20140193 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20140227

2 0 1 4 0 1 9 3
Part 5 - Technical Approach
The Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Catawba County approximately 1
mile southwest of the Town of Hickory (Figure i). The project involves restoration and enhancement
of Piedmont streams and wetlands. The project is located within the EEP targeted watershed for the
Catawba River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030 and NCDWQ Subbasin 03 -08 -35 and
is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Catawba River Basin HUC 03050103 within the expanded
service area of this HUC. The site is approximately 15 miles directly upstream of the South Fork
Catawba River (Lincolnton) WS -IV, CA water supply watershed.
The proposed Site is located within the Lower Henry Fork
Targeted Local Watershed and is discussed in EEP's 2007
Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities, as amended. This
document identifies a restoration goal for all streams within HUC
03050102 of removing conditions which cause sediment
impairments, including mitigating stressors from stormwater
A.
runoff. The Lower Henry Fork watershed was one of a handful
that were identified by local resource professionals (which
includes municipal planners, state and federal resource agency
representatives, and soil & water conservation district
representatives) as an area where EEP should prioritize mitigation projects. The Henry Fork watershed
was also identified in the 2oo5 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Wildlife Action Plan as a
priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic
fauna and enhance species diversity. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for "(s)upport of conservation and
restoration of streams and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and buffer)." The
2o10 NC DWQ Catawba River Basin Plan indicated that the section of Henry Fork that drains the project
area is impaired for high turbidity and low pH, which are likely the result of non -point inputs during
rainfall events. Restoration at the Site would directly and indirectly address these stressors by creating
stable stream banks, restoring a riparian /wetland corridor, and placing So acres of land historically used
for agriculture and as a golf course under permanent conservation easement.
This project will reduce sediment and nutrient loading, remove aquatic species barriers, provide and
improve instream habitats, provide and improve terrestrial (riparian) habitats, improve stream stability,
and improve hydrologic function. The area surrounding the streams and wetlands proposed for
restoration was used as a golf course as recently as 2012. The historic wetland zone has been heavily
ditched and the project streams have been channelized to quickly convey runoff into Henry Fork.
Wetland functions including nutrient and sediment uptake capacity have been degraded. The
proposed work at the Site will provide nutrient reduction by creating riparian buffers and by restoring
wetland function. Reconnection of these creeks to their historic floodplain will filter nut r "
runoff flows into Henry Fork. �iJ
i
Sources:
NC -EEP. 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (Amended March 7013). = j a
NC -DWQ. 2010. Catawba River Basin
Plan. Chapter Two: South Fork of The Catawba River Subbasin. %V - WATF -R � ITY
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 7005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh;l-..,;_-
with information based in part on Smith et al. 2007, NC Natural Heritage Program, and Commission data:
(Smith, R. K., P. L. Freeman, J. V. Higgins, K. S. Wheaton, T. W. FitzHugh, K. J. Ernstrom, and A. A. Das. 7002.
Priority areas for freshwater conservation action: a biodiversity assessment of the Southeastern United
States. The Nature Conservancy)
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site - Part S

,S.] Y'rqjecVGodIs,arfd 64jee'illvet
'TfIQ. rnifor gdal5.cif the pro, - -
ppsed';si,ream-,a-nd,w6tl'a-nd mitigation -pr6jeef-�fe icipfovidci ecdIdgitakabd
water quality +enhancements io the- CaiaWb a River Ba­ih°While ,freA ting af :Or i.ef
ice,aleipar i a I h and
wetland corricor atthesite 0Vel,'pf6VicInq, fl(6d 5 la- n hab- tatand. ecological f qndionj,and,reAb
H
hga
P kod pph i E ttorhla'rTd:Forest,cbnmuni yAsI& escri ,a y(iqjd). Specific
,eriharit'effietfis-t6,wdierqiJ411iy,ind k6ldg-itil hed! bie"IOW ih'TdbI'e­,,-! ti. -
-t6b'le ca df tho,,Mithidtidii Pmioet
- 7-
:Decrease nutrient
I A
nputWillbi, ecre . y
:6dv&se che Mical Ukkl�
decompissiboing,tie site as�an a ctive 4olfcoqrse,whi6is r.pUtibely1maiit6ine d, by
,the application -of these them-i'cal's-. Off-,sitenutrient)input will beabsorbed-on-.site.
byfilied ,!n ' - d-'f-1 ows th�cug hresf6red fdbdDlair,areas and WetWnds"Whefefood
,g"
Ylowsican disper5e1firoug'k native,vegptation�andibe, captured 'in:a'djaceht"'wetlands.
Increased:surface wat&residency,time will provide,coniaci,'f'reatmentfime and
D6&ease,sedi . merft input
A I'argeamo--u-nt,-bf,se-di'me-nf.'be-i'ng',cpniriSt Ftedfo the:sVsie 'mt,iRrou-clh'-ihe-failure;df
ori4iePond 2,wfl..l,be•eli m inJted4heoUgh reh6Wl,bfi 6m: cim6qtfrdn off-
site:source5'wil(b6captutec by alloWing,deposition on•restored floodplain areas
where - native ,v- edetat_ib- n,wI i l- l s- lbw_ ov4 erlabd,fow,velocities; Sediment input .from
p
unprotected stream'b6nks will be,reduced,by installing bi oerigineeeinpnd
in5tream'structures while:creatinga stable chan6el;fbrm using�natural;channel'
es i giri ' "'
pn
Decrease water.
Existing, in I ine -ponds, which dischargewater into the streamRom.the'pond's.wafer
temperature afnd•initzrease
sUrf6ce -will h�dremoved_. This W- ill,help,IbVer-th- e,d_v_ era- ll,stream temperatures,
dissolved &sSQI[ d oxygen
wh'ichwillhehp - maihtainth6 dissolved oxygen -con-centrations. The-ponclswer
concentrations
sbbfecfioialgal blooms, -which consumecclissolved bxygen;,,pbnd removail'w'IlF
eIimil :ha 0, ikl_- ftres�oftb dissolVed -&A6. 5tr6affi bed f o rM:W ITU're ft&6 d 'abd
°Woody structures,will-be,installed fo,promote re-aeration; th, is:will also help to
mai - iftaimok cienilev6ls in,,,the ,,b(!-reh6i4l streamYi aches.
IUWe t6iYibefat(ke. helping fo:,ffi5ihtairi,diss-61Ved;&xy'ge tbhtshff��tidfis;
-
Btablis"ent'and maintenance,of riparian buffer$.will create long.-term shading of
ilfe,channel fiqwtornin0ii2e there"I heating.
'�I '177, '7`717 =77 :%. �,Jack Mf 2 �VVRA__ e_
'Provide and'impr'o-ve,
Adjacent b6fferra-reas-indmefl-an& Will be--restoriid�ty-p-'I'a6tin'g',hative-.ve6etifion.:
'terrestrialihabitat
"inns, -will
lbie,restorecl'to proviclewetlandkabitk, knative:natura 1,Fcom m unity,, ill bet
,estiblished'tbai, 'pr)eq5wiffioffierfdrested areas•, Within ihe �p qj; I s,,th-e
'efititbWdr, F6-rk flobdpWri Wfll'M p!6ced under•a e6n§eNationteasiethent-. A.1oo-
-fb6twooded'ri-pa.rian buffer will be established off.the,top of,bank of ihe,Henry
thie-remaining ,-p-r6tected;fldo'dol'a"in will be 4llbw'edtQ,hat'LJ_rally
Te�gen.ergte overtime.
Provide and improve
_e, dWfi-1•6 eF•aM strUcture-appro­pna be
inft-rearn.habitat
constructed'. lntrbduction,ofia�rg!e.w-oody,debt.is, ro6f,wads, 6rush:toe; meander
beM-s,4nd '— nit_i;V6 stream ba - hk'V- egetak(idn,kill substantially increase habitirualue.
FouFifiline p6nds and thirteen,existing,,,cbncre`te,,culverts throug1hpailieSite
function as'bareiers ici:aquat-ic migration--these,will be'removed-t6 reconnett-onsite
W.
ildla(nds-EngineefJnq;-ihc.
,Henry F6 _rk Steeam•& Wetl6nd:Mitigation Site ­Part,S

