20140193 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2021_20220112

ID#* 20140193
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/12/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/12/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
ID#:* 20140193
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Henry Fork
County: Catawba
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: HenryFrk_96306_MY6_2021.pdf 24.84MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature: *

MONITORING YEAR 6
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 2021
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2021
Final Submission Date: January 10, 2022
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

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

witow,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
January 10, 2022
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY6 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 6 report for the Henry Fork Mitigation Project. DMS' comments are noted
below in bold. Wildlands' responses to those comments are noted in italics.
DMS' comment: 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment: Please include a brief discussion regarding the average
vegetation height in the three vegetation plots established in the potential wetland areas. The IRT
indicated in an email dated December 18, 2020 (Appendix 6) that a vigor standard of 10' high by MY7
is expected. Does WEI think this standard will be met by MY7?
Wildlands' response: Text regarding the average vegetation height in the three vegetation plots in the
potential wetland areas was added to Section 1.2.3. The average stem heights have also been added to
the bottom of Table 9d. The average stem heights for each plot ranged from 3.4 to 4.9 feet, with an
overall average of 4.3 feet. Wildlands is undecided if the standard will be met by MY7.
DMS' comment: 1.2.4 Wetland Assessment: GWG4 did not meet success criteria due to a malfunction.
The data trend prior to the malfunction indicates that GWG4 would have likely met success criteria if
not for the malfunction. DMS recommends downloading gage data prior to the 2022 credit release
meeting if possible to provide an update.
Wildlands' response: Wildlands agrees that GWG4 would have likely met success criteria if not for the
transducer malfunction. Wildlands will download the GWG4 data prior to the 2022 credit release
meeting to provide an update.
DMS' comment: 1.2.5 Areas of Concern: The March 2021 supplemental planting effort included 135
bare roots, 85 tubling plants and 135 live stakes within the potential wetland addendum areas. Please
provide a species/quantities list or table and include planting acreage.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

witow,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands' response: A table has been added to Section 1.2.5 to specify the species and quantities of the
supplemental planting effort in the potential wetland addendum areas. The approximate planting
acreage has also been added to the text.
DMS' comment: 1.2.5 Areas of Concern: The frisbee golf footpath was discussed at the 2019 IRT site
visit and it was decided the path must be discontinued by the time of closeout. DMS recommends
working with the adjacent landowner to discontinue the path early in MY7. WEI would benefit by
demonstrating that the path has been decommissioned and is no longer a conservation easement
encroachment as the project moves to closeout. Historically, conservation easement encroachments
can lead to delayed closeout, additional monitoring to prove encroachment is no longer a problem
and stewardship transfer issues.
Wildlands' response: Wildlands PM has discussed this matter with the Wildlands' Principal for the
project. Wildlands understands the concerns surrounding this use and the potential ramifications for
closeout and will deal with this matter accordingly.
DMS' comment: CCPV: Please add locations of beaver dams that were removed, bank repair location
and supplemental planting areas to CCPV.
Wildlands'response: The locations of beaver dams that were removed, bank repair, and supplemental
planting areas have been added to the CCPV figures.
DMS' comment: Tables Sa-e and 6: Please add the date that the assessment work was completed to
the top of each table. The IRT requested this information be included at the 2021 Credit Release
Meeting.
Wildlan ds' response: The assessment dates have been added to the top of Tables 5a-e and 6.
DMS' comment: Stream Gage 2 — UT1 R2: Please add consecutive day bar at top of graph as shown on
other gage plots.
Wildlands' response: The consecutive day bar has been added to the stream gage 2 plot for UT1 Reach 2.
Digital Files Review
DMS' comment: Please change the Year —observed field in the SAOC and VAOC feature classes to years
observed (e.g. MY1, MY2, etc.) for clarity.
Wildlands' response: A field called "Year present" has been added to SAOC and VAOC feature classes in
CCPV GIS support files.
DMS' comment: The feature representing the scoured region along UT1 Reach 2 has a length of 10 ft
relative to the 15 ft reported in Table 5b. Please ensure that feature and table lengths are consistent
for final submittal.
Wildlands' response: The length reported in Table 5b has been updated to 10 ft so that it is consistent
with the feature length in the CCPV.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Witow,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERIN4,3
DMS' comment: Please spatially identify the beaver dams that were removed in Summer 2021. The
beaver dam features included in the Stream_AOC feature class appear to be from MY4.
Wildlands' response: The location of the beaver dams that were removed in Summer 2021 have been
added to the CCPV maps and included in the CCPV GIS support files.
Enclosed please find two (2) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on USB of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 828-545-3865 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
#'Wo- A cl4k-
Jake McLean
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Henry Fork Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore 3,057 linear feet (LF) of
perennial streams and enhance 2,626 LF of intermittent streams, enhance 0.68 acres of existing
wetlands, rehabilitate 0.25 acres of existing wetlands, and re-establish 3.71 acres of wetlands in
Catawba County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 4,807.667 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and
4.222 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) (Table 1). The Site is located near the City of Hickory in Catawba
County, NC, in the Catawba River Basin eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03050102 and the 14-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030 (Figure 1).
The project's compensatory mitigation credits will be used in accordance with the In -Lieu Fee (ILF)
Program Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the expanded service area as defined under the September 12,
2006 PACG memorandum, and/or DMS acceptance and regulatory permit conditions associated with
DMS ILF requirements. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030, Lower Henry Fork, was identified
as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the DMS 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP)
Plan. The project streams consist of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Henry Fork River on the site
of a former golf course, referred to herein as UT1, UT2, UT1A, and UT1B (Figure 2). The project also
consists of several wetland restoration components, as well as buffer planting along Henry Fork. The
project watershed consists of agricultural, forested, and residential land uses.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015) were completed with careful
consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to meet DMS mitigation needs
while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed. The established project
goals include:
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses;
• 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) 6 assessments and site visits were completed between January and November
2021. Per Inter -agency Review Team (IRT) guidelines, detailed monitoring and analysis of vegetation and
channel morphology were omitted during MY6. Visual observations, hydrology data, and management
practices are included in this report. To preserve the clarity and continuity of reporting structure, this
report maintains section and appendix numbering from previous monitoring reports. Omitted sections
are denoted in the table of contents.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY6. All restored and
enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. All project streams recorded at least one
bankfull event or greater in MY6. The bankfull performance standard was met for the Site in MY4.
Vegetation within the planted riparian areas appear to be performing well with the majority of the
acreage on track to meet the MY7 density requirement of 210 stems per acre. Thirteen of the fifteen
groundwater monitoring gages installed on the Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for
MY6. The MY6 visual assessments revealed a few areas of concern including pockets of invasive plant
species, areas of low stem growth, and beaver activity. These areas will continue to be monitored and
adaptive management will be performed as needed.
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4'' Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL iii

HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2
Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.3
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Plan...........................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 6 Summary......................................................................................................1-6
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
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*
Wetland 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*
Table 9d
Planted and Total Stem Counts — Wetland Vegetation Plots
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*
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL iv

