20140193 Ver 1_Year 7 Monitorng Report_2022_20230123

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20140193
Version* 1
Select Reviewer: *
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 01/23/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/23/2023
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? * 0 Yes O No
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:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address: *
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
• DMS Mitigation Bank
Henry Fork Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site
Catawba
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type: *
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload:
Signature
............................................
Print Name: *
Signature:*
H en ryFo rk_96306_MY7_2022. pdf
Existing Version
48.69MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Matthew Reid

MONITORING YEAR 7
ANNUAL/CLOSEOUT
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 2022
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2022
Final Submission Date: January 17, 2023

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:

1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

January 17, 2023

Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services - Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

RE: Response to MY7 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 7 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: As noted in the report, Henry Fork will be presented to the IRT for regulatory closeout
in 2023. Thank you for presenting the closeout summary framing the project for closeout and
including the additional vegetation table.

Wildlands’ response: You’re welcome.

DMS comment: On August 4, 2022, WEI, DMS and DEQ Stewardship Program met onsite for the
purpose of viewing the site and receiving acceptance to transfer for Long Term Stewardship. Two
items were identified on site that will need to be resolved prior to the site being accepted into the
program. Please provide updates on the following two items:
1. Cement blocks were placed within the conservation easement on UT1B near VP2. Blocks must
be removed from inside the easement.
 Resolution required by Stewardship: Please submit georeferenced photo documenting
removal of blocks from the easement area.
2. Discontinue access through trail utilized by Disc Golf Course.
 Resolution required by Stewardship: Submit georeferenced photos to document
physical barrier to the trail has been established on both ends of trail. Physical barriers
may include t-posts/u-channels with signage, logs placed across the trail, fencing, etc.
Please include correspondence from Disc Golf Course acknowledging discontinued use
of trail.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
Wildlands’ response: A photolog documenting the resolution of the two items identified by DEQ
Stewardship has been added to Appendix 2 and the georeferenced photos have been added to the
electronic support files. See below for specific updates to each item:
1. The cement blocks have been removed from the easement.
2. A physical barrier by means of posts, fencing, and signage has been added to each end of the
path to remind people not to cross through the easement. Wildlands has verbally communicated
with the disc golf course, and they have cooperated to discontinue use of the path. Wildlands will
aim to provide written correspondence by the time of closeout.

DMS comment: Conservation Easement: Report indicates footpath was discontinued. WEI has worked
to revegetate the path by reseeding and adding soil amendments. As noted above, in order for the
site to be approved for long term stewardship transfer, additional actions will need to occur for
stewardship to be confident that the trail has been abandoned and is no longer in use. Has the disc
golf course modified the hole that plays over the conservation easement that required the path?

Wildlands’ response: The disc golf course has discontinued use of the hole that played over the
conservation easement so that there is no longer a need for the path.

DMS comment: Recommend revising “approved narrow footpath” to “narrow footpath”. The
conservation easement does not allow for the construction or maintenance of trails or commercial
uses within the conservation easement as noted in Section II Grantor Reserved Uses and Restricted
Activities portion of the conservation easement document. The trail has never been approved for the
commercial use of the frisbee golf course.

Wildlands’ response: The sentence has been revised to “narrow footpath”.

Digital Files Review

DMS comment: No comments

Wildlands’ response: Noted.

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,

Jake McLean
Project Manager
[e-mail]

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL iii
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, 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) 7 assessments and site visits were completed between January and November
2022.
This is the seventh and final monitoring year (MY7) as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2015). The Site will be presented to the NC IRT for regulatory closeout in 2023. Overall, the Site has met
the required stream, hydrology, and vegetation success criteria for MY7 with only minimal exceptions in
stem height, as described below. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as
designed with cross-section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments compared to as-built. The Site
met the final bankfull performance criteria in MY4, and all project streams recorded at least one bankfull
event in MY7. The two intermittent streams (UT1A and UT2) met the 30 consecutive day flow
requirement in MY7 and have consistently done so for the past five monitoring years (MY3 – MY7). The
average planted stem density for the Site is 577 stems per acre with all vegetation plots exceeding the
final density criteria of 210 stems per acre. The average stem height for the Site is 8.5 feet and is on
track to meet the final height requirement of 10 feet in the closeout year. Fourteen of the fifteen
groundwater monitoring gages (GWG) installed on the Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success
criteria for MY7. Throughout the post-construction monitoring period, apart from GWG 8, all remaining

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL iv
GWGs have individually met hydrologic success criteria for a majority of the monitoring years. The MY7
visual assessments revealed minor areas of concern which included 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 through closeout.

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL v
HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.5 Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ................................................... 1-5
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-7
Section 2: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contact Table
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.2 Current Condition Plan View Maps
Table 5a-e Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs MY0 – MY7
Vegetation Plot Photographs MY0 – MY7
Wetland Vegetation Plot Photographs MY7
Transect Plot Photographs MY7
Resolved DEQ Stewardship Action Items – MY7
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a-d Planted and Total Stem Counts – Permanent Vegetation Plots
Table 9e Planted and Total Stem Counts – Wetland Vegetation Plots
Table 9f Planted and Total Stem Counts – Additional Transect Plots
Table 9g Planted Stem Average Heights
Table 9h Stems Per Plot Across All Years
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
DMS Technical Workgroup Memo (10/19/2021)

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL vi
Pebble Count Data Requirements Correspondence (10/27/2021)
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13a-b Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14 Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Stream Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-1
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 has
been 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

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-2
• 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 7 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between January and November 2022 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success
criteria presented in the Henry Fork Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY7 were conducted in March 2022. Throughout the Site, the cross-section
(XS) survey results indicate that channel dimensions are stable and continuing to perform with minimal
adjustments compared to as-built. Some reduction in cross-sectional area is present in XS4 along UT1
Reach 1 and XS8 along UT1A but is not considered to be an area of concern since depths are being
maintained and the reaches are still functioning as single thread channels. The reduction in max pool
depth at XS2 along UT1 Reach 1, observed in previous years, has stabilized in MY7. Riffle cross-section
10 along UT1B experienced an apparent increase in both bed and bank elevations due to alluvial
deposition but dimensions remain similar to prior years and is not considered an area of concern. Please
refer to Appendix 4 for the cross-section plots and morphology tables.