5.2 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Henry Fork Mitigation Site in terms of
geomorphic condition, watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated
floodplain zones, and site constraints.
5.2.2 Existing Site Conditions
The Henry Fork Mitigation Site gains its name from the Henry Fork, a tributary to the South Fork
Catawba River, which flows along
the northern Site boundary.
Henry Fork is 303(d) listed for low
pH. The southern half of the Site
is characterized by steeply
sloped, narrow valleys while the
northern half of the Site is
characterized by the flat, alluvial
floodplain of Henry Fork. Based
on a review of historical aerials
(presented in Appendix A) the
Site use was a mix of farmland
and forest from at least 1939 to the late 196o's. During the ig6o's and early 1970's, farming appears to
have steadily decreased on the Site and one by one the fields were left fallow. In 1978, farming ceased
and the Site was developed into a golf course. As part of the golf course construction, the streams
appearto have been significantly modified and relocated, and four inline ponds were constructed.
These pond are denoted as Ponds 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Figure 2). The Site wac actively maintained as a golf
course from 3.978 until 2012, at which point the course closed and was listed for sale. The owners have
continued to mow the site over the past year in an effort to maintain the greens despite the closure of
the facility, anticipating that the site will be sold and restored to a fully functional golf course by the
new owners.
There are four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Henry Fork located on the Site: UT1, UTz, UT3.A, and
UT16. UT1 generally flows south to north and joins Henry Fork at the downstream property limits.
Ponds z, 3, and 4 are located along UT1. UTz enters the property from the west and flows due east for
approximately 1,000 LF, then makes a go degree turn to the north and flows another 95o LF tojoin
Henry Fork. UT1A begins at the confluence of two hillslope seeps at the edge of the Henry Fork
floodplain and flows from south to north to meet UT1. UT16 originates within the property limits and
flows from east to west before its confluence with UT1 upstream of Pond 2. Pond 1 is located on UT1B,
below its origination. UT1 and UT1B were identified as perennial streams on August 21, 2013, and
September 3, 2013, using the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification
Forms. UT1A and UTz were identified as intermittent streams. Copies of these forms are included in
Appendix B. In addition to the project streams, there are also a series of manmade ditches throughout
Henry Fork's floodplain which were constructed to drain the greens. The streams, ponds, and ditches
are all depicted on Figure 2. Details about the existing streams are provided in Section 5.2.2, below.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site - Part 5

5.2.2 Existing Conditions - Streams
UT1
UT1 enters the Site at the southern property boundary and flows north through a confined, forested
valley. The stream here is steep and has stable, bedrock step -pool morphology and is similar to a
Rosgen A/B -type stream. Canopy species along UT1 include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red
maple (Acerrubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
NEW CHANNEL ERODING IN
white oak (Quercus alba). The understory contains
American holly (11ex opaca), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), scurwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and tag
alder (Alnus serrulata). The forested buffer along the
right bank ranges from 5 to z5 feet before abruptly
transitioning to open fairway. Several hundred feet into
the Site, UT1 becomes incised and the banks are actively
scouring (Figure 2). The stream is located along the left
valley wall and is similar to a Rosgen G -type stream with
a low bankfull width -to -depth ratio, a low entrenchment
ratio, and a high bank height ratio (in excess of 3.o).
Downstream, an alderthicket growing in the stream bed
provides grade control for the stream. UT1 becomes
dominated by fines as it nears the thicket, and the right
stream bank height decreases. UT1 is still located along the
left valley wall, however now the stream channel is higher
than the bottom of the valley, located in the right floodplain.
It appears that UTa. has jumped the right bank in this location
during storm events and engaged the valley bottom. Erosion
and stream sediment deposition is present along the valley
bottom where UTi is carving a new stream channel.
Downstream of the alder thicket, UT1 drops approximately 2
feet and becomes an incised, Rosgen G -type stream once
again. UT1Bjoins UT1 below this area. UTi's incision and
confinement increases downstream and bank heights ratios continue to increase
condition until it flows into Pond z, a large, inline impoundment.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site— Part 5
. UTi continues in this
Page 5.4

Pond z is the largest pond on the Site and is used as a water
source for the golf course's irrigation system. A pump
house is located along the downstream side of the dam.
Pond YS primary spillway is a concrete riser structure and its
emergency spillway is an earthen swale located along the
left valley wall. Recent storms have engaged the
emergency spillway and caused mass erosion, transporting
boulder -sized blocks of saprolite into the UTi floodplain
below the pond. Scour is present at the outlet of Pond z's
primary spillway and there is an approximate 3 -foot drop to
the streambed. This dam is at risk of failure: failure would
contribute mass amounts of sediment to onsite streams and Henry Fork. UTi continues 15o LF below
this outlet as a maintained ditch before entering a ioo LF long concrete culvert, which carries the
stream under two cart paths. UT1 exits the culvert and flows briefly through a wooded area before
returning to the golf course greens. UTi has a low bankfull width to depth ratio here but is not
entrenched and would be most closely classified as a straightened, maintained Rosgen E -type stream.
It is important to note that an E -type stream is a classically stable stream type and UTi is not stable:
the stream is actively maintained as a ditch, is overgrown with herbaceous vegetation, lacks a defined
low flow channel, and is disconnected from the floodplain with a bank height ratio of around 1.3. The
stream lacks a woody, riparian buffer. Instream and stream bank vegetation is dominated by wetland
species including arrowhead duck potato (Sagittaria spp.),
Asiatic dayflower (Murdannia keisak), jewelweed (Impatiens
i
capensis), rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides), soft stem rush
(Juncos effuses), and tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum).
According to property owners, this vegetation is cut and
sprayed at least twice a year, on average. Beyond top of bank,
vegetation has been routinely maintained and is comprised of
golf course grasses. Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are
regularly utilized in the riparian zone. UTi flows through
another culvert under a cart path before entering Pond 3.
UTi-'s condition downstream of Pond 3 is similar to its
condition upstream: the stream is maintained as an overgrown ditch. UT1 flows through another
culvert under a cart path before entering Pond 4. Downstream of Pond 4, UTi flows northwest to
southeast for approximately Soo LF before turning go degrees north towards Henry Fork. UT1 is deeply
incised as it drops to meet Henry Fork, with bank height ratios exceeding 1.5 and bank heights reaching
up to 10 feet tall at the confluence.
Cross sectional surveys were conducted on UTi and are provided in Appendix B for review. Four cross
sections are provided to illustrate the different forms of UTz throughout the site; one on the stable
upstream portion of the stream (XS1), one on the incised portion of UT1 within the woodline upstream
of Pond z (XS3), one in the maintained ditch section of UT1 upstream of Pond 4 (XS5), and one several
hundred feet upstream of UT1's confluence with Henry Fork (XS6). Due to a lack of reliable bankfull
indicators in the maintained channels; bankfull stage was estimated using the published NC Piedmont
Regional Curve (Harman et.al., lggg) and the revised NC Piedmont and Mountain Regional Curve
(Walker, unpublished) as guides to assist with channel metrics calculations.
A reachwide pebble count was also conducted on UT1 upstream of Pond z to characterize the
sediments delivered by the watershed. The reachwide pebble count is provided in Appendix B.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site - Part 5
Page 5.5

The locations of the cross sections and sediment survey are provided on Figure z.
UTsA
UT1A originates at the confluence of two hillslope seeps
located near the steep north facing hillside on the eastern half
of the site. The channel flows northward through the wide,
maintained floodplain of Henry Fork to its confluence with
UT1. A small portion of the reach flows through a cart path
culvert in the middle of the reach. The stream is relatively
straight and has been manipulated to improve surface
drainage. Similarto lower portions of UT1, the channel is
maintained as an overly wide ditch, engulfed by herbaceous
vegetation. Due to historic manipulation the channel lacks well- formed riffle and pool habitat diversity.
UT1A most closely classifies as a straightened Rosgen E -type stream, but the stream is not stable and is
actively maintained with a bank height ratio around 1.3. The channel also has no riparian buffer to
shade the stream and cool water temperatures. Instream and stream bank vegetation is dominated by
herbaceous wetland species similar to those listed for UTi. Maintained golf course grasses dominate
the floodplain vegetation beyond top of bank.
UTzB
UT1B begins at a groundwater seep upstream of Pond 1 and
flows westward to its confluence with UTi. Upstream of the
pond the channel is relatively stable with a partially forested
buffer. The left floodplain is comprised of young canopy and
understory species including American beech, American holly,
red maple, sweetgum, and tulip poplar. The right floodplain is
maintained golf course grasses. UT113 flows through Pond 1 and
is discharged through a culvert pipe at the southern end of the
pond berm. Downstream of the pond the stream is incised with
a bank height ratio of 1.6. The lower portion of UT1B has been
channelized to direct flow across the golf course. A slug of sand
and gravel sized material has been deposited along the left
bank of the reach in the middle of the fairway. The sediment is
the result of out of bank events from UTi which has engaged
the lower center of the valley. The lower portion of UT1B has
little to no riparian buffer. Stream bank vegetation is
dominated by herbaceous species including blackberry (Rubus
spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), jewelweed, Japanense
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Joe Pye weed (Futhrochium
purpureum), and tearthumb. The floodplain beyond top of bank
is maintained golf course grasses.
A cross sectional survey was conducted on UT16 to characterize the ditched portion of the stream. XSz
is provided in Appendix B for review. The location of the surveys are provided on Figure z. Similar to
UTiA and the lower reaches of UTi, UT1B most closely classifies as a straightened Rosgen E -type
stream, but the stream is not stable and is actively maintained with a bank height ratio around 1.6.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.6
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