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
Appendix 6 Wetland Addendum
Wetland Addendum Letter — October 6, 2020
Response to IRT comments from October 28, 2020
*Content not required for Monitoring Year 6 Report
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4'' Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Henry Fork Mitigation Site (Site) is located near the City of Hickory in Catawba County, NC, in the
Catawba River Basin eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03050102 and the 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03050102010030 (Figure 1). 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 linear feet (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 restoration reaches; however, the
tributaries are intermittent and were credited as enhancement. The riparian areas of the tributaries and
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
Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 4.222 Wetland Mitigation Units (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
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
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4' Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

• Provide and improve terrestrial habitat and native floodplain forest.
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 6 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between January and November 2021 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
MY6 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require morphological surveys; therefore, the stream
assessment was not performed this year. Visual assessments reveal that project streams are functioning
as designed. Refer to Appendix 2 for visual assessment tables, Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV)
Figures 3.0-3.2, and reference photographs.
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 bankfull performance standard was met for the
project in MY4. During MY6, all stream reaches recorded at least one additional bankfull event.
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4' Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

In addition to monitoring bankfull events, intermittent streams (UT1A and UT2) must be monitored to
demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of normal rainfall. In MY6, UT1A
and UT2 both exceeded the success criteria for stream flow with 319 and 169 days documented,
respectively. The presence of baseflow was also observed on these reaches during site visits; thereby,
confirming the recorded stream gage data. Please refer to CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for stream
gage locations and 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. In
addition, planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seven-year
monitoring period.
MY6 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require detailed vegetation inventory and analysis.
Therefore, the 15 vegetation plots (VPs) that were originally established during baseline monitoring
were not assessed this year.
A wetland addendum letter was submitted to DMS on October 6, 2020 to identify potential wetland
areas created by the project within the Site. See Section 1.2.5 for further discussion of the wetland
addendum. In MY6, 3 vegetation plots were installed within the potential wetland areas as requested by
the IRT in the comments to the wetland addendum. These additional wetland vegetation plots (WPs)
will be used to evaluate stem density, species diversity, and height to determine if the potential wetland
areas are meeting the vegetation success criteria for the Site. An assessment of the WPs was completed
in September 2021 and resulted in an average stem density of 540 stems per acre and average height of
4.3 feet. All WPs are exceeding the final vegetative density performance standard for the Site but have
not yet met the height performance standard.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for wetland vegetation plot photographs, CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2 for vegetation
plot locations, and Appendix 3 for wetland vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment
Following construction, groundwater gages (GWGs) were distributed so 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 to compare to the hydrologic response within the restored wetland areas at the Site.
A barotroll logger is used to calibrate groundwater gage pressure based on local atmospheric pressure.
A new barotroll was installed onsite at the beginning of MY6 to replace the original barotroll that failed
in MYS. The rainfall data is collected from an existing NC CRONOS station (Hickory 4.8 SW, NC). All
monitoring gages were downloaded quarterly and are maintained as needed. A soil temperature gage
was installed on Site in October 2016. Wildlands is using the soil temperature gage data to confirm the
dates defined in the WETS table for Burke County, NC, if needed. The WETS growing season is not
available for Catawba County and instead, the Burke County growing season (March 20 to November 11)
is being used as criteria for hydrologic success. The growing season is defined by historic weather data
collected at the Hickory Regional Airport in Burke County, approximately 3 miles as the crow flies from
the Site. 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.
,a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`� Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

There are fifteen GWGs currently installed on the Site. Seven of the groundwater hydrology gages
(GWGs) were established during 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. Wildlands relocated GWG 3 in
January 2017 (MY2) to an area 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) to further assess wetland performance near GWGs not meeting criteria. The transducer for GWG
5 showed abnormal data patterns in MY3 and was replaced at the beginning of MY4 to ensure accurate
water level data is being reported. In February and March 2019 (MY4), six additional GWGs 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, thirteen met the success criteria for MY6 with a range of 13% to 100% of the
growing season. GWGs 5, 10, and 13 achieved the success criteria for 100% of the growing season with
plots showing similar hydroperiods and indicating comparable groundwater hydrology in those areas.
The remainder of the GWG hydroperiods were largely analogous to the reference gage. GWG 8 did not
meet the success criteria for MY6 with a measured maximum 18 consecutive days during the growing
season or two days short of the success criteria. The GWG 4 transducer malfunctioned between
3/12/2021 and 6/5/2021, and a new transducer was installed on 6/6/2021. Consequently, GWG 4 did
not meet the success criteria with a measured maximum 14 consecutive days during the growing
season. Monthly rainfall data in 2021 indicated higher than normal rainfall amounts in February and
March. Lower than normal rainfall occurred in April, June, and September. Please refer to the CCPV
Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology
summary data and plots.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Plan
Vegetation
MY6 visual assessment reveal that more than 97% of the conservation easement is unaffected by
invasive species populations. When present, 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
species treatments occurred in March, June, and July 2021, and focused on small areas of multiflora
rose, kudzu, and in -stream invasive exotic vegetation within UT1A and UT2. Populations of multiflora
rose, creeping primrose, Asian spiderwort, and kudzu have been reduced by treatments to levels below
the mapping threshold, therefore are not depicted on the CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2.
MY6 visual assessments show that woody vegetation has become well established on at least 94% of the
planted riparian areas. Previously identified areas of low stem vigor/height along the floodplains of UT1
Reach 2 and UT2 are still present but appear to be improving with desired volunteer species including
river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides) naturally starting to develop and herbaceous vegetation
filling in previously observed bare areas.
In March 2021, a supplemental planting effort installed 135 bare roots, 85 tubling plants, and 135
livestakes within the potential wetland areas (0.661 acres) identified in the wetland addendum to
increase woody stem density and species diversity. Woody transplants (river birch, box elder, tag alder,
and black willow) from the adjacent project areas were also used where appropriate within the potential
wetland areas.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
k4VMonitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