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-3
Based on a DMS Technical Workgroup memo from 10/19/2021 and concurrence by the DMS project
manager received on 10/27/2021, pebble count collection is no longer required for MY1 through MY7
unless requested by the IRT. Therefore, pebble counts were not conducted during MY7. A copy of the
DMS Technical Workgroup Memo and the email confirmation from the DMS project manager are found
in Appendix 4.
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 MY7, all stream reaches recorded multiple bankfull events.
In addition to monitoring bankfull events, intermittent streams (UT1A and UT2) must demonstrate a
minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of normal rainfall. In MY7, UT1A and UT2 both
exceeded the success criteria for stream flow with 158 and 124 days documented, respectively. The
presence of baseflow was also observed on these reaches during site visits; thereby, confirming the
recorded stream gage data. UT1A and UT2 have consistently exceeded the flow success criteria for the
past 5 monitoring years (MY3 – MY7). 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 permanent 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 is 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.
The MY7 vegetation survey was completed in August 2022 and resulted in an average stem density of
577 planted stems per acre. All 15 permanent vegetation plots (100%) are exceeding the final density
standard of 210 stems per acre. The MY7 average stem height for all VPs is approximately 8.5 feet.
Currently, 4 VPs have individually met or exceeded the height requirement of 10 feet and 5 VPs have
nearly met the requirement with average heights ranging from 8.8 to 9.6 feet. As shown in the plot
below, at the current growth rate the Site is projected to meet an average height of 10 feet by the
closeout year (2023).

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-4

The permanent vegetation plots with the lowest average stem heights include VP 6, 7, and 11. Though
stunted growth is present in these plots, over 68% of the monitored stems in VP 6, 7, and 11 reported
health scores (vigor) of 3 or 4, indicating that those stems are healthy and likely to survive. These
vegetation plots are located within or near wetland re-establishment areas and saturated/poor soil
conditions have been deterring some stem growth. See Section 1.2.5 for discussion on areas of low
height/vigor.
A wetland addendum letter was submitted to DMS on October 6, 2020 to identify potential wetland
areas created by the project within the Site. Please refer to the MY6 annual report for the wetland
addendum letter (Wildlands, 2022). In MY6, three wetland vegetation plots (WP) were installed within
the potential wetland areas to evaluate stem density, species diversity, and height to determine if the
potential wetland areas are meeting the vegetation success criteria for the Site. The MY7 assessment of
the WPs was completed in October 2022 and resulted in an average stem density of 580 stems per acre
and average height of 6.7 feet. All WPs are exceeding the final vegetative density performance standard
for the Site.
During the 2022 Credit Release Meeting, the IRT requested that a transect plot (TP) be used to evaluate
the planted stems between VP3 and VP4 to provide additional vegetation data for the planted buffer
along UT1 Reach 1. Results from the transect plot (TP1) indicate that planted stems are healthy and the
plot’s average height (7.6 feet) is within a foot of the average stem height for the Site (8.5 feet). Three
additional transect plots (TP2, TP3, TP4) were collected to evaluate stem density, species diversity, and
height for areas mapped as low stem height/vigor. The three additional transect plots were found to
exceed the final stem density requirement with an appropriate diversity of planted species. All transect
plots were established using 100 square meter circular plots. See Section 1.2.5 for further discussion on
areas of low stem height/vigor.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2 for vegetation plot
locations, and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
MY0 MY1 MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
Ja
n
-
2
0
1
6
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
6
Ju
l
-
2
0
1
6
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
6
Ja
n
-
2
0
1
7
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
7
Ju
l
-
2
0
1
7
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
7
Ja
n
-
2
0
1
8
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
8
Ju
l
-
2
0
1
8
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
8
Ja
n
-
2
0
1
9
Ap
r
-
2
0
1
9
Ju
l
-
2
0
1
9
Oc
t
-
2
0
1
9
Ja
n
-
2
0
2
0
Ap
r
-
2
0
2
0
Ju
l
-
2
0
2
0
Oc
t
-
2
0
2
0
Ja
n
-
2
0
2
1
Ap
r
-
2
0
2
1
Ju
l
-
2
0
2
1
Oc
t
-
2
0
2
1
Ja
n
-
2
0
2
2
Ap
r
-
2
0
2
2
Ju
l
-
2
0
2
2
Oc
t
-
2
0
2
2
Ja
n
-
2
0
2
3
Ap
r
-
2
0
2
3
Ju
l
-
2
0
2
3
Oc
t
-
2
0
2
3
He
i
g
h
t