V,Tz
UT2 has-been historically ditched and,straightened to improve .
site drainage: Similar, to other onsite channels, UTz has been
maintained as%an overly Wide ditch. UT! classifies asa
straight, Rosgen F -type stream, with,a high"w,idth -to -depth
ratio, a low, entrenchment - ratio',, and�a;high_bahk�hei,'ghtxatio.'
Channel:incision has occurred in the lower half of the reach as
UT,2 has downcutatomeet the elevation of Henry Fork. Bank
heights in the'lower portion ofUT2 reach over 20 feet and "the
bank height ratio�exceeds 3.4•..,U;T._z:lacks:riffle "and pooLhabitat
—� _
and has no riparian ,buffer,torshade_tlie'charinel and lower
water temperatures. The channel, bedrta'ndaower stream banks are covered, in wetland species including,
arrowhead duck potato', Asiatic da, ;Jloiiver- "Cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis); jewelweed, rice cut
grass; river birch (BetuCa.n, "igra }aplings;so. ft sfem rush, straw = colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus):and
tearthumb_. The uppersbank species-include burdock (Arcfium spp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium ), goldenrod, joe'Pye_w,eed a'rid wirigstem (Verbesina alternifolia). Golf course grasses
dominate the floodplain..
A cross sectional,su_rve,y wasrconducted;'on UT to ch4taciedze,thedeep, canal -like nature of'the
stream." XS4 is provided inAppendix�,B_,for.'review.
5:2.2 Existing 'Conditions' – 'Wetlands =
The proposedstream,,and wetland restoration projeet.includes 4.0.acres of proposed'wetland'
restoration., These proposed wetland restoration areas,ar"e located near the, base of a, large hilWope and
within the floodplain:of Henry' ,Fork: Soils:in these.areas'are mapped prima-ply.as Hatboro loarn,(HaA)
arid,Woolwine- Fairview,cornplex: Th:ese;aeeas, lack vegetation ,typicaltof�Piedmont'bottomland
hardwood forest,wetlands. Golf course:grasses are the primary vegetation: "Legacy tree species
inefu_ding box elder, "red maple,, sweetgum, �andsycamoreare <sparsely."seattered throughout: The
channelization ofstreams and extensive ;floodplain alterat_ion,;i _.uding ditching and pond excavation;
have..decreased site hydrology. In addition:spoil dirt from pond excavation was pread across portions
of the site, resulting in buried,hydric soils, On -site investigations by.a'regi5tered soil scientist indicated
three, "soil unit's of ,relic hydric soils as.detailed in the�soils�report included in .Appendix B. Unit s�is
characterized,by undisturbed relic,hydric'soils;,,.Unit".2'is characterized­by,relic hydric soils buried'by fill
material that has developed hydric characteristics; and Unit,_3.is cha*racterized.by relic hydric,soils buried
by'fili material that,ha`s not developed hydric characteristics. It'is'the opinion ofth soiiscientist these
three delineated units provide opportunities for wetland restoration. The soil scientist report is
included in the"Appendix ;B. The drainage effect from:golf course° c _onstruction,,channehzed'stream
conditions, ditch networks and the lack of +surface, water retention in,the fl'oodplain has impaired
wetland, hydrology and,functi0n -.
5.2.3 W,atershed'Ch&c cterization
The Henry Fork IVlitigation Site is located'witH the Targeted Local Watershed o3o5oio2oioo3o and
NCD.WQ subbasih 63 -W35. AIl.onsitetril?uta_ries drain to Henry Forkwhich "is,classified as_ Class C
Waters;by NCDWQ. Topography, as indicate666 -the Hickory, NC USG57.5 ininu,te,topograph'ic
quadrangle, "shows moderately sloped an, dasteep areas; as well -as low slope;Wetland:com,plexes draining
north toward Henry Fork_(Figure 3).
Wildland's Engineering, Inc. Pageg.7
Henry Fo&Streani'& 'W"etland Mitigation Site — Part,5

Dralna-qe ,afeasfovthe project reaches were determined by.,delin I eating watersheds -using 2490
c6otour i ntervals.de rived from Eight Detection And Ranging (LJDA_R) data obtained in 2007-from.ihe
W6fthtarollna Flood plain,Mapping Program. Figure 4!5_hows-the watershed boundaries fortho Site.
Labd uses draining,-to the projqct reaches,are primarily grass/herbaceous, forested, and residential, The
watershed areas�and current land-use are summarized in Table. 5 _2,,below,
Table 5.2 Drainaye,Areas and,Assoeiated Land Use-
qhN6
RiE�k: , 4.
1 xisting
NCDWO.-Stf
`6'ffi,
W, "OWe-d-
- - C[II&
t� odorus loam soils donsist of, nearlV16dL very deepi
-a
!R'C
Iddfitifkaftidi�,
,8rea
floodplain areas. Shfinik swell poteiiii-al'is low. The'5e_sciils'*
:arefreqtjeritly-fldoded.
t
'I�an'g i9e r'56i 1s�a re,,typI'Cql IV,'fpyqd'i O,fllbodp[ai ns�§fthe
Dan,Rhf�r l6am
;Ri6d - mont andare,deeived:f'rom:igneous;and metam-6rph ic
IY­ I
rock They are very-deep, well'-drained soils with moderately
_s) z_
,"h pjWheab,ility. This'soi1j's freqiql�e6tly fl6ode&'
,Haiboro soils -aret
_ypI IlVfQqhd in depre�ssionsbffloodpl
pains
Hatboro W-rh
'and 'are 'afe deriVedffdO igheomand-metamorphic rock. They
s
45%tgras,7heebatebUS7 z8%
UT:L
3,26i^ -
39.
forested; _i6% residential, i%
open,water
0A _/herbaceous 5�6
3 1� 7 gri4ss I ­ - . --i
UTI��,
j4o •
_27-75
lo% residential; -2%
impe ious'�
44%forested;.2.8%,
UT:iB
B
473
30.25
3
grass /herbaceous; 27%
-residential; 1% openWater
_55%,grais�s/herbat
-42005�' 45%
UT2
1,_953
27 'T
66
forested
Includes 6- LF f i I
4W U DLIC:CJIIIwhich s,currenLyimpounded.
B:: Includ6s 51 LF 6fstream whi�h is currently impounded.
5.2.4 ­50i
Theflood pjl� in areas of the p- r
mapped e Caitawba,C6unty:S6il'Surve Soils in
asCodoiruslo�rn, D�n,RiVee,l'-am,,H,*atb6f,61bi§i�i,,Poplar Forest
the,project'area floodp a! e�m apped 0
Arov6llysancly loarn And \/V,061wine-Fairfax.-c-brholOx-�, These soils ar6,described'bel6wjn Tabl A
`56ik �,Map� is provided in Figure ;S -.
T dble-5-3 - Pt6jettSoil Types aiidDesEtiptiont
irne�
esipp, tqijf
t� odorus loam soils donsist of, nearlV16dL very deepi
Co-'dorus loam
'somewha't poorly drained soils. Th ar _t
e�! e yjpicallyfound in
floodplain areas. Shfinik swell poteiiii-al'is low. The'5e_sciils'*
:arefreqtjeritly-fldoded.
'I�an'g i9e r'56i 1s�a re,,typI'Cql IV,'fpyqd'i O,fllbodp[ai ns�§fthe
Dan,Rhf�r l6am
;Ri6d - mont andare,deeived:f'rom:igneous;and metam-6rph ic
rock They are very-deep, well'-drained soils with moderately
,"h pjWheab,ility. This'soi1j's freqiql�e6tly fl6ode&'
,Haiboro soils -aret
_ypI IlVfQqhd in depre�ssionsbffloodpl
pains
Hatboro W-rh
'and 'are 'afe deriVedffdO igheomand-metamorphic rock. They
`are very deep, wdll-draine�d Soils with,rhoderafelly Hig'h
-d
,,ermgpbjliq. Thls,��dilisfrequeritl"66d"e
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site —N.rt S-
Page 5.8