Supplemental
Scientific Name Common Name
Source
Quantity
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Button bush
Tubling
85
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Bare root
70
Salix nigra
Black willow
Bare root
30
Salix nigra
Black willow
Live stake
70
Salix sericea
Silky willow
Bare root
35
Salix sericea
Silky willow
Live stake
65
Streams
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 and
function. In previous years, low flow and some vegetation within the channel had been noted along
these reaches. A debris jam that was impeding some flow and causing aggradation within UT1A was
removed in March 2021, and regular baseflow was observed throughout the rest of the year, as
demonstrated by the stream gage plot for UT1A in Appendix 5. Similarly, minor aggradation previously
noted along UT1 Reach 1 downstream of the wetland enhancement area, in the footprint of the old
pond bed, has improved as woody vegetation along the banks has become established.
Isolated areas of bank scour along UT1 (near station 124+25) were repaired in October 2021 by
regrading and replanting the banks with live stakes and established transplanting vegetation from the
floodplain. Previous bank repair areas along UT1 (near station 106+00 and 124+75) appear stable and
effective.
A few beaver dams were removed in summer 2021 throughout the lower portion of UT1 Reach 2. The
period of prolonged inundation is demonstrated in the stream gage plot for UT1 in Appendix 5. Beaver
dams were not observed during the fall 2021 site walk. Beavers remain present on the Site but the
occurrence has decreased and negative effects have diminished. The now infrequent stream
impoundments permit regular flow of tributaries (UT1A and UT2) into UT1, thus allowing floodplain
vegetation to become established in previously inundated areas. Beaver activity will continue to be
monitored and managed until closeout.
Wetland Addendum
As stated in section 1.2.4, three additional groundwater gages (GWG 13 — 15) were installed in February
and March 2019 before the start of the MY4 growing season, for the purpose of providing groundwater
data to document additional potential wetland areas. 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
DMS on October 6, 2020 to identify additional potential wetland areas that have been created by the
project and formally request the inclusion of these created wetland areas for credit to offset those
identified as at risk. Per the DMS credit release meeting in May 2021, a decision regarding the potential
wetland areas will be made during the next IRT field review of the Site. Wildlands has incorporated the
comments received by the IRT regarding the wetland addendum. As requested, Wildlands has
supplementally planted the potential wetland areas with appropriate woody stems and established
additional monitoring plots within these areas to determine if performance standards are being met.
Please refer to Appendix 6 for the wetland addendum letter and subsequent IRT comments, CCPV
Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for potential wetland locations, and Table 9d in Appendix 3 for vegetative
monitoring plot results.
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4' Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 1-5

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 is set 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 areas of concern. If necessary,
adaptive management will be implemented to improve the conditions of the Site. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2 for mapped areas of concern.
1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation success criteria for MY6. All restored and
enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed. All project streams recorded at least one
bankfull event or greater in MY6. The bankfull performance standard was met for the Site in MY4.
Vegetation within the planted riparian areas appear to be performing well with the majority of the
acreage on track to meet the MY7 density requirement of 210 stems per acre. Thirteen of the fifteen
groundwater monitoring gages installed on the Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for
MY6. The MY6 visual assessments revealed a few areas of concern including pockets of invasive plant
species, areas of low stem growth, and beaver activity. These areas 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
the DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
DMS upon request.
a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`�' Monitoring Year 6 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).
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4' Monitoring Year 6 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).
2021. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Hickory 4.8 SW. Accessed
November 2021.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities.
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/RBRPCatawba2007.pdf
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2015). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2016). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document and As -
Built Baseline Report. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
' a - Henry Fork Mitigation Site
`4' Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

,ju50101090020
'050102010020 1 f
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.
61L
r�rcli�7�jUY�iyUUk7i7
EllProject Location
= Hydrologic Unit Code (14-digit)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
01140011
rOIrc &OPILOXO 7iUZG7
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
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.
0 0.5 1 Miles
WILDLANDS '
ENGEE I LRING
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Catawba County, NC

w
WTLDLANDS
ENGINEERING
rk�
150 300 Feet
I I I
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Henry fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Catawba County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
MITIGATIONr
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.SS0 0.342 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PROJECT• ••
Proposed Stationing/
Existing Footage/ Restoration (R) or Credits
Reach ID
Approach Restoration Footage/Acreage* Mitigation Ratio
Location*
Acreage Restoration Equivalent SMU/WMU
STREAMS
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
100+00 to 103+02
P1
Restoration
302
1:1
302.000
1,392
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
103+02 to 114+71
P1
Restoration
1,169
1:1
1,169.000
UT1 Reach 2
114+71 to 126+99
1,499
P1/P2
Restoration
1,225
1:1
1,228.000
UT1A
150+00 to 186+57
353
P1
Enhancement
657
1.5:1
438.000
UT1B
150+00 to 153+55
478
P1
Restoration
358
1:1
358.000
UT2
200+00 to 219+69
j 1,915
P1
Enhancement
1,969
j 1.5:1
j 1,312.667
WETLANDS
Planting,
Wetland 1
Floodplain near UT1
Reach 2
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
2.45
1:1
2.450
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
Reach 2 and UT1A
0.15
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.15
1.5:1
0.120
improvement
Planting,
Wetland B
Floodplain between UT1
Reach 2 and UT1A
0.01
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.013
1.5:1
0.009
improvement
Planting,
Wetland C
Floodplain between UT1
Reach 2 and UT1A
0.003
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.003
1.5:1
0.002
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
0.025
Wetland I
East hillslope near UT1A
O.08
Planting
Enhancement
O.08
2:1
0.039
Wetland 1
East hillslope near UT1
0.04
Planting
Enhancement
0.04
2:1
0.015
Reach 2
Wetland K
East hillslope near UT1
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.025
Reach 2
Wetland
East hillslope near UT1
0.13
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.065
Reach 2
Wetland N
Floodplain towards river
O.08
Planting
Enhancement
O.08
2:1
0.042
from UT2
Wetland P
FloodplaiUTZ slope of
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.012
Wetland Q
FloodplaiUTZ slope of
0.07
Planting
Enhancement
0.07
2:1
0.035
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 ?' alley (Pond
0.16
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.066
COMPONENT
Restoration Level Stream (LF)
SUMMATION
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer (squareUpland
feet
(acres)
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
0.65
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
" Streamcredit calculations were originally calculated alongthe as-builtthalwegand updated to be calculated alongstream ceneterlinesfor Monitoringyear2 after discussionswith NC IRT.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
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 area'
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 2015
November 201E
Vegetation Survey
September 201E
Year 3 Invasive Species Treatment
June & August 2015
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
N/A
November 2021
Vegetation Survey
N/A
Year 6 Supplemental Planting in wetland addendum areas
March 2021
Year 6 Invasive Species Treatment
March, June &July 2021
Year 6 Beaver Treatment
July 2021
Year 6 Bank Repair on UT1 Reach 2
October 2021
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 6 - 2021
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
167-B Haywood Rd.
Jake McLean, PE
Asheville, NC 28806
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 27530
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.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Project Name
PROJECT• •
Henry For Mitigation Site
County
Catawba County
Project Area (acres)
148.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
PROJECT•
Physiographic Province
35"42'12.95"N, 81"21'53.20"W
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
03-05-35
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 UT1B UTZ
Length of Reach (linear feet) - 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
Evolutions 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
0.024-0.056
0.0043-0.017
1 0.0095-0.016
0.015-0.077
0.0032
FE MA 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
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
PCN prepared
and DWQ 401 Water 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 werefound
to be impacted (letter from SH PO
dated 3/24/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FE MA 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

.r • Q 'ckI R - ' -'T'
4�
a
I --- . . . . . . . . . . .
12 \,
1
1
cam -
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation -
] Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement '1 ❑5 ,•.�'} ; T
Potential Wetland Areas -
Potential Area at Risk
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer �1
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I 1
— Cross -Section (XS) -
t
----- Bankfull Line • 1
Reach Break
0 Photo Point ,
,
*i- Stream Gage (SG) `
Reference Gage
Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY6 2
Criteria Met Reach Y .
Criteria Not Met Upp_
Vegetation Plot - MY6 1❑ /
Vegetation Plot (not monitored in MY6) `\ /
0 Criteria Met - Wetland Plot (WP) ,
Supplemental Planting Areas (March 2021)-
Areas of Concern - MY6 - -
® Japanese honeysuckle & Chinese privet
Japanese honeysuckle �i'
® Low Stem Vigor/Height
® Aggradation
® Bank Scour
• • . Bank Repair (October 2021)
Beaver Dam (removed)
�. , 0 250 500 Feet
' \ — ' I
WLI.7Li I i
IAN]]S
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Catawba County, NC