(
f
e
e
t
)
Average Stem Heights Across Permanent Vegetation Plots

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-5
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.
A groundwater gage was also established in an adjacent reference wetland for comparison. A barotroll
logger is used to calibrate groundwater gage pressure based on local atmospheric pressure. 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. A 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 is 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. All
monitoring gages were downloaded quarterly and maintained as needed. Rainfall data is collected from
an existing NC CRONOS station (Hickory 4.8 SW, NC).
Of the 15 GWGs, 14 met the success criteria for MY7 with the percentage of consecutive days of the
growing season ranging from 12% to 100%. GWG 5 and GWG 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 MY7 with a measured maximum of six
consecutive days (3%) during the growing season. See Section 1.2.5 for discussion about the wetland
area potentially at risk represented by GWG 8. Throughout the monitoring period, apart from GWG 8,
the remaining GWGs have met success criteria for a majority of the monitoring years. Monthly rainfall
data in 2022 indicated higher than normal rainfall amounts in May, July, August, and October. Lower
than normal rainfall occurred in June. 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 Activities
Vegetation
MY7 visual assessments reveal that more than 99% of the conservation easement is unaffected by
invasive species populations. Invasive species treatments occurred in February, March, August, and
September 2022, and focused on small areas of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora
rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) within the buffer and in-stream invasive
exotic vegetation including creeping primrose (Ludwigia peploides) and Asian spiderwort (Murdannia
keisak) within UT1A and UT2. Specific effort was made to eliminate a small patch of kudzu (Pueraria
montana) found along the Henry Fork River planted buffer. In addition to the invasive species
treatments, patches of the native loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) along UT1 Reach 1 and UT1B were thinned
to reduce competition with planted slower growing species. Populations of multiflora rose, Chinese
privet, creeping primrose, Asian spiderwort, loblolly pine, 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. Isolated
pockets of invasive species will continue to be treated through closeout.
MY7 visual assessments show that woody vegetation has become well established on at about 95.8% of
the planted riparian areas. Previously identified areas of low stem vigor/height along the floodplains of
UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 are improving and lessening in size and severity. These areas are represented by
VP6-7, VP11, and TP2-4. In July 2022, soil amendments and microbes were added to these areas to

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-6
improve stem growth. Furthermore, desired volunteer species including river birch (Betula nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and cottonwood
(Populus deltoides) are naturally starting to flourish in these areas.
Streams
The on-site intermittent streams (UT1A and UT2) that received full restoration approach but are
credited at a reduced enhancement ratio (1:1.5), have continued to maintain single channel morphology
functionality and woody stems have become well established along the banks. Flow is visible in the
photo points established along these channels (PP18-19 along UT1A, and PP20-25 along UT2) which
verifies the continuous flow documented by the stream gages. Moreover, cross-section surveys along
UT1A (XS7-8) and UT2 (XS11-14) demonstrate that these streams are maintaining stable bankfull
dimensions. Please refer to Appendix 2 for stream photo points, Appendix 4 for cross-section plots, and
Appendix 5 for stream gage plots.
Bank repairs were previously completed in MY5 along UT1 near station 106+00 and 124+75, and in MY6
along UT1 near station 124+25. Visual assessments in MY7 reveal that these repair areas continue to
appear stable and are functioning as designed.
A few beaver dams were removed in the spring 2022 throughout the lower portion of UT1 Reach 2.
Prolonged periods of inundation were not observed or recorded by stream gages on the Site in MY7
which suggests beaver activity has significantly decreased. Refer to Appendix 5 for the UT1 Reach 2
stream gage plot. The less frequent beaver impoundments have permitted regular flow of tributaries
(UT1A and UT2) into UT1, thus allowing floodplain vegetation to continue to become established in
previously inundated areas. Due to beaver activity, a small gully formed along the right floodplain of UT1
Reach 2 below the wetland enhancement area. In spring 2022, matting, livestakes, and seed were added
to this area and vegetation has become well established which has stabilized the area. 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, to document groundwater hydrology for
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.
Additionally, Wildlands has supplementally planted the potential wetland areas with appropriate woody
stems and established additional wetland monitoring plots (WPs) within these areas to determine if
performance standards are being met. The GWGs located in the potential wetland areas have met
criteria every year since they were installed, and the WPs are exceeding the final density standard for
vegetation. 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. Please refer to the MY6 annual report for
the wetland addendum letter and subsequent IRT comments (Wildlands, 2022). In this report refer to
CCPV Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for potential wetland locations, and Table 9e in Appendix 3 for
vegetative monitoring plot results.
Conservation Easement
There has been a 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

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1-7
threaten stream assets. In MY7, upkeep of the footpath was discontinued, and Wildlands has worked to
revegetate the path by reseeding and adding soil amendments. No conservation easement
encroachments were observed in MY7. The Site boundary and prior problem areas will continue to be
monitored for easement enforcement.
Quarterly site visits will continue to be conducted until closeout 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 7 Summary
This is the seventh and final monitoring year (MY7) as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2015). The Site will be presented to the NC IRT for regulatory closeout in 2023. Overall, the Site has met
the required stream, hydrology, and vegetation success criteria for MY7 with only minimal exceptions in
stem height, as described below. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as
designed with cross-section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments compared to as-built. The Site
met the final bankfull performance criteria in MY4, and all project streams recorded at least one bankfull
event in MY7. The two intermittent streams (UT1A and UT2) met the 30 consecutive day flow
requirement in MY7 and have consistently done so for the past five monitoring years (MY3 – MY7). The
average planted stem density for the Site is 577 stems per acre with all vegetation plots exceeding the
final density criteria of 210 stems per acre. The average stem height for the Site is 8.5 feet and is on
track to meet the final height requirement of 10 feet in the closeout year. Fourteen of the fifteen
groundwater monitoring gages installed on the Site met or exceeded the hydrologic success criteria for
MY7. Throughout the post-construction monitoring period, apart from GWG 8, all remaining GWGs have
individually met hydrologic success criteria for a majority of the monitoring years. The MY7 visual
assessments revealed minor areas of concern which included 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 through closeout.
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.