5.2.5 CTOFO�Ibgy
The 5ite'is located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont
is` c• i.arat-tetized,b,y:genfiV,-,ebllih*4,Well.-,"rounded hills With long low ridges, with elevations rang ingr,from,
lrfni2rPied*moni-,consists-cif metamorphosed igneous,and
sedimentary -roc ,nc uc, ing gneiss and,schisithat has been intruded'by younger granitic rocks
Accqrdlri­��i&th6 G-6616g --,Ma"p _Ps
9 6M6rth Car.qlina (i985), the, underlying, geology of the prop
a-qe,(qpp,to,S6o million years in a&)`
-am oss'(00)-i -
phibolit� and This unit is,clestribed asinteelayerecl beds ofbQmblencle gneiss;
,meta,ga!bbro,,-mi'caschist-,,,6nd granitic rock--
-Sciurces:
6edlbgieMap of N 0 `rt C#6 inal*:L506,00b scale.
Colirripiled by,PhilipM..i3bw.n:At,e,l.,-P'�l�igb, NC, Nolfth Carofina 6e6l&§ical Sbrvey.
C&hurq1-R6qurces - _
The Site is-Ibcated.,ona,golf.�'co'-u'r-s'e,-t-hatopened*in 1978.. There areexisting buildings built in the -1970s,
and 1g8os associated w itK-6 e,ci6lf c6u rse,by'f none -a re"I ocated wif hin the p roject:ea seme nt bouih6r
- - - - _ - _: _' ' _ , Y.
The.site is,moflocated, near any;sites'listed4on the National Registerwith the State,Hi'S toric'Preservation
'I
'Office (SHIP,'Q,),'The,6r hae6lociit'al site,fil6s_�atlhe'North Carolina- Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
have not be n reviewed,ai"this time.:'All a' p p ropii6te,cultural resourc e agencies Will be contacted for
their review and comment prior t land disturbing jqcfi��,
-oarky-. disturbing __
,5.2-7' - Threaiened,an&End6 - nqored,­Species'
'The, U'S'Fishaild-Wi Id I ife�,­S-'e N,,i(fe 'N ('NzitUr6l Heritage Program (NH P) databases were
s-eartKed'forf6d&ally 1&oMthneat6necl and end6nger6d,'plai)t and animal ,species- , for Catawba County,
NC. Three fecetall',listecspecies; the bald eagle (HWW6t&s leUt6tephd1fs)- the dwarf- flowered
- - I
fieaftleaif (f4exa-sty[A ha4ifbra), and Scfiw6hitz's su'rifIldweFftlian thus schWeintzfl) a.mcUrrently listed
lh,Cit6WbaC6unty(-r-able,,5.4).,A,pedestrian, survey,conductedon,-Sep'teriiber 3, .20ij'."i-ndic6t6dth-6,site,
has no,potential bald.eagfe habitat and, minor areas of potential dwarf - flowered hekileaf:and
Schwel , nitz't sunflowerhabitat. Field review of the..potential' habitat areas found no individual species.
W'Wildlands Engineerin,gj Inc. 'Page 5-.9
Henry Fork!Stream 84'Wetland Mitigation Site = Part 5
'.Description.
Pbplaffo_rests6ils a0--6 %slb-pes are:f6uhd$n interfluves at
tileftop of'slqpes. They are w0l,drainedLand consist of
Pcipjafr rorest*,av6lly
Poplar
residuum derived from mica schistaind/or othe(,jmi'Ucebus
sandy loam,,2-6 %5l'opes
metamorphic rock; This soil 'isvery deep with a water table
more than,8o inches from the surface'.'Poplar'Forest soils are
not,frequently flobdecl,
P;:pIar_F'('restdrav61lv
Poplar Fo esi,soil's at 6,--id'0A sIopes, are found in hillslope-S on
"sandy l6aft 6-10 %
ridges. This;scoil is W611-cliraihed`ancl typicMly not-flooded oe-
sl­
poncled.
Fairfax -found in hillslopes,on ridges..,, Fairfax complex'is
This soil.'is�well drained.and,consisfs of,saprolite,derved fr om:
ispffisVand/or -'gn6iss. This sbks Mocf& teivshaijoW, and-is
formed 8o inches above thematertable.. Woolwine- Fair(akf.
soils are.notfrecIverlily flooded. -
Source: Catawba County- oil Survey, USDA -NIRCS, http://ef6tg.nrcs.usda,:gov
5.2.5 CTOFO�Ibgy
The 5ite'is located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont
is` c• i.arat-tetized,b,y:genfiV,-,ebllih*4,Well.-,"rounded hills With long low ridges, with elevations rang ingr,from,
lrfni2rPied*moni-,consists-cif metamorphosed igneous,and
sedimentary -roc ,nc uc, ing gneiss and,schisithat has been intruded'by younger granitic rocks
Accqrdlri­��i&th6 G-6616g --,Ma"p _Ps
9 6M6rth Car.qlina (i985), the, underlying, geology of the prop
a-qe,(qpp,to,S6o million years in a&)`
-am oss'(00)-i -
phibolit� and This unit is,clestribed asinteelayerecl beds ofbQmblencle gneiss;
,meta,ga!bbro,,-mi'caschist-,,,6nd granitic rock--
-Sciurces:
6edlbgieMap of N 0 `rt C#6 inal*:L506,00b scale.
Colirripiled by,PhilipM..i3bw.n:At,e,l.,-P'�l�igb, NC, Nolfth Carofina 6e6l&§ical Sbrvey.
C&hurq1-R6qurces - _
The Site is-Ibcated.,ona,golf.�'co'-u'r-s'e,-t-hatopened*in 1978.. There areexisting buildings built in the -1970s,
and 1g8os associated w itK-6 e,ci6lf c6u rse,by'f none -a re"I ocated wif hin the p roject:ea seme nt bouih6r
- - - - _ - _: _' ' _ , Y.
The.site is,moflocated, near any;sites'listed4on the National Registerwith the State,Hi'S toric'Preservation
'I
'Office (SHIP,'Q,),'The,6r hae6lociit'al site,fil6s_�atlhe'North Carolina- Office of State Archaeology (OSA)
have not be n reviewed,ai"this time.:'All a' p p ropii6te,cultural resourc e agencies Will be contacted for
their review and comment prior t land disturbing jqcfi��,
-oarky-. disturbing __
,5.2-7' - Threaiened,an&End6 - nqored,­Species'
'The, U'S'Fishaild-Wi Id I ife�,­S-'e N,,i(fe 'N ('NzitUr6l Heritage Program (NH P) databases were
s-eartKed'forf6d&ally 1&oMthneat6necl and end6nger6d,'plai)t and animal ,species- , for Catawba County,
NC. Three fecetall',listecspecies; the bald eagle (HWW6t&s leUt6tephd1fs)- the dwarf- flowered
- - I
fieaftleaif (f4exa-sty[A ha4ifbra), and Scfiw6hitz's su'rifIldweFftlian thus schWeintzfl) a.mcUrrently listed
lh,Cit6WbaC6unty(-r-able,,5.4).,A,pedestrian, survey,conductedon,-Sep'teriiber 3, .20ij'."i-ndic6t6dth-6,site,
has no,potential bald.eagfe habitat and, minor areas of potential dwarf - flowered hekileaf:and
Schwel , nitz't sunflowerhabitat. Field review of the..potential' habitat areas found no individual species.
W'Wildlands Engineerin,gj Inc. 'Page 5-.9
Henry Fork!Stream 84'Wetland Mitigation Site = Part 5

Table S.4 Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Catawba County, NC
5.2.8 Floodplain Compliance
Henry Pp Fork is mapped in a Zone AE
Species
Federal Status
Habitat
Vertebrate
Bald eagle
BGPA
Near large open water bodies: lakes,
(Haliaeetus leucoce halus)
marshes, seacoasts, and rivers
Vascular Plant
portion of not
Along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy
Dwarf- flowered heartleaf
T
areas next to streams and creek heads, and
(Hexastylis naniflora)
along the slopes of nearby hillsides and
_ ZONE x
Mapping Program. A no -rise condition
ravines.
Schweinitz's sunflower
Full to partial sun in areas with poor soils,
(Helianthus schweinitzh)
E
such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry.
BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; E = Endangered; T= Threatened
5.2.8 Floodplain Compliance
Henry Pp Fork is mapped in a Zone AE
i
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on
Catawba County Flood Insurance Rate
Map Panel 2791. Base flood elevations
have been defined and a floodway has
been delineated. UT1A, UT2, and a
UT1 do have designated'
portion of not
SFHAs but do lie within the SFHA of
Henry Fork. Effective hydraulic
for
ZONE AE
modeling Henry Fork will be
obtained from the NC Floodplain
_ ZONE x
Mapping Program. A no -rise condition
r:
will be pursued if compatible with
Priority 1 restoration and enhancement
"'+
grading. If a no -rise condition is not
}
\. \; - ..
attainable, then a CLOMR will be
prepared. Wildlands' engineers have successfully navigated the CLOMR process for several similar full -
delivery project sites. A LOMR will be completed if required after construction using as -built survey
data.
5.2.9 Site Constraints and Access
The project site is accessible off of Mountain View Road. The proposed mitigation approach includes
only one potential easement crossing which will be located outside the easement area (see Figure 7).
The necessity of this crossing depends on the sale of the remaining wooded hillside parcel: Wildlands
anticipates selling the wooded hillside parcel to the adjacent landowner, in which case the easement
crossing would not be necessary. The potential crossing will not dictate the stream or wetland design
and it is excluded from the mitigation credit calculation for the site. If required, a culvert crossing will
be designed and constructed.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.10
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