M
N
N
C7�
N�
C7
U'
o w
v
o o `
o v u ti
C L N N C y0 N tN m p O
� v a v y s t o E
v a v Y v v o o v 0 3 v v a m v a U m
a a
ol
0
v
0
0

z9
t
1 1
r
1 1 ,
! <I
1 � �
1 1
1 1
'r \i
1 �
Conservation Easement
® Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment riip `
Wetland Enhancement O\_
3
Potential Wetland Areas
Potential Area at Risk
Henry Fork River
0 Planted Buffer
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Cross -Section (XS)
- Bankfull Line �-
Q Reach Break
Photo Point r
* Stream Gage (SG) , —"---
Reference Gage �\ ❑ �'
Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY6
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY6 /
(] Vegetation Plot (not monitored in MY6) `\ -
0 Criteria Met- Wetland Plot (WP) -
0 Supplemental Planting Areas (March 2021) -
Areas of Concern - MY6
® Japanese honeysuckle & Chinese privet
= Japanese honeysuckle
® Low Stem Vigor/Height
Aggradation
Beaver Dam (removed)
0 100 200 Feet
I I I
WIL[JLANDS '
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Catawba County, NC

w m c
3 m
m `o
's
o
3 m
m c
` N o
0 w
E q 3 m
ai c v
s
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e t 5
`o a
Q j is
O
d S d
S
£ N
O
O
O
d
Z � �
s «
£
m
A
F
o
• 00 a
s s £ c
£ A
m
m
n
w
m
a
o
_
`v
o3
-
01
-
o E
0
o
�
°'
n
m E
E
-
E
n
°
°
m o o
—
o
F
o
F E
T E
E
v o lo
E£
_
.E
m Y�vC
a o
o
a
N
v
a+,
a
lb
\
m
N
3
a
=
a
u
mo
°
u
> w
KO
H
O
l716
N
Nv
m
2
2 U W
O U
V
m
°
m
N
d
°
,m a+
IYf

s
w m c
3 m
m `o
's
o
3 m
m c
` N o
0 w
E q 3 m
e t 5
`o a
c s m
Q j is
O
. s c
s
£ N
N
O
o
d
Z � �
s «
£
m
A
F
Aa
O L
H
m d
S S £ C
Ol
Ol
t0
_
o
O
�
-
y
o
o
�
�
v
_
E°
w
o
F
o
F E
F E
E
m.v o E£
o
f
m`
�°
o
a
a«
mw
o`
m
w
c`
o
:°
m u
v
v
O um
,m a+
IYf

w m c
3 m
m `o
's
o
3 m
m c
` N o
0 w
E q 3 m
9 F
N a d
o
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
e t 5
`o a
Q j is
O
d S d
S
£ „
O
O
O
d
Z � �
s «
£
m
A
F
Aa
O L
H
m d
0
�
-
y
o
v
3
3 I
w
o
F
o
F E
T E
E
v o E£
-
E
m`
a°
o
a
«
>&
>
«
w
a
o
m u
v
v
o um
�
'eo «
m

w m c
3 m
m `o
's
o
3 m
m c
` N o
0 w
E q 3 m
ai c v
e t 5
`o a
Q j is
O
d S d
S
£ N
O
O
O
d
Z � �
s «
£ m
A
F
Z ,n
Aa
O L
H
.�
ry
ry
ry
ry
N
m d
0
o
"3
-
01
-
o E
�
-
a
°
—
o
F
o
F E
T E
o
a
>
c
>
O U
N
,m a+
IYf

w m c
3 m
m `o
's
o
3 m
m c
` N o
0 w
E q 3 m
ai c v
s
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
a
o
0
e t 5
`o d
Q j is
O
d S d
S
£ N
O
O
O
d
Z � �
s «
£
f0°
A
°
H
Q
Q
Z
Aa
O L
H
m
m
Z
Z
m
m
` t d
0
`v
o3
-
d
-
o E
--d°
�
E
jEw
°
m o on
—
�
T E
E
v o E£
_
.E
m Y�vC
a
o
a
>
N
v
a+,
c
a
lb
\
m
N
3
>
a
=
a
u
mm
°
u
> w
KO
H
O
l7
N
16
Nv
m
2
O U
N
,m a+
IYf

f6
F
C
w
E
w
0
v
C OOq
o
o
c
o
c
a
O
O
O
o
m
o
Q
O
O
G
`°
`°
a
C E9
o
0
0
�
00
m y
E i
O
O
G
O
N
G
u a
o
C
m
O
O
o
n
� a
Z
bD
Ct y
H
�
m
0
0
w
m
E
u'
c
�
0
o
`o
,.
u
v
E
E
v
�
L
O
c
C
>
�
bll
E
76
O C
T
O
�
—
E
v
0
O
C
O
O
v
71,
O
v
u
m
>
v
C
f0
L
�
�
Y
�
U
T
�
O
0
v
-
3
>'
N
L
v
O
�O
u
v
v
O
O
T
0
O
u
v
0
�
�
3
4J
v
L
i
O 'C
O
>
O
.0
3
a a
`o
on
`o
`D
v
v
m
u
M
C
C
`
t
,
a
m
>
O
�a+
C
d
>
d
O
m
E
O
a
v
`6
a
3
v
m
0a
C OJ
d m
O E y
N
O
a d `y
(V
O
m a
W
C U
m y
E u
o
ti
O
u a
o
C
m
n
O
� a
Z
C
C t LL
O
O
O
c
C n
m
o
O
c
v
0
h
O.
E
f
v
uui
O-
E
N
C
O
C
O
pO�p
O
b�A
O.
f0
v
C
O.
f0
v
c
v
v
O
O
O
C
O
C
O
O.
O
f0
v
a
O
O-
O
�
v
a
U
v
m
a
u
E
y
C
c
0
u
0
v
E
m
V
u
U
d
—0O
>
I
C
W
m
v
E
v
>
C
m
w

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1
—view upstream UTIB (512512021)
Photo Point 1
—view downstream UTIB (512512021)
irm
game
`-�
Photo Point 2 —view upstream UTIB (512512021) Photo Point 2 —view downstream UTIB (512512(
| Photo Point 3—view upstream UT1R1Upper (512Jy2022) 1 Photo Point 3—view downstream UT1R1Upper (Jy2Jy2022) 1

A
A tti $fir`" " kx y°s@�µy,-�\ 1 j ' x , ,� „d,X�§° I •� '"
�•_ a 1 - fir -
Ilk, p .,�� , � �, � •
NIN
r
1,Vm
nt.