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 2-1
Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using either a Trimble or Topcon handheld GPS with sub-meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder
and ArcGIS. Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored quarterly.
Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 3-1
Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2021. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Hickory 4.8 SW. Accessed
November 2022.
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. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2022). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report. NCDMS,
Raleigh, NC.

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables
03050102010030
03050101090020
03050102020020
03050102010020
03050102030010
03050101100011
03050101140010
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14‐digit)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2022
Catawba County, NC
¹0 10.5 Miles
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.
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.
!P
!P
Henry
F
o
r
k
Mountain View R
o
a
d
UT1 Reach 1
Upper
U
T
1
A
UT1B
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
Lower
Catawba County, NC
¹0 300150 Feet
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
!P Reach Break
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Henry fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
DMS Project No.96306
Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 4,807.667 N/A 3.880 0.342 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Proposed Stationing/
Location*
Existing Footage/
Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio Credits
(SMU/WMU)*
100+00 to 103+02 P1 1:1 302.000
103+02 to 114+71 P1 1:1 1,169.000
114+71 to 126+99 1,499 P1/P2 1:1 1,228.000
180+00 to 186+57 353 P1 1.5:1 438.000
150+00 to 153+58 478 P1 1:1 358.000
200+00 to 219+69 1,915 P1 1.5:1 1,312.667
Floodplain near UT1
Reach 2 N/A
Planting,
hydrologic
improvement
1:1 2.480
Floodplain near UT2 N/A
Planting,
hydrologic
improvement
1:1 1.230
Floodplain between UT1
Reach 2 and UT1A 0.18
Planting,
hydrologic
improvement
1.5:1 0.120
Floodplain between UT1
Reach 2 and UT1A 0.01
Planting,
hydrologic
improvement
1.5:1 0.009
Floodplain between UT1
Reach 2 and UT1A 0.003
Planting,
hydrologic
improvement
1.5:1 0.002
Floodplain near UT1A 0.02 Planting 2:1 0.009
East hillslope near UT1A 0.06 Planting 2:1 0.028
East hillslope near UT1A 0.08 Planting 2:1 0.039
East hillslope near UT1
Reach 2 0.04 Planting 2:1 0.018
East hillslope near UT1
Reach 2 0.06 Planting 2:1 0.028
East hillslope near UT1
Reach 2 0.13 Planting 2:1 0.065
Floodplain towards river
from UT2 0.08 Planting 2:1 0.042
Floodplain upslope of
UT2 0.02 Planting 2:1 0.012
Floodplain upslope of
UT2 0.07 Planting 2:1 0.035
Floodplain in footprint of
Pond 3 near head of UT1
Reach 2
0.06
Significant
improvement to
wetland functions
1.5:1 0.039
UT1 Reach 1 Valley (Pond
1)0.16 Planting 2:1 0.066
Buffer (square
feet)Upland (acres)
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/APreservationN/A N/A N/A
* Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream ceneterlines for Monitoring Year 2 after discussions with NC IRT.
Wetland Rehabilitation N/A 0.25 N/A
Wetland Enhancement N/A 0.68 N/A
Enhancement I 2,626 N/A N/A
Wetland Re-Establishment N/A 3.71 N/A
COMPONENT SUMMATION
Restoration Level Stream (LF)Riparian Wetland (acres)Non-Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Restoration 3,057 N/A N/A
Wetland R Rehabilitation 0.06
Wetland S Enhancement 0.13
Wetland P Enhancement 0.02
Wetland Q Enhancement 0.07
Wetland M Enhancement 0.13
Wetland N Enhancement 0.08
Wetland J Enhancement 0.04
Wetland K Enhancement 0.06
Wetland H Enhancement 0.06
Wetland I Enhancement 0.08
Wetland C Rehabilitation 0.003
Wetland G Enhancement 0.02
Wetland A Rehabilitation 0.18
Wetland B Rehabilitation 0.013
WETLANDS
Wetland 1 Re-establishment 2.48
Wetland 2 Re-establishment 1.23
UT1B Restoration 358
UT2 Enhancement 1,969
UT1 Reach 2 Restoration 1,228
UT1A Enhancement 657
STREAMS
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
1,392
Restoration 302
UT1 Reach 1 Lower Restoration 1,169
N/A
PROJECT COMPONENTS
Reach ID Restoration (R) or
Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage/Acreage*
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
MITIGATION CREDITS
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
DMS Project No.96306
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Plugs
Year 7 Soil Amendments November 2022July 2022
Year 7 Beaver Treatment
Year 7 Invasive Species Treatment
Spring 2022
February - March, August - September
2022
Year 5 Beaver Maintenance
Year 5 Invasive Species Treatment
November 2020
February 2020
July & September 2020
Year 5 Supplemental Planting March 2020
Year 5 Bank Repair on UT1 Reach 2 January 2020
Year 5 Monitoring Stream Survey June 2020
Vegetation Survey July 2020
Year 7 Monitoring Stream Survey March 2022
Monitoring, POC Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754, ext. 110
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Son Nursery
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Wetland Plants, Inc.
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
780 Landmark road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource, LLC
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
780 Landmark road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
N/A - Not applicable
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Designer
Jake McLean, PE
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28806
828.774.5547
Vegetation Survey August 2022
Year 6 Monitoring Stream Survey N/A
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
November 2021
Year 4 Monitoring Stream Survey N/A
Vegetation Survey N/A
Year 4 Invasive Species Treatment October 2019
November 2019
Year 4 Bank Repair on UT1 Reach 1 August 2019
Year 4 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2 March 2019 - November 2019
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2016
Stream Survey April 2018
November 2018
June & August 2018
Year 2 Monitoring Stream Survey April 2017
December 2017Vegetation Survey July 2017
Year 2 Invasive Species Treatment August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring Vegetation Survey September 2018
Year 3 Invasive Species Treatment
March 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)Stream Survey March 2016 May 2016Vegetation Survey
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan August 2015 September 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area1 March 2016 March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1 March 2016 March 2016
Final Design - Construction Plans October 2015 October 2015
Construction November 2015 - March 2016 March 2016
March 2016
Year 1 Monitoring Stream Survey October 2016
December 2016Vegetation Survey September 2016
Year 1 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2 May-September 2016
Year 1 Invasive Species Treatment June & July 2016
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT1B UT2
1,497 1,232 658 358 1,969
106 129 23 31 49
39.5 32.5 27.25 31.25 27
P P I P I
III IV/V IV/V III IV/V
---------------
---------------
0.024-0.056 0.0043-0.017 0.0095-0.016 0.015-0.077 0.0032
Supporting Documentation
N/A
Henry Fork Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Catawba County listed
endangered species. June 5, 2015
email correspondence from USFWS
stated "not likely to adversely
affect" northern long-eared bat.
No historic resources were found
to be impacted (letter from SHPO
dated 3/24/2014)
N/A
Floodplain development permit
issued by Catawba County.
N/A
*The project site reaches do not have regulated floodplain mapping, but are located within the Henry Fork floodplain.
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes*No impact application was prepared for local
review. No post-project activities required.
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)No N/A
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)N/A N/A
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes PCN prepared USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes PCN prepared
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration 0%
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Regulation Applicable?Resolved?
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre-Restoration
Underlying Mapped Soils Codorus loam, Dan River loam, Hatboro Loam, Poplar Forest gravelly sandy loam 2-6% slopes, and Woolwine-Fairview complex
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Slope
FEMA Classification N/A*
Drainage Area (acres)
DWR Sub-basin 03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)178
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 39% - Herbaceous/Pasture, 36% - Forested, 25% - Developed, >1% - Water
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post-Restoration
River Basin Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03050102 (Expanded Service Area for 03050103)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03050102010030
Physiographic Province Inner Piedmont
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name Henry Fork Mitigation Site
County Catawba County
Project Area (acres)48.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)35°42'12.98"N, 81°21'53.20"W
PROJECT WATERSHED SUMMARY INFORMATION