Irrigation lines with,pop -up sprinkler heads; installed to.water the,golf course greens and tee boxes, are
located throughout the proposed easement areas. These lines will be decommissioned and removed
from the conservation easement as part of the project. An existing pump house Js located near Pond 2,
which, was used as a water source for the irrigation system, The pond and pump•house will also be
removed as part of the project, and any utilities servicinglit,will be decommissioned,and removed from
within -the easement.'limits..
All streams proposed formitigation credit,provide the - required minimum riparian buffer'for Piedmont
streams. Sections of streams within the proposed- project;) mits that ,do,not,provide the minimum
buffer widths are excluded from mitigation credit,calculation, including,a short length of UTiiin
preservation condition at the upstream extent of the=projecf=and where UTi,ties into the Henry Fork at
the,downstream extent of theproject. These,areas will,.& proiected'with conservation easements, but
are not proposed for mit'igatioh credit. The easement area will`be marked per NCEEP Guidelines for
Full Delivery Requirement for,Completion,of Survey for Conservation Easements (j/7 /2oi2). There are
no other known,constraints on'the'proposed project site',".
There are two known airports located within 5 miles of project site. :.The.Hickory Regional Airport is
located approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the site. This.airport isspublically :owned with twoasphalt
runways and services on average uz aircraft.operations a day. Wilson's airport is +located
- 4 pproximately 3:miles;south of the site. Wilson's•is a priVately owned airport with.one;turf -runty_ ay-and
services:or► average 67 aircraft operations a month. (www.airnay.com)
The entire easement area can be accessed for construction,.monitoring, and longterm stewardship.
- fromeexisting site access;points,located along Mountairi'W w Road (Figure,7,):, VlJildlands has executed
an option agreement to purchase the property'fee simple,,andwill`ensure.the rig ht.ofentry'abilities'of
Wildlands, its contractors, and the future easement holder•in anyfuture land transactions.
-.'S.3- Project' Development
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function.to the'streams; riparian
corridors, and W- etlands' on the Henry Fork project;site' The project design,will ensure °that no aaV,6rse
impacts to existing wetlands or riparian buffers occur. Different management objectives are proposed
for different portions of the project area. These activities%are discussed below and summarized in Table
' 5.5. Figure-7 illustrates the conceptua'Idesigns for the Site:
The major-goals of project'restoration•will be to improve water.quality in_thetowee Henry Fork .
watershed,by filtering nutrients;and reducing sediment inputs through buffer reestablishment, to
'achieve improvedfloodplain and wetland function, and to'improve habitat=for macroinvertebrate .-and
aquatic coriimunities through removal of migration barriers in the forms,ofponds and "culverts;
reestablishment ;ofnaturalistreamufunction,,bed form,structure,:and reduction in sedimentation. The
project will also result in the decommission a golf course, which was managedth(qug- Hiberal
application of.herbicides, pesticides, and fertilize rs,.a long, tributaries which,directlydrain to a 303(d)
listed waterway in a targeted local watershed.
5.3.1 Streams
-The -1978 alteration of the'Site•forthe Henry River.Golf Course included stream relocation,
modification, arid'impoundment ;,ditching throughout the site to improve•drainage; and,floodplain-fll
to create greens,and tee.boxes. The conditionof all onsite streams can be generally characterized.as
highly,disturbed and channelized.
`M 'Wildlands Engineering, Inc, Page 5• 1i
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site - Part-5

With the exception of a small, bedrock step -pool portion of UT1
located near the upstream project extents, UT1 is highly modified
F and degraded throughout the Site. The stream is currently
channelized along the valley wall upstream of Pond 2, and actively
a . , maintained as a ditch that runs through several culverts and Ponds
until s confluence Fork. gg
the va le Y wa I the stream is dee I inc ed a d Where
ank heights range
up to 5 feet. Between the ponds and out to Henry Fork, UT1 has
been channelized into a straight, herbaceous ditch with no
bedform diversity and very poor habitat potential. Full restoration ,
using a Priority i approach, is proposed on UT1 to correct the
dimension, pattern, and profile deficiencies of the existing stream.
. Restoration efforts will begin just downstream of the bedrock where the valley begins to widen and continue through the
P Y 9 9
Site to UT1's confluence with Henry Fork. In the upstream reach,
STEP POOL RESTORA I • UT1 will be relocated to the center of the valley, reconnected to
available floodplain, and provided bed form diversity through
profile development to include steps, pools, and riffles. The channel dimension will be modified to
provide a bankfull channel connected to the floodplain, eliminating incision and promoting hydrologic
connectivity. Plan form will be adjusted to provide UT1 with an alignment appropriate for its channel
type. As UT1 enters the larger floodplain of Henry Fork, we will continue with a Priority i restoration of
dimension, pattern, and profile. The exact alignment of UTs through the Henry Fork floodplain will be
subject to further existing condition analyses and discussions with the IRT. Historic aerials from 1939 to
1976 showtwo drainage features in the approximate current alignments of UT1 and UT2; however, it is
unclear if UT1 followed the alignment closest to its current path through Ponds 3 and 4, or if itjoined
UTz at the go degree bend and headed straight north to Henry Fork along the current alignment of
UTz. Both drainage patterns presented on the historic aerials are clearly disturbed and ditched and
there is no evidence of remnant
channels or meander scrolls to indicate
where these two streams originally
flowed. Further research and review will
be conducted upon award of a contract.
Final design will include removal of
Ponds 2, 3, and 4 and all culvert
crossings so that UT1 will be restored to
free - flowing condition without barriers
to fish and aquatic species passage. The
stream length designed and mitigation
credit achieved will not change based on
UT1's final alignment.
UT1A is currently maintained as a straight, herbaceous ditch, devoid of bedform, habitat diversity, or a
wooded riparian buffer. Proposed Wetland 1 is located on either side of UT1A, and in its current ditch -
like configuration, UT1A threatens the hydrology of the proposed wetland. As part of the restoration of
Wetland i, UT1A will be restored through Wetland 1 to create a wetland /stream complex. Initial review
of aerial imagery dating back to 1939 suggests that there has always been a linear drainage feature near
UT1A that connects directly to Henry Fork, and as such it is proposed that UT1A is kept in its
approximate original alignment and continued downstream from Wetland 1 tojoin Henry Fork. UT1A's
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

alignment is conceptual at this stage of the project and is contingent on further analysis, review, and
concurrence by the IRT. If research supports it, UTiA may instead be routed through Wetland i tojoin
UTi_ near the middle of the Henry Fork floodplain. For either alignment, UT1A enhancement efforts will
begin at the intermittent /ephemeral break at the toe of the hillslope. The stream bed will be raised as
appropriate to prevent dewatering of Wetland 1, and channel dimension will be modified to create
proper bankfull geometry that is connected to the floodplain. The bedform and profile will be restored,
and habitat structures will be installed. A meandering pattern will also be restored. Although this
stream will be fully restored, Enhancement Level I credit is sought due to the intermittent status of
UT1A.
Pond 1 is located on UT2Bjust downstream from its headwaters.
Below Pond 1, UT1B is maintained as a straightened, overgrown,
herbaceous ditch until its confluence with UTi. The stream is
devoid of bedform diversity and lacks appropriate
geomorphology due to constant maintenance. Restoration to
correct dimension, pattern, and profile on UT1B will beginjust
downstream of the stream's origin within the project limits.
Pond i will be removed and a single thread, Priority 1 channel
will be designed and constructed through the old bed.
Restoration will continue on UT16 downstream of the old pond
to UT1B's confluence with UT1. A Priority :L restoration
approach will be used to restore a free flowing stream condition,
to reconnect the incised sections of UTiB to its floodplain, and
to restore appropriate geomorphology to the portions of UT1B
that were maintained as a ditch.
UTz is currently maintained as a deep, canal -like ditch. The stream is overtaken by herbaceous
vegetation and there is no defined low flow channel. The bottom width of the existing channel is 10
feet wide on average, and channel bank heights range from 4 -5 feet high near the upstream project
extents to over 10 feet high near Henry Fork. The drainage area to this system is approximately o.10
square miles, and regional curves prepared for the area suggest an appropriate bankfull channel size of
4 to 4.5 square feet for this drainage area (Harman et.al., lggg, Walker, unpublished). Because the
stream is so deep, its current condition threatens to dewater restored wetlands in its floodplain
(Wetland 2) as well as the hydrology to restored UT1. For these reasons, as well as the lack of any
existing instream bedform diversity or varied habitats, a restoration approach is proposed for UTz. The
stream bed will be raised up onto the existing floodplain, the alignment will be meandered, and the
profile will be modified to include pools, runs, and habitat features. The stream channel dimension will
be corrected as well, resulting in a smaller cross section with a defined low flow channel. In an effort to
increase the hydrologic connectivity of the Site, we propose that UT2's alignmentjoin UTi near the
existing go degree bend in UTz instead of routing the channel directly to Henry Fork. The restoration
goal throughout the Site is to restore streams to their historic alignments to the greatest extent
possible, and final alignments will be contingent on further existing condition analyses and IRT review
and approval. Although this stream will be fully restored, Enhancement Level I credit is sought due to
the intermittent status of UT2.
Restoration and enhancement efforts across the project streams will diversify the bedform, increase
habitat availability, and improve flow conditions. Dissolved oxygen content should also increase due to
designed structure re- aeration points and increased shading through buffer restoration and
impoundment removal.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.13
Henry Fork Strearn & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