IN
'w
1 � T
g ,
Photo Point 6 —view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 6 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1
Photo Point 7 —view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 7 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1
Photo Point 8 —view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 8 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1

Photo Point 9 —view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 9 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1
Photo Point 10—view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 10—view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1
Photo Point 11—view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 11—view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1

d ,
vs�
.!q
Photo Point 12 —view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1 Photo Point 12 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (512512021) 1
Photo Point 14 —view upstream UT1 R2 (512512021) Photo Point 14 —view downstream UT1 R2 (5/25/2021)

Photo Point 18 —view upstream UT1A (512512021) 1 Photo Point 18 —view downstream UT1A (512512021) 1
fog 7C�i �1':\ jN► eaiYlaa�u"W aci+:3. x nhs
Photo Point 19—view upstream UT1A (512512021) Photo Point 19—view downstream UT1A (512512021)
Photo Point 20—view upstream UT2IPhoto Point 20—view upstream UT2 (512512021)1Photo Point 20—view downstream UT2 (512512021) 1Point 20—view downstream UT2 (512512021) 1

>P s
44
1
1 I 1
AWN � , reo,�
Photo Point 21—view upstream UT2 (512512021) 1 Photo Point 21—view downstream UT2 (512512021) 1
Photo Point 22 —view upstream UT2 (512512021) 1 Photo Point 22 —view downstream UT2 (512512021) 1
Photo Point 23 —view upstream UT2 (512512021) 1 Photo Point 23 —view downstream UT2 (512512021) 1

Photo Point 26 — UT1 R2 floodplain overview (512512021) 1
Photo Point 27 —view upstream UT1 R2 floodplain (512512021) I Photo Point 27 —view downstream UT1 R2 floodplain(5/25/2021)
Photo Point 28 — UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (512512021) 1 Photo Point 28 — UT2 floodplain overview (512512021) 1

i
K4
a.
-44
j t PIT
s^i14fW
Photo Point 29 — UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (512512021)

Wetland Vegetation Photographs

Wetland Vegetation Plot 1 - (910212021) 1 Wetland Vegetation Plot 2 - (910212021) 1
Wetland Vegetation Plot 3 - (910212021) 1

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

lq
)
r
§
\
00
00
k
. k
;iu
t!
|\CIE)
\bD
\
)
)
*
®�sE3:0
��)�()j)
(
u
)
7F-
}UUS
m
-rz
E
Q
\
RR)a±J6a
0
[[kk

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

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
Reach MA&Y
UT1 Reach 2
MY2
Date of Occurrence
4/24/2017
Method
Crest & Stream
Gage
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
2/7/2015
Stream Gage
4/25/2018
5/29/2018
9/16/2015
10/11/2015
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
MY6
2/15/2021
3/25/2021
8/17/2021
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
MY6
3/26/2021
S/17/2021
UT1B
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
MY6
3/25/2021
UT2
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
2/7/2015
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
MY6
1/28/2021
1/31/2021
2/12/2021 - 2/18/2021'
2/26/2021
3/18/2021
3/26/2021
3/31/2021
5/3/2021
8/17/2021
'M. lti ple bankfull -- ..&d

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 6 - 2021
for
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results 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)
Reference
No/18 Days
Yes/59 Days
Yes/79 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/63 Days
Yes/59 Days
(8%)
(25%)
(34%)
(26%)
(27%)
(25%)
No/0 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/48 Days
Yes/42 Days
Yes/27 Days
Yes/30 Days
GWG 1
(0%)
(10%)
(20%)
(18%)
(11%)
(13%)
Yes/ 29 Days
No/7 Days
No/12 Days
Yes/39 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/33 Days
GWG 2
(12.3%)
(3%)
(5%)
(17%)
(21%)
(14%)
Yes/236 Days
No/3 Days
No/5 Days
Yes/35 Days
Yes/49 Days
Yes/31 Days
GWG34
(100%)
(1%)
(2%)
(15%)
(21%)
(13%)
No/3 Days
Yes/25 Days
Yes/46 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/64 Days
No/14 Days
GWG 4
(1.3%)
(11%)
(20%)
(29%)
(27%)
(6%)
GWG 5 3
N/A
Yes/189 Days
Yes/102 Days
Yes/236 Days
Yes/202 Days
Yes/237 Days
(80%)
(43%)
(100%)
(85%)
(100%)
Yes/79 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/96 Days
Yes/76 Days
Yes/116 Days
Yes/65 Days
GWG 6
(33.5%)
(38%)
(41%)
(32%)
(49%)
(27%)
No/7 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/44 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/31 Days
GWG 7
(3.0%)
(9%)
(19%)
(19%)
(38%)
(13%)
No/1 Days
No/14 Days
No/11 Days
No/19 Days
No/14 Days
No/18 Days
GWG 8
(0.4%)
(6%)
(5%)
(8%)
(6%)
(8%)
GWG 9 3
N/A
No/13 Days
Yes/20 Days
Yes/68 Days
Yes/90 Days
Yes/65 Days
(6%)
(9%)
(29%)
(38%)
(27%)
GWG 10 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/236 Days
Yes/202 Days
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
(85%)
(100%)
GWG 11 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/61 Days
Yes/113 Days
Yes/63 Days
(26%)
(48%)
(27%)
GWG 12 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/36 Days
Yes/61 Days
Yes/30 Days
(15%)
(26%)
(13%)
GWG 13 5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/236 Days
Yes/202 Days
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
(85%)
(100%)
GWG 14 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/67 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/41 Days
(28%)
(38%)
(17%)
GWG 15 6
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes/45 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/33 Days
(19%)
(38%)
(14%)
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.

GReju !k
R R R R R R R R R
_ > z z -Zt r r-4 w o
@
I
I
I
Sae
)
I
»\
o
0
¥
@ »
I
mN
(
I
I
I
\
p
e
k
I
I
�
I
o
I
I
d3
-
�
G
-
\
|
av
A
�
§
I
©
®
I
2 m
I
§ m
Inr
LL2
]
unr
�
}
I
9
©A
(
I
I
}
I
A
t° 0
I
—
4 \
\
2
//
o�
I
z
. ,eA
I
I
I
qg
I
I
Uer
\
5 °
\
§
/ }
{ /
GH-g•91e
m

M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N O
0
I
I
I
ua4
m
0n o
N
3
C7
w
npN
aa)
E
o
c
a,
w
ro
V'
o
I
daS
v
N
v
I
2nV
u
m
I
kD
N
O
� N
1
m
3�
C m
N
= y
Inf
°
C7 �
Y p
O C
LL p
i a
C
unf
w
2
°-
o
W
m
Ae w
U
a0,
v
v
z
0
o m
am m
I
AV
V) m
h0 N
O
w
3 N
0 0
N
C7
o "
`m
V
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uef
O
O
O
O O
O
o
Ln O
o
(ui)
lana',
aa;eM

OJ O O N
� O �
O m
z N
am+ }
R. L " c
o O
3 N
M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N 0
0
I
I
I
I
ua4
too
.40
o
r
noN
E
o
w
�
V'
o
I
daS
v
M
v
I
2ny
u
m
I
N
w O
ell
N
3�
I
m
3
m
}
I
Inf
°
I
bn
m
C7 E
Y C
O C
LL C
i
C
unr
w
2
O
Q
I
o
W
Aew
U
v
v
v
z
O
� N
m
v
I
AV
to
2 0
I
—
3 4
O 0
m
0
�
m
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
(ui)
I9n91
aa;eM