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data
!P
!P
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Henry
F
o
r
k
Mountain View Roa
d
2
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
Lower
UT1A
UT1B
UT1 Reach 1
Upper
XS 2
X
S

8
XS

1
XS

1
0
XS 4
XS

1
1
X
S

6
XS

9
XS3
XS

7
XS 5
XS

1
3
XS

1
4
XS 12
1
SG 4
SG 2
SG 3
SG 1
1
8
6
7
9
5
4
3
20
14
21
16
15
17
18
24
27
19
11
13
25
10
28
23
22
26
29
GWG 3
GWG 9
GWG 8 GWG 7
GWG 6
GWG 1
GWG 2
GWG 5
GWG 4
GWG 15
GWG 14
GWG 13
GWG 12
GWG 10
GWG 11
Reference Gage
Catawba County, NC
¹0 250 500 Feet
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Potential Wetland Areas
Potential Area at Risk
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Cross-Section (XS)
Bankfull Line
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Stream Gage (SG)
!A Reference Gage
!A Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY7
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY7
Criteria Met - Vegetation Plot (VP)
Criteria Met - Wetland Plot (WP)
Criteria Met - Transect Plot (TP)
Areas of Concern - MY7
Japanese honeysuckle
Low Stem Vigor/Height
Aggradation
Bank Scour
Beaver Dam (removed)
Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
200+00
2
0
1
+
0
0
202+
0
0
203
+
0
0
2
0
4
+
0
0
20
5
+
0
0
2
0
6
+
0
0
207
+
0
0
2
0
8
+
0
0
209+00
21
0
+
0
0
211+00 2
1
2
+
0
0
213
+
0
0
2
1
4
+
0
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
2
1
6
+
0
0
21
7
+
0
0
21
8
+
0
0
219+00
2
1
9
+
6
9
1
0
9
+
0
0
11
0
+
0
0
11
1
+
0
0
11
2
+
0
0
113
+
0
0
114
+
0
0
11
5
+
0
0
11
6
+
0
0
11
7
+
0
0
118+00
1
1
9
+
0
0
12
0
+
0
0
12
1
+
0
0
122+
0
0
12
3
+
0
0
124
+
0
0
1
2
5
+
0
0
1
2
6
+
0
0
127
+
0
0
180+00
1
8
1
+
0
0
18
2
+
0
0
183
+
0
0
18
4
+
0
0
185+00
186+00
1
8
6
+
5
7
!P
!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A
!A!A
!A
!A!A !A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GFGF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Henry Fork
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
XS
8
XS 4
X
S

