2Fsites%2FIRT%2DDMS%2FIRT%20Upload%20Documents%20Here%2FHenry%20Fork%20%2896306%29
<Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-
DMS/IRT%20Upload%20Documents%20Here/Forms/Allltems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FIRT%2DDMS%2FIRT%20Upload%20D
ocuments%20Here%2FHenry%20Fork%20%2896306%29%2FHenryFrk%5F96306%5FM PAddendum%5F2020%2Epdf&par
ent=%2Fsites%2FIRT%2DDMS%2FIRT%20Upload%20Documents%20Here%2FHenry%20Fork%20%2896306%29>
Please contact the Mitigation Office if you have questions.
V/ r,
Casey Haywood

Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 1 Wake Forest, NC 27587 1
BUILDING STRONG

Jake McLean
From:
Jake McLean
Sent:
Friday, December 18, 2020 8:41 AM
To:
'Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)'
Cc:
Mimi Caddell
Subject:
RE: DMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project/
SAW- 2014-00538/Catawba County
Ok, thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 8:38 AM
To: Jake McLean <jmclean@wild landseng.com>
Subject: RE: DIMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project/ SAW- 2014-
00538/Catawba County
Good morning Jake,
The IRT agrees that Wildlands should be held to the vigor standard that is expected at close-out; so 10' high by MY7. It
looks like you plan to replant livestakes, which might make it harder, but that is your choice; to earn full credit, this
seems like a reasonable requirement. It also looked like there were a lot of pioneer species there already (like sweetgum
and red maple) but it was hard to tell from the pictures. We'd like to review the veg data when it's available.
Feel free to reach out if you have questions, Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-----Original Message -----
From: Jake McLean <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 8:10 AM
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: DMS Mitigation Plan Addendum Request: Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project/ SAW- 2014-00538/Catawba County
Thanks Kim. We intended below to request that vigor be compared against year 1 & 2 standards
("successful... progression" of the proposed plantings). Is the IRT allowing for this to be the standard, or are you
indicating that year 6 & 7 vigor standards must be met for full credit? Just wanting to clarify.
From response:
"We request that vegetation criteria be relaxed to the point of demonstrating successful establishment and progression
of woody species in these areas rather than achieving full term criteria by the currently scheduled close-out date."
Best,
Jake
-----Original Message -----
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 3:29 PM
To: Jake McLean <jmclean@wild landseng.com>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>

i
1
1 Potential Wetland EE
i
� 0.202 acres
'.
Wetland M
\`
Wetland J
Potential Wetland BB
0.097 acres Potential Wetland DD
Wetland N " 0.197 acres ti
%Potential Wetland AA Wetland 1 )
0.042 acres
Wetland H
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
—Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
-
Bankfull Line
Reach Break
♦
Reference Gage
+
Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY5
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
0
Potential Wetland Areas
Potential Area at Risk
O Wetland Data Point (DP#)
Opp
/
u . 739d
Willyjj Potential Wetland CCAl
'•'
Wi
\�
0.123 acres
\ yH
Wetland R
Wetland 8 @Ma
PAl
otential Area at Risk Wetland 2
0.051 acres
- - _�$ i
\A o •
.:`��'
- \,Wetland 2 • • ,'
-
, ,
Wetland 9
'• 4 --'-`,
yet
Wetland C
WetlandP/
r
f
Reference Gage
[ME
W land d
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
kvv 0 150 300 Feet Wetland Addendum
WILDLAND S 1 I i I i I DMSProject No. 96306
CNGIN.ER NG
Monitoring Year 5 2020
-
Catawba County, NC