N
OJ O O N
� O �
O m
z N
am+ }
R. L " c
o O
3 N
M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N 0
0
I
I
I
I
ua4
to 0
N
3
T
�c\
0 r
I
noN
E
o
c
au
�
w
�
V'
}'0
V
o
daS
>
v
v
w
I
bb
2ny
u
U-
m
N
w O
41 N
_
—
m
3 iD
C m
a
� y
Inf
�
o �
L
Y
O r
LL C
i
�
unf
w
2
°-
o
Aew
U
v
v
z
0
I
0
v
I
AV
to N
I
-
o
3 4
0 0
m
V)
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uef
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(ui) lanai aa;eM
r
N
O
N
0
v
m
c
3
z
ri
N
O
N
Ln
0
N
N
m
E
O
0
u
0
E
m
C7

OJ O N
� O �
O m
z N
am+ 3 L " i
O F O
c L. a 0
7 N
M) uejuiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 Ln -Zt m N 0
0
I
I
I
ua4
m
to 0
� N
3
I
c�
nON
v
E
o
c
a,
2i
3
Sao
V
I
v
I
d aS
v
—
Ln
_
v
2ny
u
m
I
� c
I
1 N
m
T
L f0
f6
Ln
3 } m
I
Inr
°enN
.O
Y
O C
LL C
i
C
unr
w
2
°-
o
v
e�0
m
v
Aew
v
v
v
°
v
I
AV
to N
° 0
I
—
3 N
0
° 0
z
�C4I
m
°
I
m
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
0
0 0
0
0
0
0 Ln
0
0
(ui)
19n91
aa;eM

M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N O
o
I
I
I
I
3a4
m
v
Nto N
O
O N
O c-I
c�
nON
a
E
o
I
v
u,
v
3
}'0
V
o
daS
v
v
v
w
I
2ny
U-
u
m
I
N
O
ell
1 N
3�
m
3
}
I
Inf
C7 �
L
Y
O r
LL C
i
C
unr
w
y
2
v
0
m
T
f0
I
Aew
U
v
v
N
�
Ln
�
5
o
°
v
I
AV
t0 N
o
I
—
3 N
6 O
z
m
0
�
m
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
O o O O O O o O Ln o
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM

OJ O N
� O �
O m
z N
am+ }
R. L " c
m o
O
c a .r
3 N
M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N 0
0
I
I
I
I
ua4
to 0
N
O
n
noN
v
O
w
�
o
daS
v
v
bb
2ny
u
� c
I
1 N
3�
C m
3
}
I
Inf
° en
I
�
C7 E
Y C
O C
LL C
i
�
unr
w
2
°-
o
W
Aew
U
v
v
v
z
O
� N
m
v
I
AV
m
t0 N
0
I
-
3 \
O 0
m
0
m
I
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
u e
r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM

GReju !k
R R R R R R R R R
_ > z z -Zt r r-4 w o
I
I
I
I
,ae
\{
I
I
\ \
°
@ »
~`
}
I
I
I
\
1
e
k
I
I
�
I
o
I
I
d3
—
§
-
m
|
av
\
1
|
7 &
I
I00
2 %
7\
S
Inr
en
I
( J
-�d 2
I
|
�2
]
unr
}
I
9
©A
(
I
|
I
A
%®
I
=
\ \00
-
�
//
]
\
z
�
. ,ems
I
I
qg
I
I
Uer
\ 5 ° \ § / } { /
GH-g•� m

M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N O
o
I
I
I
I
3a4
v
t �
to N
O O
N
O
�
o
noN
a,
w
3
}'0
V
I
v
IOle
d aS
v
—
_
v
m
2ny
u
I
� N
O
1 N
m
3�
C m
y
I
Inf
°
I
bn
m
C7 E
L
Y
O
LL C
i
�
unr
w
2
°-
v
0
v
W
T
f0
I
Aew
U
v
v
N
�
Ln
�
5
o
v
I
AV
V)
toN
I
—
O O
3 N
O o
C7
m
m
I
`m
V
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
O O O O O O o Ln O o
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM

GReju !k
R R R R R R R R R
_ > z z -Zt r r-4 w o
@
I
I
I
I
»Q
)
I
/\
!\
'
@»
I
mN
k
I
q
I
I
k
I
\
I
�
s
I
I
)
�
o
I
I
da
_
I
2
-
e
_
I
av
-
»
§
|
1
I
m \
a
§
Inr
2 EC4
m
0
|LL
k
unr
ƒ
\
�
I
_
bn
m
71
@�
§
±
I
|
I
AV
—
C
\°
\ @
\
Je ^
—
I
I
I
qg
I
I
Uer
5 °
\
\ §
/
}
{
/
GH-geem

0
Q
.c
G
0
LL
c
v
2
s W
0 ca
z J
u c
Q L
d +O+
Ln c
M) IIe}uiea
a a a a a a a a o
00 I, �c LA It m N ci O
c
I
I
I
I
�a4
O
v �
0A O
O N
3
N
I
t�
noN
E
w �
o
v
c
w
v
2t
l7
C7
po
O
o
daS
v
J
I
abp
2ny
u
ca
I
a, N
f6 �
3 y
Inf
v
O to
m
c_
cD
(L
y L
Y 0
L
c
LL O
>
unf
c
a�
Q
2
v
0
m
u
Aew
v
v
fu
�
I
v
of
ID
0
0
v
I
AV
O O
�
o a
t7 rq
I
0 m
0
L
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uef
NO OO O OO ON Om 0
0 OO 0
(ui) lanai aa;eM

s W
0 m
z J
u c
Q L
d +O+
Ln c
M) uejuiea
0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
00 1, lD Ln M N
C
O
a
I
I
I
I
:)a4
v �
�o
= N
O �
�
c� N
noN
E
w ti
0
v
w
I
�
U'
po
U'
2
o
d aS
73
N
v
ra
I
ri
7*
v
pip
I
2ny
u
m
0 N
a) N
m
m �
3 L
I
N
3 }
I
Inr
m
O h
Y �
L
I
LLC
O
unr
c
L
d
a
x
I0017
v
0
m
Aew
v
u
m
v
o �
a) a)-0
I
AV
I o
bL
O
�
w M
o
I
�
i
LO
I
aew
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
—
uer
O O
N c-I
O
O
1-
O
N
O
M
O
O
Lfl
O
l0
(ui)
19n91
aa;eM

M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N 0
0
I
I
I
I
ua4
to 0
o
v
noN
o
c
I
a�
w
I
�
v
V'
lu0
V
�
o
I
d aS
v
M
v
�
r-I
�
y
I
2ny
u
m
I
N T
L Q
N
1
m '
N
I
'a m
ti
3 }
I
Inf
v
0 b
L
Y 0
I
LL
O
L
unr
c
y
=
I
o
v
W
m
Aew
v
v
v
0
0
°
v
I
AV
toN
0
o O
C4
m
�
C7
m
0
I
m
I
Jew
I
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 Ln
(ui)
I9n91
aa;eM