1
1
XS
6
XS3
XS 7
XS 5
XS

1
3
XS 14
XS 12
SG 4
SG 2
SG 3
GWG 3
GWG 9
GWG 8
GWG 7
GWG 6
GWG 1
GWG 2
GWG 5
GWG 4GWG 15
GWG 14
GWG 13
GWG 12
GWG 10 GWG 11
12
20
14
21
16
15
17
18
24
27
19
11
13
25
10
28
23
22 26
WP1
WP3
WP2
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP5
VP14
VP12
VP11
VP10
VP13
VP15
VP4
TP2
TP4
TP3
Reference Gage
Catawba County, NC
¹0 150 300 Feet
2018 Aerial Photography
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Potential Wetland Areas
Potential Area at Risk
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Cross-Section (XS)
Bankfull Line
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Stream Gage (SG)
!A Reference Gage
!A Barotroll Gage
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY7
!A Criteria Met
!A Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY7
Criteria Met - Vegetation Plot (VP)
Criteria Met - Wetland Plot (WP)
Criteria Met - Transect Plot (TP)
Areas of Concern - MY7
Japanese honeysuckle
Low Stem Vigor/Height
Bank Scour
Beaver Dam (removed)
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
21
3
+
0
0
2
1
4
+
0
0
2
1
5
+
0
0
2
1
6
+
0
0
21
7
+
0
0
2
1
8
+
0
0
219+
0
0
2
1
9
+
6
9
10
0
+
0
0
1
0
1
+
0
0
10
2
+
0
0
10
3
+
0
0
1
0
4
+
0
0
1
0
5
+
0
0
10
6
+
0
0
10
7
+
0
0
10
8
+
0
0
10
9
+
0
0
110
+
0
0
1
1
1
+
0
0
11
2
+
0
0
113+
0
0
114
+
0
0
115
+
0
0
11
6
+
0
0
11
7
+
0
0
118+0
0
1
1
9
+
0
0
1
2
0
+
0
0
121
+
0
0
180
+
0
0
18
1
+
0
0
18
2
+
0
0
183
+
0
0
15
0
+
0
0
151+00
15
2
+
0
0
1
5
3
+
0
0
153+58!P
!P
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A !A
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Mountain View Road
2
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 1
Lower
UT1A
UT1B
UT1 Reach 1
Upper
XS 2
X
S

8
XS

1
XS

1
0
XS 4
XS

9
XS3 XS
7
XS 5
X
S

1
4
SG 2
SG 3
SG 1
GWG 3
GWG 6
GWG 2
GWG 5
GWG 12
GWG 10
GWG 11
2
1
8
6
7
9
5
4
3
12
20
14
21
15
27
19
11
13
10
28
29
26
WP2
VP1
VP6
VP7
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
VP10
VP9 VP11
TP1
TP4
TP3
TP2
Catawba County, NC
¹0 100 200 Feet
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Potential Wetland Areas
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Cross-Section (XS)
Bankfull Line
!P Reach Break
GF Photo Point
!A Stream Gage (SG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY7
!A Criteria Met
Vegetation Plot - MY7
Criteria Met - Vegetation Plot (VP)
Criteria Met - Wetland Plot (WP)
Criteria Met - Transect Plot (TP)
Areas of Concern - MY7
Japanese Honeysuckle
Low Stem Vigor/Height
Aggradation
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Date Last Assessed:10/27/2022
UT1 Reach 1 1,497 LF
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 39 39 100%
Depth Sufficient 33 33 100%
Length Appropriate 33 33 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)33 33 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)33 33 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.81 81 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.70 70 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.81 81 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 81 81 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
46 46 100%
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Date Last Assessed:10/27/2022
UT1 Reach 2 1,232 LF
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 14 14 100%
Depth Sufficient 15 15 100%
Length Appropriate 15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)15 15 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)15 15 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
1 10 99.6%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1 10 99.6%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.9 9 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.9 9 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 12 12 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
6 6 100%
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Date Last Assessed:10/27/2022
UT1A 658 LF
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 14 14 100%
Depth Sufficient 13 13 100%
Length Appropriate 13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)13 13 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)13 13 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.3 3 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.3 3 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
6 6 100%
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Date Last Assessed:10/27/2022
UT1B 358 LF
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 1 31 92%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 10 11 91%
Depth Sufficient 7 8 88%
Length Appropriate 8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)8 8 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.27 27 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.24 24 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.27 27 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 27 27 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
12 12 100%
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Date Last Assessed:10/27/2022
UT2 1,969 LF
Major Channel
Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Aggradation 0 0 100%
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 35 35 100%
Depth Sufficient 32 32 100%
Length Appropriate 32 32 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)32 32 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)32 32 100%
1. Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
Does NOT include undercuts that are
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
0 0 100%n/a n/a n/a
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.3 3 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.N/A N/A N/A
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.N/A N/A N/A
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 3 3 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining
~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
3 3 100%
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
3. Meander Pool
Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.
2. Bank
Totals
3. Engineered
Structures1
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Date Last Assessed: 10/27/2022
Planted Acreage 15
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(Ac)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 0 0.00 0.00%
Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
criteria.0.1 0 0.00 0.00%
0 0.00 0.0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
year.0.1 6 0.61 4.2%
6 0.61 4.2%
Easement Acreage 48
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 3 0.42 0.9%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0 0.0%
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Total
Cumulative Total
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022