Alfreaches on the'projL:-'ct,will'be'desigri6d,to create new stable functional sired chann -'Is based on
'_ - ' ' __­ '_ create - ! - I . - -m- e
reference reach and se'dirqq!nt�trzinspqq��nalys\es. Dimensiorij.'patterni-anid ph-q file will be designedlto�
allow forfrequent.4 ver'bzfnk flooding, projvi& h
staibleb rkslop�s.atfdia able bicAciaical,lift. T_ hl
,approaA will p rovid e, hyc(rblog i t. connectivity beivVes e n creeks-.,zihd'fl(j6dplaint•at.id will.IjM create
vertical,-and'lateral stability.., In, location . s wlf&e-wetIarfd potenfial exi'stsi ihe'str,6ams will lJ6,&§iqhb&js
part of a wetland/sfream'cdmplex;.enhaogihg the hydrologicfu-nction 6fthe wetland z'6ri6.R0-Mov1ihg
invasive Vegetatiomand- establishing stable,bank%slopes
will,allow for a native d diverse,rivarian�zorfe�fo
kv� an._ grow
whi6 will improve nutrient removal:- X&v6rse bedform.
.will ,prov!aekna0lialTor,o.nirIcreas.eo'npMD -qTspecies
of insects, fish, andamphibiains.-.-T.hi's cliverie beclform
will be established Vsing instrearn-structures
appro riate,forthe.'g-eomp - rp hi ic se tfing such a s lo a
weirs, ,Ioglypnes­and conStructecljriffles.- k.ardwood
trees°can.lbe,harvestecl from ,upla'hd,--a'reas*,a'r"o'uh-a'tWe-
propert y 'for log and-wood structures_
wiiaianoswik!..!?eg!,o,,tne,project,dyiaentitying,tne,t)est-:.,
design approach i meet the,stdted-p
rcqptt. bjecitives and.bin ple-rhent,the appropriate,'OegIree of,,:°.:
intervention.- A_,cqm_IJ_inati6n.of analog, erYipilrital,-and.,,analytital,design approaches,wiJI potent al!ybe
used. Rpference streams and Wetlands Will.be,,idehiffied and will',s&ve as one of primary sources rof,'
inf6rrhation on whith'deslgRs are based,, Md(delihd4fid 6t_h&:d6taiIed analys6s will be u§ed.ds
appropriate to- develop orverlfydesighs-,Wildlands;has.8e,v-el6p6d a general approach to'be used,asthe
basis for stream restoration dIesigfi,-and: has beglig' on-.going cooMination-with, EEP�o6 the. procedures.
The,djesign,approIach,which is tailored.ib each site- continues toclevOop.,as additional projectstare
'implemented. Sftyi.,of the key el-erh-ents',of,the;rh,et.Rbds'bfe3describ68'b6l6w..
Generallyi trearn designs WMII be based b7n:a des - igjn discharge range which, in most,cases, will be an
appro-Arri'atiori of l5ankfu'll disc`I­f�arg,Ci:'Wt Will-b",s0lected tom eet.the objectives dfithe design. The.
'disch'afrg-e,Will be det0emin-ed through detailed hy4rdiogic,ah4lys0s'using the bestd-vailable information
such a-slb4tal.drrLigi'ohjl,st'rebtngage
empirical,'regiprial,strearn flow estimates, hydrologic
modeling fL:isults,,and.fefer,ehce 'stream flows: Other discharges.(such as basefloW•or flows to support
instrearn,hJbitat,featu(6) Will also, be considered during the design process based on the specific
prbjet't:6bjdc",tivje9� TheAesign will', , be,reilned bry2iliSate'd-with.s6c(imeriifransi)ort:,analysis.
Sediment tran'sport,isanextremelycompli' tedprocessand't�fe'appropriate-levi�lpfatialysis,must�b-e
C-P , - - I
cletermine&for each specific design'. This,,determinaticirlJs basL,-d-.on,wat6rshed'assessrrient. Idital
stream observations, reference conditions, and other sources qfinformation. Generally, these
assessmentswill lead,to one oftwo levels,of,sedimenttran.spqrt analysis.a-nd,a,c.orrespjqndin--g design
approach. For,streams,thatare gravel or cobble-bed siies`4nd h-ave a1bw'bed load; threshold c'hIpin-Pok
can be designed based on discharae,and, sediment transport competen-ce,ana lysis;, Thesegharfh6lt ate
not'expectedA6 be prone to,excessiVe,:morph-olqgic.-ch2imgpand:tke,projec't,c?bj'ettiv6swill,i' cl'Ud'e-,that
channel slope, geoMetr si
y, and bedforms do nIpt-chancip ciriffican-fly ovey-firne.- Ofh&--streams,
including those with sa ncicrsi It-bedmaterial and Those that, h ave d*1 mode rate to' h ig h, bed Ida clv i I I
require more detailed sedi'ment trarisport�studio7s aand,mosi be.'designe-d as alluviaTchairinels. These,
conditions must;be considerecIvI estal5fishing,desigh objelctiVes'as alluvial channels are expected 16
adjustihje4!
r sIcip e,,geom*d4y drid,bedfcierff5'dVef --tiffie; In fhese4cjsL:i§ tiI,ttipbtit'ygna lysis-wi
W, Wildland'S'Engineering, Inc,
Henry Fork, Stream &. nd,M11iigptlidn. Site — Part. 5
Page 5-.14

collection and /or detailed modeling is an important component of the design. However, alluvial
channels will most often be designed with controls at key locations to prevent rapid, significant change.
Native riparian buffers a minimum of 5o feet from the proposed top of bank will be planted along all
restored and enhanced streams on the Site. In many instances, the buffer planting will extend far
beyond the required 5o -foot minimum buffer (Figure A In addition to planting a buffer along all the
project streams, Wildlands intends to restore a ioo -foot wooded buffer to the right bank of Henry Fork
in the project area. The floodplain of Henry Fork, as well as the area surrounding the restored and
enhanced streams, will be protected with a conservation easement. Areas between the planted buffers
on Henry Fork and the project streams and wetlands will be protected and allowed to naturally
regenerate on their own over time creating a large native floodplain, wetland, and stream complex of
over So acres.
5.3.2 Wetlands
The techniques described below will be used to restore a Piedmont bottomland forest stream and
wetland complex with a native natural community. The proposed wetland and stream project includes
two distinct wetland zones. The riparian wetland restoration adjacent to UT1 and UT1A is labeled as
Wetland 1 on the concept map shown in Figure 7. The riparian wetland restoration along UT2 is labeled
as Wetland z on the concept map shown in Figure 7.
As previously mentioned, the Site is a former golf
course that has been heavily graded and sculpted
to create raised tee boxes and greens and flat
fairways among other features. This manipulation
of the land has resulted in buried relic wetlands,
highly modified stream alignments, and significant
ditching and ponding. Grading will be required
within the wetland zones identified as having relic
hydric soils through on -site investigations by a
licensed soil scientist. In both wetland zones, the
estimated depth of grading required to uncover the
b AAh ; fth h d; N b t 8
une onzon o e y nc soi s is a weep I'ESTD&W, E.
and 20 inches. As discussed further below, grading
will be used in combination with other approaches to restore the former wetland hydrology to these
areas.
Wetland 1 will be restored by filling the adjacent network of perimeter drainage ditches including the
previous channel path and adjacent ponds, grading to remove overburden from relic hydric areas, and
raising the bed elevations of UTs and UT1A. Filling the perimeter drainage ditches and adjacent ponds
will reduce the drainage effects on Wetland 1. Filling the drainage ditch along the forested slope on the
south end of Wetland 1 will increase inundation from the groundwater seep and restore wetland
hydrology. Restoration of UTi will raise the channel bed and restore a natural flooding regime to
Wetland 1. As discussed in Section 5.3.1, above, UT1A will be enhanced through Wetland 1 by
addressing channel cross section and profile. Enhancing UT1A will result in a raised channel bed and a
restored natural flooding regime to Wetland 1, creating a wetland /stream complex.
Wetland 2 will be restored by filling drainage ditches to the east and northeast, grading to remove
overburden from relic hydric areas, and by raising the bed elevation of UT1 and UT2. Filling the
adjacent drainage ditches will decrease the drainage effect on Wetland i and encourage inundation and
ponding. The bed elevation of UT2 will be raised as part of the stream restoration. UT2 will be sized to
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.15
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