GReju !k
R R R R R R R R R
_ > z z -Zt r r-4 w o
I
I
I
I
,ae
\{
I
I
\\
I
f
@ »
AON
t
k
C)
I
q
I
I
k
I
\
I
�
s
I
I
)
�
o
I
d3
I
�
-
e
_
I
av
-
»
§
|
1
I
m
a
§
Inr
2 E
\
0
|LL
k
unr
ƒ
L
±
9
I
~^
(
\
I
I
|
%
I
A
% ®
)
I
_
\
/\
\
|
,e w
—
I
I
I
qg
I
I
Uer
\ 5 ° \ § / } { /
GH-g•qje m

M) IIe}uiea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 r, to in -Zt m N 0
0
I
I
I
I
ua4
to 0
I
N
0
O
C
r,
noN
v
O
c
I
au
w
I
�
lu0
�
o
I
d aS
v
LM
I
v
°
14
2ny
u
m
I
14
I
N
1
f6 �
m
I
'a m
ti
3 }
I
Inf
v
0 c
I
m
`
Y 0
I
LL
O
L
unr
c
�
w
Q
=
I
o
W
m
Aew
v
v
v
v
o T
a, m
I
add
) m
to
O N
O
I
_
3 N
0
0
0 m
I
cu
m
I
I
aew
I
I
I
I
qaj
I
I
uer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0
(ui) I9n91 aa;eM

v �
� N
O
O t m �o
a Z o `m
am'o z }
C7 v to
E O` O
v 00
ZZ
w x 0 2
NO Ilemey
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
tD V1 � m N c-I O
�aa
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nON
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"0
=
m
I
I
I
daS
I
I
10
I
I
'v
3
I
N
I
2ny
F
s
m ti
m N
I
I
I
to
O
N r
I
I
Ind
v
o
o O
I
I
ry
m
O
I
I
I
unr
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Aeln
_
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JqN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pi
I
I
I
I
ueF
()4llanalJa;eM

NO Ilemey
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�aa
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nON
I
I
I
I
130
I
I
I
daS
m
I
`o_
I
I
I
2ny
v
3
a ti I
N
I
N I
I
I
N
O
I
I
I
nr
U) I
o
I
.`o
ti
I
I
I
unr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AeLe,
—
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
aeW
I
I
I
I
I
I
pi
I
I
I
I
ue�
in vi vi a a m m r�i �i
(u)lanalJa;eM

v �
� N
O
O t m �o
a Z o `m
am'o z }
E O
v 00
ZZ
w x 0 2
NO Ilemey
o Un O Un o Un o Un O Un o
N N
� N
m 0
i
U)
E
G1
of
>
I
I
�aa
AON
po
m
daS
`o
v
2ny 3
~
I
Inr r
n
ID
unf
Aew -
I
Ady
AM
qaA
ue�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
41
r r r r r r r r r r r
(u)lanalJa;eM

N
Ul
0
N
J
O
Z
ri
N
O
al
C
U
a
L
O
n
c-I
N
O
N
C
N
fl-
w
N
M
N
60
O
Q
f6
J
�
LU
R
U
Q
Ul
�
V
N
C
�
O
�
a
J
m
n
O
M
^�
O
LL
C
N
Q
Q
N
N
i
C
C
K
(ui) uoi;e;idioaad

APPENDIX 6. Wetland Addendum

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
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 (DPI — 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 DD 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 off line. 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
DIMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 5 - 2020
Restoration (R) or
MitigationCredits
Wetland ID
Location
Existing Acreage
Approach
Restoration Acreage
(WMU)
Restoration Equivalent (RE)
Ratio
Wetland AA
Floodplain towards
N/A
Creation
0.042
3:1
0.014
river from UT2
Floodplain towards
Wetland BB
N/A
Creation
0.097
3:1
0.032
fiver from UT2
Creation of wetland
functions that
Wetland CC
Floodplain towards
N/A
Creation
0.123
3:1
0.041
river from UT2
support hydrologic,
Floodplain in
vegetative, and
footprint of Pond 3
Wetland DID
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
Totall
0.661
i
0.220

Map Figure

JAI
I
AgAiim
�y

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: AR335-15, 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 (66)
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 (69)
_ 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.
Liquidambar styraciflua
20
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Acernegundo
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.
Acerrubrum
5
Yes
FAC
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135
2.
Acernegundo
5
Yes
FAC
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL 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. Carexlupulina 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' Locz 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 (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_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 (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(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)
Indicators 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: AR335-15, 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:
Ground water 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.
UPL 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' Locz 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 412 10 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 (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_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".
_ 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 (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(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)
Indicators 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: AR335-15, 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
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Salix nigra
10 Yes
OBL
Number of Dominant Species
2.
Betula nigra
5 Yes
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
3.
Alnus serrulata
5 Yes
FACW
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Platanus occidentalis
5 Yes
FACW
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
25 =Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
13 20% of total cover:
5
OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15
)
FACW species 75 x 2 = 150
1.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
2.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
3.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
4.
Column Totals: 115 (A) 190 (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.65
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.
Juncus effusus
60 Yes
FACW
'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. Sagittaria latifolia 10 No OBL
4.
Typha latifolia
10 No
OBL
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.
90 =Total Cover
Woody Vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50% of total cover:
45 20% of total cover:
18
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: 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' Locz 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, 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 (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_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:
_ 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 (A10) (MLRA 147)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(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)
Indicators 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

ar
n.fli�
z
Y
Potential Wetland AA — northern view (612312020)
DP1/Potential Wetland BB — eastern view (612312020)
.,
-- W
; � ,.:yam , •4 q�
4c ✓ �p {;'a.,,..� .l.
5,
@t
� 15,g � yS r.•l�� �,� 41,E
_•y E �' ;�P ��Y �` �Si
,Y� � klwY '�i�l�l � �` i Y I i�v � IYNr� F) ��r� i ��}Y' xL4F�l.
�
'.
. .Y
a - x •,.s`-v5 ti��'- A ' �`+n
-3
�
• S� ; t ?1 9
1 '" �1 ti li Ya'l Y F ., I r91�'
-.
r
��Cdi
Potential Wetland CC — western view (612312020)
DP2/Potential Wetland DD — northern view (612312020)
to a`"
h; R � sln 1 F �
y ..
gl•: -
lti V.
I�9- + j ,.. i a •�. d' r
Ow-
�TV
r•r �yY "� . a!
1IYi9��8!
Potential Wetland DD — southern view (612312020)
DP3/GWG 13/Potential Wetland EE — southwest view

Z
Potential Wetland EE — southern view (612312020)