Stream Photographs
MY0 - MY7

Photo Point 1 – looking upstream UT1B (03/16/2016) Photo Point 1 – view upstream UT1B (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 1 – looking downstream UT1B (03/16/2016) Photo Point 1 – view downstream UT1B (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 2 – looking upstream UT1B (03/16/2016) Photo Point 2 – view upstream UT1B (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 2 – looking downstream UT1B (03/16/2016) Photo Point 2 – view downstream UT1B (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 3 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/16/2016) Photo Point 3 – view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 3 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/16/2016) Photo Point 3 – view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 4 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/16/2016) Photo Point 4 – view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 4 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/16/2016) Photo Point 4 – view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 5 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 5 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 5 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 5 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 5 – looking upstream of UT1B (03/16/2016) Photo Point 5 – view upstream of UT1B (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 6 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 6 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 6 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 6 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 7 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 7 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 7 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 7 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 8 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 8 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 8 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 8 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 9 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 9 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 9 – looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 9 – view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 10 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 10 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 10 –looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 10 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 11 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 11 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 11 –looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 11 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 12 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 12 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 12 –looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 12 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 13 – looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 13 – view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 13 –looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 13 –view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 14 – looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 14 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 14 – looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 14 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 15 – looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 15 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 15 – looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 15 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 16 – looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 16 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 16 – looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 16 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 17 – looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 17 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 17 – looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 17 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 18 – looking upstream UT1A (03/16/2016) Photo Point 18 – view upstream UT1A (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 18 – looking downstream UT1A (03/16/2016) Photo Point 18 – view downstream UT1A (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 19 – looking upstream UT1A (03/16/2016) Photo Point 19 – view upstream UT1A (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 19 – looking downstream UT1A (03/16/2016) Photo Point 19 – view downstream UT1A (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 20 – looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 20 – view upstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 20 – looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 20 – view downstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 21 – looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 21 – view upstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 21 – looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 21 – view downstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 22 – looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 22 – view upstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 22 – looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 22 – view downstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 23 – looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 23 – view upstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 23 – looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 23 – view downstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 24 – looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 24 – view upstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 24 – looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 24 – view downstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 25 – looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 25 – view upstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 25 – looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 25 – view downstream UT2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 26 – looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 26 – view upstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 26 – looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 26 – view downstream UT1 R2 (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 26 – looking UT1 R2 floodplain (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 26 – UT1 R2 floodplain overview (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 27 – looking upstream UT1 R2 floodplain (03/16/2016) Photo Point 27 – view upstream UT1 R2 floodplain (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 27 – looking downstream UT1 R2 floodplain (3/16/2016) Photo Point 27 – view downstream UT1 R2 floodplain(3/18/2022)

Photo Point 28 – UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 28 – UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 28 – UT2 floodplain overview (03/16/2016) Photo Point 28 – UT2 floodplain overview (03/18/2022)

Photo Point 29 – UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 29 – UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (03/18/2022)

Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY0 – MY7

Vegetation Plot 1 – MY0 (03/31/2016)

Vegetation Plot 1 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 2 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 2 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 3 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 3 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 4 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 4 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 5 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 5 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 6 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 6 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 7 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 7 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 8 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 8 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 9 – MY0 (04/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 9 – MY7 (08/29/2022)

Vegetation Plot 10 – MY0 (04/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 10 – MY7 (08/30/2022)

Vegetation Plot 11 – MY0 (04/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 11 – MY7 (08/30/2022)

Vegetation Plot 12 – MY0 (04/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 12 – MY7 (08/30/2022)

Vegetation Plot 13 – MY0 (04/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 13 – MY7 (08/30/2022)

Vegetation Plot 14 – MY0 (03/31/2016) Vegetation Plot 14 – MY7 (08/30/2022)

Vegetation Plot 15 – MY0 (03/31/2016)

Vegetation Plot 15 – MY7 (08/30/2022)

Wetland Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY7

Wetland Vegetation Plot 1 - (10/27/2022)

Wetland Vegetation Plot 2 - (08/29/2022)

Wetland Vegetation Plot 3 - (08/29/2022)

Transect Plot Photographs
MY7

Transect Plot 1 - (08/29/2022)

Transect Plot 2 - (08/29/2022)

Transect Plot 3 - (08/30/2022) Transect Plot 4 - (08/30/2022)

Resolved DEQ Stewardship Action Items
MY7

Action Item 1: Cement blocks removed from the easement on UT1B near VP2 - (01/06/2023)