flood Wetland 2 frequently yw
which h wiII'rest_ore.,a_'nat.ura1 flo-6di6geegi�niz,,and're�,ult•ih decreased
clrainage}effectsIromfhe channel.
A,,--wdtl'anddforeslt,and;eipaei6n buffer w r 11l'be established Withi h,,tWWetljnd areas With ith the,gdtiVqf
reestablishing a.fiatura'I'Pie7dm6n't bott.dnhlaiid forest community. Veg!ethtion- planted in restored
Weilan d'areaswill Wbased on species idehtifiedWithln appropriate reference i6cations and
professiohal,expOrichte
based owsite conditions,.
ThJe-tir6zis:,-nofth,of,f he -Wefl5nd':ateas.!i:6t,"ihtl"UdL-d"in the stream�and wetlandbuffer will be,conservecl,
within the project easement an - dAll'WA6 , wedto reforest naturally. The,overall,result6f,'thiswork,w(II
be t6:recitt�iblish--a'P�iedhi6ht.bciit6m!'and,forest wetland ecosystem on the property which has
gre y -,j6clind'and, ditching for use as-a golf course facility.
Proposed _ffiltl�q_ tl;)n
The Site will be a,combinatidn,df' stream .-a.n-d'..�W- efla'ridrestorafibri. 4,5(?O, MUS and 4.o Riparian WMUs
are proposed (Table,5-.5.a'ncl Figure 7)_- -The'rnititiation creclitcalculaiion wasAerived usingahe US Army
Corps ofEngineers '�Str,e'am' MitTgatibn,GOida_n_c 6` -and was -'based on.Wildlands'cbnceptUal design -for
maximum ecological uplift. GiVen the existing conditions 6fthe stream channels and wetland zones
the disturbancefact
the, constrainis.,manaaement objectives for each ­reach fiaveibeen
established. The management objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of*sfream and
,
wetiand*mitigption,are"otesen'tedbeloW ---
As noted throughout Secti6n-5.-3j Wjildlands,,'intends io,"OypVide,addition-al-berief:l'ciaii'management
t -nd beyond the:scope ofttaclitionzil, mitigafion credit
objectives on this project that'are above,a
proposals. These'Peffbirts includb:
Preserving the bed rock,ste p -pool portion of UT'i a nd -p WCJ rig the area imcon servation
easement, but hotseekitg mitigation I ; t 'f&-t
he'effort.
Proposing.(estoration of dimension, pottern,.ano,,profile on both UTiA an&IJIT2i bOt only
seeki'ngthihancement Level.Lcredit d , uetdthese streams' intermittent status.
Planting o,ioo--fQQtbufferal6-rigthefi htlbank 6f'HehiY-F6Jr'k, a 363(cl),liste&strinm, Within the
project area and `Ordiedfihg the -a reawith a fi,ease teht, but nbt,sOe k1
gmitigati6n dredit.
Placing the entire Henry Fork floodplain within the project Ii its'under conservation easement.
This protectsan additional 30 acresbfflo6dpl6ih bufferih6t Will be. allowed- to naturally
re enerate,and provide additibriaj buffering to both.the.lproje`tt* reaches and the Henryfoek.
POrdhising;afid clecor!nmitsionihg,amehti're g6lf cbijfsej Which eliminates'ferfillzer, pesticide,
and herbicide inputs,Wh ich-Would othOrwise be routinely . app.116d to the Site during
maintenah-ce•ofthe, course.
lk� Wildland5 Engineering, Inc. Pa46,5.,i-6
H, enry roirk Str6am'& WetlafTd Mitig6tidn Site — Part'5

Table, S. 5 Mitigation Units proposed for the Henry Fork Mitigation Site
R_ 3,A
_-Xi.-T, 2,N,22.00_ VAK",
ffi
V N
bjectives'NA-­�
X,1
_u
afiagio0ont",
1Vpe-oFM1L1gd_L1
03209, o687-o690
'W'*W4—w� S�k,
�11A
Restore'appropiiate dimension, pattern,
and profile., install habitat structures,
Ufl,(Uppet)
Restoration
1,078
1:1
4,078
allow bankfull floodplain access.
Establish, native riparian - buffer.
.Restore appropriate dimension, pattern,
and profile. Install,. habitat, structures,
1.17`11(Lower)
'
allow'bankfull floodplaimaccess.
Restoration
_1,563'
1:1
1,563
Establ Ish -native riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern,
fA
anclprofile: Install habitat structures,
Enhancement 1
805
1:1.5
537
allowbankfLill,floodplain,access.
Establish. native riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern,
ancl,profile: Install.,habitat structures,
'440
allow bankfull'floodplain access.
Restoration
440
-.1:1-
Establish.native4rIpaeian buffer.
'Fest6re appropriate dimension,,pattern,,
and 'proflle. Install habitat-ftructures,
Enhancement 1
.1,323
1:1.5
882 .
all6w b rikfull.flo'odplain access
a
E sta bi Is h •native, r I pa ri a n'b uffer.
Total'
5;209
15 'SMUs
:4,00
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units,
Mitigation,Units
-,Reach-.-.
Management-ONecti4es
Type of Mitigation
Area (acres)
Ratio
{Riparian WMQs)
Rest6re'hydrol6gy'by- eliminating
Wetlaficl,
".-drainage ditches and raising stream
Restoration
4.0
1:1
A.0
Restoration
be&eIevations of UT1, UT1A and UT2.
Plant native wetland hardwoods.
Total
4.0 acres
5.5 Current Ownership:
The,Site is•locaied,on a single pa"rcel,ancl ownedilby one landowner, Henry River Gblf'Course,,Inc-.• A,
purchase agreementfor1he 0edperty-has been signed by the property owner and a, memorandum,-of
9 _
purchase ag"ireemeni is rekorded-at'the Catawba County Reg -of Deeds. The purchase,'agreelment- -
ster
allows Wildlands to acquire;the -property fee simple. As part of the proposed mitigation project;,
Wildlands Williacqtjire,the land a'ridres'irict,the landuse, in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
The landowner has,signed-the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the United State Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) to enter the site for assessment purposes prior to the Wildlands Purchase. Copies of
the recorded Memoranclu&of'Option and the Landowner Authorization Form are included in the
Appendix. The he landowner,, parcel identification number, and .cleecl-baok'ancl page.number for the
Memorandum of- Option are summarized in Table S.6.
Table,5.6 PropertyOwners for the Owl's Den Mitiyation,Site
Wildlands Engineeringi Inc. Page SAT
`Henry Fork,Strearn;& Wetland MitigationSite — Parts
--NU' WEI
emori"AW-Af f 0
Henry River Golf Course, Inc
2791o888019
03209, o687-o690
Wildlands Engineeringi Inc. Page SAT
`Henry Fork,Strearn;& Wetland MitigationSite — Parts

5.4: Pr6jeict"Phasiho
The Wiidljhds Team ha's experience. ,harid I iing tightly- sch'
ed0led'projetts With 'a riUrbberdfttakehblclosi
'We -UhdC-rst:dhd the i Mpoftahte,.pf cl6ar',t'6rrirbuftitatibh,6nd,adheeence to deadlines. We will establish
additional i'nterhaif cle ad lihesrtokeep the project- rriile§t6hes,on track. Each 'ttlsk;willb6>staffL-d,withihe
appropriate techinica [an&niaiiagI y ccnpledoh. jible:5.7
_proiid'et a,,su-rhmary of the major project 'ect milestones. 01
T6bleS-.7 Project Schedulejor thelHenry Foik Mitigation. Site
4�.Wddland.s En4neeriqg, Inc. Page�5.18
Henry Fo&Stream,&.Wptl@nd Mitigation Site— Part 5�
oW,',Tj1­me.'td_ 6M i 4io
P`r�q`p r sA E_f`d;`C`%' r- iijo 1 f RU —q— h-- b �_S' �_'i
—n
ne,
_P
r
(f btejor T
w:c
, _�orl
w hly;,
Task- tIE"Document, _
;kt
3,mojnths�
J014"
Task-'i. Submit Recorded
__,- Conservation Easeirrfent on
1 yeqr, •j months.
W '2 5:
the;Site;
Task -_ 7 :Mii1g6fi'_0n-Plan Approved•by
95-, 3
3. year
rua
ry
-
Task -.4,.-M.itig�tioh-Site,Ei�:r,,t
2 years
'February i, ioi6'
C mpleted,-
T_ ask-5. Mitigation e Planting and
_Sib
�
In stall'aiionof o_n.lt'oring._.
-2years, 2-months
April.lp2o16
Devices
Ba'selineIV116hit&.ing Report
(including As- Built Drawings)
2 years, 5 months
.July 1, 2oi6,
Appr6vedby-EEP
Task, . 'Submit Monitoring Report #1 9
to , EEO* (m 6efs sU(f_ce ss
j J�e j'r s so months
December31,-20W
criteria)
TasV8t Su"br-hit.,MoWforiLng Report-
#!'t6'11EEP'(meetS success
3 years, :10 months
Dd'cerriber31i2O1,7.'._.".'A'
Task 9'. Submit Monitoring Report
� E'E.P.
3 to - (i e
Tg. ts:s.y.c.cess
4yqqys,.iq months
December 3 1 201.8-.
Tfaisk-id, Sul3mit'M__o_h_i't­o_ei_hd_ R-4 . �boirt
44, toEEP•,(meets,su0cess-
5years, 3.o monthst
December 3ii 2biq;
,criteria)
Task ii. Submit-MonitoringRepbft
954o.EEP (meeis-succes;s -
6yqars, an months
December P, 2020
Task-,12. -Subn (t Monifqr-ing-9
_e port
#6•to EEP (Me6t§ success
7 years; io months
December.3i, jbfi,
c. r iieri
'a[�,
Task`13,.-'Submit,1V1ohitorihg Report
k7to EEP'(medis-success
9 years; so months
Decem ber 31, 2022,
'criteria) and cofn'plete•Close-
Out Process
4�.Wddland.s En4neeriqg, Inc. Page�5.18
Henry Fo&Stream,&.Wptl@nd Mitigation Site— Part 5�

5.7 Success Criteria
The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.2, 6/o8/2012), the EEP Monitoring
Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11 /07 /2oii), and the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and
semi - annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream and
wetland restoration sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components
for hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (streams only). Performance criteria will be evaluated
throughout the seven (7) year post- construction monitoring If all performance criteria have been
successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose
to terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after Year 5, in accordance with the Early Closure
Provision in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation (November 7, 2o3.i). An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
5.7. IL Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration and enhancement
level I reaches should be stable and should show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -
to -depth ratio. Per EEP guidance, bank height ratios shall
not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least
2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle
cross - sections should fall within the parameters defined
for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any
changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to
assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of
instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically
incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the
channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -
to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
In order to monitor the channel dimension, one (1) permanent cross - sections will be installed per zo
bankfull widths along stream restoration reaches, with riffle and pool sections in proportion to EEP
guidance. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. Cross -
section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge
of water, and thalweg. If moderate bank erosion is observed within permanent cross - sections during
the monitoring period, an array of bank pins will be installed in the permanent cross - section where
erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater than three feet. Bank pins will be
installed on the outside bend of the cross - section in at least three locations (one (1) in upper third of the
pool, one (1) at the permanent cross - section, and one (i) in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will
be monitored by measuring exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion
progression. Annual cross - section and bank pin survey (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring
years one (i), two (z), three (3), five (5), and seven (7).
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven (7) year monitoring period unless
other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.19
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the EEP
Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation
(11/07/2011) and the 2003 USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement level I reaches should indicate a progression
towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool
features.
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
5.7.2 Hydrology
Stream
Two (2) bankfull flow events must be documented on the
restoration and enhancement reaches within the seven (7) year
monitoring period. The two (2) bankfull events must occur in
separate years. Stream monitoring will continue until success
criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years
have been documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage and
photographs. The crest gage will be installed in the stream
within a surveyed riffle cross - section. The gage will be checked
at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will also be used to docurnent the occurrence of
debris lines and sediment deposition.
Wetland
Groundwater monitoring gages will be established throughout the wetland restoration areas.
Generally, the gages will be installed at appropriate locations so that the data collected will provide an
indication of groundwater levels throughout the wetland project area. The final performance criteria
for the wetland hydrology will be a groundwater level within 12 inches of the soil profile, for 5% to
12.5% of the growing season. Final success criteria will be determined through comparison with
reference wetland hydrology in the design phase of the project.
5.7.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 2zo planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven (7)). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
the third (3) monitoring year and at least 26o stems per acre at the end of the fifth (5) year of
monitoring. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh (7)
year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by year five (5) and stem density is trending
towards success (i.e., no less than 26o five year old stems /acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site
may be terminated with written approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency
Review Team. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as
necessary throughout the required monitoring period (year five or seven).
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.20
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5

Vegetation mor ' �itoringquacl rants will,be,in5talle'd - across the restoration site ite to rneasufOlhe sUrviva[cif
the pla nte-O, trees. The-nurriberof monitoring,quadr ntsrequired Will based onihe EEP �hdnitcirihg-
P. I . .0 -
guidance-,documents (version 1.5, 6/o8/12). Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall'arid will f6flow
the CVS-EEP'Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2oo6).
5.7.4 Other,Paramieters
F�hqtb Reference. SM004
Ph-Qtogra 6swill,ti6,,,t4kien-6ritea •pqr1avisually,dociument stability for seven M-Yezirs'followirig
Sntniairker Will b 'th,G
cbnstrUcti6n.,P6rmane e�esidbli_shed arid� located Wi . PS4qUipmerit'so that1he,,same
-- locations -and viiLW-,directiorfs,on,the site are Oh'otographed each ,ye4r..,Phq_to§-wiII-be used to, monitor
-rid
2 t:i r6s­tdration and �.-hhahc6MOrifttrearn reaches as'W611 a-s vegetation plois°a d'areas;
Longitudinal reference photos, will be established at the tail of rifflesapproximately every 200 LF-along
1h6xhMnnel by taking a phbto 166kirig,upstrej-hl and,doWnstiream. lt-eoss06cti6rial photos will be-tiken
-..of -ek , hpe�_aivritaciss-section 166kingbipsireaffi,arid dbWngtirearn. kefer*-q-.-ncq ? ph - otos--will als , o'4g
ta ke n � f6 r each of the vegOta tibn plots and within "wetland areas. Repes ntati VL 4gita[phqtos of.ekh
wifl be tgken6nffie'�-sa- ­,da * !hat, the, stream
per-r:n
�apentphoto point, cross-�section and veg6tition plot me y.z
and The ph6tographer,Wi - 11 rake Y- dftjo-consistently
_
—maintain Ahe. same area in each photo over time.
i­.••Pti_--"-% should illustraitethelsiWs vegetation and morphological stabiIity.on--anr_aA.nUa*l bEiSiS:
Cr=spho6tos should dertionstrate no excessive erosion "or'degradatioh of'the'b`a'nWi.
Longitudinal . - photos"
s 661d indicate the absence, of persistent,bars within the channel or vertical
-'bank.
Grade, - [structures.-should remain stable. Deposition of se-di6f6rit 6h the',, of
ikWofi-., ra cont
;vane.arms,is preferable of scour pools on, the, channei,s.ide)of' vane,,arms js -expected.-
—Wintenance
V&t;aIAs­-s-Oss'rrients
Visual assessments-will be, performed along -all stream and wetland areas on a-semi -annual basis during-
thp-se er(7)yparnonitor kgppribd. Pr Q will,be noted such as-chatnel in­ tability (i­ e.. lateral
and/bf verti`caVihs,tabilit ,, instre-am structure f4ilure/instab.ility and/or piping,headcuts),, vegetatj6h
h a'lth*, ­16 st6hi'densify,vegetationrn mortality; 6­ (6,19. - w _0 -i.yiirivasive,specie-s.orencr--
or IiVestdckkce ss,,Areas ofconCern will be mapped and,phcOgrap4ecl accompanied -b
y'a Written
description -.
Problem ,areasWfih,bere-evaluated:duringe a ch sq
bsg q p en
assessment. Shobld,reme diaactibnsbecequi�ed, recommendations will,be'prdvid e8� ike annual'
M report: rt.
:If required b -'NCDWQ as part•ofthe projects permitting process; 'be nth ic'macroi rive rte brate sampling
Y_
wilrb�e'perform ed "on the -restored site. Any required samplingwill'be performed using NCDW6 ,
Standaird(Opprating Procedures' for Benthit MacrciihvOrtebrates, JU1,-100G.
S.T.5 Reporting P
, qrfqrmAnce,Qriteria
-Usinq'ihe EEP Ba seline,Mohffijririg Plah'Templat e-(yorsior 2;q, :10 A/Lb) a baseline monitoring
dOcur-riehtand.6s.= built,rlecord drawings of the - project will be developed Within 60 days pf fhe'pjantiqg
completion and monitoring installation on the restored site; Monitoring reports. Wi 11 be prepared, in the-
fall,'.,of each'Year of.rhohitbr'ihg and,submitteid
i t6ELP,'Thes e repo'fts,Will�bebzsed on-ihe EEP
, Monitoring' k�pbrt-TbhpIjte (Version LS, 6/o8jiiy The monitoring
period Will extend seven years,
1`0- 6 or'until performanceicriteria have bee ri,rnet, per theic 'te ri6 stated
Wil ' dl - and5 ' Engineering, Inc. Page.-5.-2-1
Henry Fork- Stream Mitigation Site - Part 5

in the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards,for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation'
(1117/2011),.
5.7.6 -Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate; remedial
actions in the event that -the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined-above. The project — specific monitoring plan developed during the.design phase will identify
an.appropriate threshold'for maintenance, intervention based on the monitored items.. Any actions
implemented Will bedesigned to achievethe success criteria specified previously, and will include�a
work s_chedule,and.updated monitoring criteria.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site — Part 5
I
Page 5.22

Figure iVicinity Map
Oft, W I L D L A N D S U 0.5 Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
tz E N G I N E E R I N G I ' ' Catawba River Basin
(0305o103 Expanded Service Area)
Catav,ba County, NC

Figure 2 Site Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin
ENGINEERING I I (()30Soio3 Expanded Service Area)
Catawba County, NC

I I
' 0 Project Location
or
:* „� ✓ L�'— l �° Proposed Conservation Easement
_ I
-
-
L `
`O _ 1✓
_
! # • ± %
rf
Nk
�, \ P
►'�t topographic qua dran R }, , !� • "•��;�" • , ; �
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 600 1,200 Feet Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin
IJNI (0305o103 Expanded Service Area)
Catawba County, N,'

•
i
UT2 .�
f j
'f
Aerial Phi

Figure 5 Soils Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I Catawba River Basin
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Catawba County, NC

.
Pond 4
■
■
i
UT2 Pond 3
.................. . .. •- •.....
m
i
■
i
i
i
Pond 2
e
of
i
e• i
•
•
w
a .
"?4.
oUntain View
Road
4te; UT16
•I•...... 0��.
•.� Pond 1 .
� d
•
7
1
■
n: ■
♦
2010 Aerial Photography

Figure 7 Concept Map
ON W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I Catawba River Basin
(03050103 Expanded Service Area)
Catawba County, NC

W
�1,16z":
I1.,.
p p
Q
Q
q p p a Q� e3
Q Q Q p Q .Q p Q
p p p Q •Q p
Q .Q Q m
Ei7 p
Q
Q Q p Q p q
M p Q p
100 200 406 Feet