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

T.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WII.MINGTON DISTRICT
Action TD: 2014-00538 County: Catawba U_5_G.S_ Quad: Hickory
NOTIFICATION OFT RISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: WE[ — Henry Fork, LLC: 1 Attn.. Shawn Wilkerson
Address: 1430 South Mint street Suite 10
Charlotte. NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704-332-3306
Sire (arras): 48 Nearest Town: Hickory
Nearest Waterway: UTs to Henry Fork and Henry Fork Coordinates: 35.703751 N. 81.3,64880 W
River 13asinr' HUC: South Fork Catawba (030501021
Location description, The site is located on a tract of land fpsrcei ID 279108883819) which was a part of the former
Henry River Golf Course at 2575 Mountain View Road in Hickory Catawba Cou ntv North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Appiv:
A. Preliminary Determination
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property- We 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 dMrntination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Pro i- Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request
an approved ] D (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 JD.
S. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this dcterrnination 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 C 1344), Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for aperiod 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 Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Carps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps. We stronngly 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 C;WA
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
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the dale of this notification.
There are na waters of the L1.S_, to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Seelion 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 uporx 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.
sto
CEID SEP 0 2

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest 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,acesurvev.coml.
Copy furnished:
Wiidlands Engineering, Inc., Attn.: Ian Eckardt, 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, SIC 28203
NCDEMR — Ecosystem Enhancement Progarn, Attn.: Paul Wiesner, 5 Ravensernft Drive, Suite 102, Asheville, N C 28801

E: PRELIMINARY A.JRT13DfCTT0NAT.171 TFkM1NATION: 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.
SECTION Ti = F�TUEST FOR APPEAL or OSJ WROM TO AN TNITIAL PRDFFERED PEP -MIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe 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.)
ADDITIONX[s INFORMATION: The appeal is Iimited to a review ofthe administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Meier the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to ciarit]y the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CO UACT FOR QMTIONS OR INFORMA110M.
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 Frigioeer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Iv1r. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: David Brown CESAD-PDO
828-271-7980 U.S- Army Carps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, boom 1 QM 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 government
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 inVesti ation, and will have the opportuniito participaie in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number: - -
Signature of appellant or agent_ i
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this forth to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attnm,: David Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
Nortb Carolina 28403
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]

i
Jurisdictiona3 Waters of the U.S. were delineated by :
Wiiidlands Engineering, Inc. on April 3 and 4, 2014- • - i,�.
Jurisdictional features verified by the USACE r '1 _ a!� #r ' •.,
on August 20, 2014 4 :„; •
'i
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement ,'-
��, Delineated Wetlands i
Project Streams
Intermittent
Perennial
..... Ditches _
Data Point Location
Figure 3 Site MaP
WitV W I L 11) L 2l N I] S 0 150 300 Feet Henry Fork Stream & wetland M rogation Site
p Catawba river Sasln
(o3o$o2o3 Expanded Service Area)
Catawba County, NC

Tables. HerrryFork 5tream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Summary of On -site Jurisdictional Waters
Jurisdictional
Feature
Classification
Length
(twF)*
Acreage
Watershed
(ac)
NCDWQ
Stream
Scores
USAGE
Stream
Scores
UTi
Perennial RPW
1073
230
39.5132.5
54144
UTaA
Intermittent RPW
353
23
27.15
49
UT1B
Perennial RPW
49x
31
31.25
49
UTa
Intermittent RPW
1, 4
-
66
27
4
Wetland A
Headwater Forest
-
0.182
-
-
-
Wetland B
Headwater Forest
0.013
-
-
-
Wetland C
Headwater Forest
-
Wetland D
Headwater Forest
-
a.094
-
-
-
Wetland E
Headwater Forest
-
0.004
-
-
Wetland F
Headwater Forest
-
o-o67
-
-
wetlandG
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
-
0.00
Wetland M
Headwater Forest
-
0.131
Wetland N
Headwater Forest
-
0.084
-
-
-
Wetland 0
Headwater Forest
-
0.028
Wetland P
Headwater Forest
-
0.023
-
Wetland a.
Headwater Forest
-
o.o6
Wetland R
Non -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
0.059
Wetland 5
[Von -tidal Freshwater
Marsh
0
15g
Pond i**
0.1to
-
Pond z**-
Pond 3**-
Pond 4**
0.37
*Linear footage indudes stream length through ponds.
**Ponds are manmade impoundments and prior discussion with Corps 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
Prepared for:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Prepared by:
Jason A. Payne
NC Licensed Soil Scientist #1308
soft
G A"
g� �q14.
IF,
b3M
September 9, 2013

-1 — September 9, 2013
Hydric Soil Evaluation
Henry River Mitigation Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of report
Site Location ........
Methodology.......
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:
0 Soil Unit 1 (S1) — Hydric, relatively undisturbed
• Soil Unit 2 (S2) — Hydric soil that has been buried, with hydric indicators in the fill material
0 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 3 (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.
CONCLUSION
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.

4. �\ /
= I (\\/); >
ru
.o \;2§gr 2
G LD g \ 2Ez=f
/� . °. `\� k
-§)/4
`� - 2 m m k k\//
■ _ _ Z �
UUU0 U° -j 0 ° ' ] \--�\) \
., ƒ
3 3 ._
o G
U)
-
\ co
{
2 \
6
3
«� / \ $
CL
3 ° 3
. U) .
0 /, . .
0
\
. / --
Cl)
3 0 `
7
:/0\
»� �
o^ .
3 G \o
\§\ . ° ° d
^ �o \$
°
7 )0 1%
'?-
: .. G -
3... .+° .
> 'T U)
_
g
U
u 2
e
w
�
u : U
> 6
� •� R
E -0 £
zzU

�Gti! % I� •`Utz 1 z1 � S • �G � �5�i�
Run
Structure I
Matrix
Mottle ..rs
(Quantity, Color)
rr�
��

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
Ca#ena
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
m m �
,rr ii
m
o ;
f-.• u7 c`+ r� o
m m m m m m
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ !
-
m m
ID rfl � n uV r CO
m m iTJ m m F
0 0
Q7 4i C{] .LL'7
0f m m `
0
m m� L.
m , . .
a o En
m m m m r `9
.. 0 0 o a Q
LL ( ;n
a =
U �
m
4
-
0
4 cn
m y -U z
1 O
� ❑ .�
❑ ¢ — OD z °1 Q
ni o iI1 a m m 2 �.3
a--
�; o00
_ s a o
a °°
0]
-oC a N N 'a i6 Q
7. D
9 a d d
C3 Q
G G
w n-2 a c m
d y O g m
y H .�? T S v E
C C C 7. ❑ 4 7+ N �
LL4 I
m
�
�i
o
�
ry
C7
N
N
�
Q
O
�
U
�

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
�
N
a
_
' N
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 <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Eric Neuhaus
<[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV (USA) <Casey.M.Haywood @usace.army.mil>; 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.

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)<Casey.M.Haywood @usace.army.miI>
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 Ham stead @fws.gov>
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
DW R#: 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 Share Point Mitigation Plan Review page and can
be accessed here:
IRT SharePoint page:
Blockedhttps://ncconnect.sharepoint.com/sites/IRT-DMS/Site Pages/Home.aspx
HenryFrk_96306_M PAddend um_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%5FMPAddendum%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%5FMPAddendum%5F2020%2Epdf&par
ent=% 2Fsites% 2FIRT% 2DDMS% 2FIRT%20U pload % 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 <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: DMS 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 <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>