Action Item 2: Physical barrier to the path on both sides of the easement - (01/10/2023)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Plot
MY7 Density Criteria
Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Report Prepared By Mimi Caddell
Date Prepared 10/17/2022
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 HENRY FORK MY7.mdb
Database Location L:\Active Projects\005-02143 Henry Fork AVL\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 7-2022\Vegetation Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Project Planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
project Name Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and
missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code 96306
Description Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Required Plots (calculated)15
Sampled Plots 15
Table 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts - Permanent Vegetation Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 2 3 1 15 22
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 2
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 6 6 6 4 4 6 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 6 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 6 1 1 2
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 9 13 9 1
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1
Morella cerifera Common Wax-myrtle Shrub Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Pinus rigida Pitch Pine Tree
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 6 4 4 18
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree 5
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1
Rhus aromatica Fragrant Sumac Shrub
Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree 2
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Shrub Tree 3 16
Salix Willow Shrub Tree
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood Shrub Tree
12 12 18 15 15 48 15 15 29 16 16 42 13 13 59
4 4 7 4 4 9 5 5 7 4 4 6 5 5 10
486 486 728 607 607 1943 607 607 1174 648 648 1700 526 526 2388
Color for Density
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
0.02471 0.02471
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 1 1 1
96306-WEI-0003 96306-WEI-0004 96306-WEI-000596306-WEI-0001 96306-WEI-0002
Species count
size (ACRES)0.02471 0.02471 0.02471
Volunteer species included in total
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9b. Planted and Total Stem Counts - Permanent Vegetation Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 3 3 4 5 6 4 4 19 25
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 5 3 10 3 3 13
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 2 2 2 3 3 12 3 3 7 3 3 10 4 4 4
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 14 6 16 8 12
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree
Morella cerifera Common Wax-myrtle Shrub Tree 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Pinus rigida Pitch Pine Tree
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 66 3 3 33 2 2 17
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree 5
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Rhus aromatica Fragrant Sumac Shrub
Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Shrub Tree
Salix Willow Shrub Tree
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood Shrub Tree 1 1 1
14 14 37 15 15 39 16 16 109 15 15 90 19 19 82
5 5 8 6 6 10 6 6 10 5 5 8 7 7 9
567 567 1497 607 607 1578 648 648 4411 607 607 3642 769 769 3318
Color for Density
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
96306-WEI-0007 96306-WEI-0008 96306-WEI-0009 96306-WEI-001096306-WEI-0006
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
Volunteer species included in total
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
1
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 11
size (ACRES)0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.024710.02471
Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts - Permanent Vegetation Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 3 29
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 3 3 3 35 2 1 1 4
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 1 1 23 3
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 1 1 1 2 2 20 2 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 1
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 1 1 1 4 4 4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 2 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 2 4 77
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 2 2 17
Morella cerifera Common Wax-myrtle Shrub Tree
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree
Pinus rigida Pitch Pine Tree
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 2 2 2 6 6 18 2 2 2 5 5 5 7 7 7
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3
Rhus aromatica Fragrant Sumac Shrub
Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Shrub Tree
Salix Willow Shrub Tree
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood Shrub Tree
11 11 36 17 17 94 13 13 23 11 11 18 12 12 136
6 6 8 5 5 10 5 5 6 6 6 8 3 3 7
445 445 1457 688 688 3804 526 526 931 445 445 728 486 486 5504
Color for Density
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
0.024710.02471
1 1
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
size (ACRES)
96306-WEI-0011 96306-WEI-0012
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
0.02471
Stem count
size (ares)1 1 1
96306-WEI-0013 96306-WEI-0014 96306-WEI-0015
0.02471 0.02471
Table 9d. Planted and Total Stem Counts - Permanent Vegetation Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree 32 14 16 19 20 12
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 11 11 146 11 11 34 12 12 17 12 12 100 12 12 22 13 13 13
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 4 4 59 8 7 8 1
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 36 36 82 34 34 73 34 34 45 34 34 52 35 35 35 37 37 37
Celtis laevigata Sugarberry Shrub Tree 1
Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 32 32 35 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 42 42 43 46 46 46 49 49 49 51 51 51 52 52 52 57 57 57
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Tree 3 3 1
Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum Tree 171 26 31 10 17 5
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 23 16 30 2 7 2
Morella cerifera Common Wax-myrtle Shrub Tree 2
Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum Tree 2
Pinus rigida Pitch Pine Tree 5
Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree 2
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 46 46 184 42 42 160 43 43 271 44 44 460 44 44 108 57 57 57
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree 5 11 10 19 7
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree 5
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 17 17 17 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 21 20 20 20 20 20 20
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
Rhus aromatica Fragrant Sumac Shrub 7 8
Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree 2
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Shrub Tree 19
Salix Willow Shrub Tree 3
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 3 1
Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 1
Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 1
Viburnum dentatum Arrow-wood Shrub Tree 1 1 1
214 214 860 209 209 481 217 217 567 220 220 803 222 222 350 243 243 264
9 9 20 7 7 16 7 7 15 7 7 14 7 7 14 7 7 11
577 577 2320 564 564 1298 585 585 1530 594 594 2166 599 599 944 656 656 712
Color for Density
Stem count
size (ares)15 15
MY7 (8/2022)
Annual Means
MY3 (9/2018)MY2 (7/2017)MY1 (9/2016)MY0 (3/2016)MY5 (8/2020)
15 15
size (ACRES)0.3707 0.3707 0.3707 0.3707 0.3707
15
0.3707
15
Volunteer species included in total
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9e. Planted and Total Stem Counts - Wetland Vegetation Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Wetland Vegetation Plots
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Wetland Status Wetland Plot 1 Wetland Plot 2 Wetland Plot 3 MY7 (2022) Mean MY6 (2021) Mean
T T T T
Acer negundo Box Elder Tree FAC 3 2 5 5
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree FAC 6 1 7 4
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree OBL 1 5 6 6
Betula nigra River Birch Tree FACW 1 2 3 6
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree FACW 7 7 7
Populus deltoides Cottonwood Tree FAC 3 1 4 3
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree FAC 1 1 1
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree OBL 6 4 10 8
12 19 12 43 40
1 1 1 3 3
0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.07413 0.07413
3 7 4 8 8
486 769 486 580 540
7.4 6.7 5.9 6.7 4.3
Color for Density
T: Total stems
Stems per ACRE
Average Stem Height (ft)
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
Volunteer species included in total
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Table 9f. Planted and Total Stem Counts - Additional Transect Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Additional Transect Plots
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3 Transect 4 MY7 (2022) Mean
T T T T
Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 3 4 7
Alnus serrulata Tag Alder Shrub Tree 2 5 4 11
Betula nigra River Birch Tree 4 2 3 9
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon Tree 1 2 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 4 6 1 3 14
Quercus michauxii Cottonwood Tree 1 1 2
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 3
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1 2 3
8 14 12 19 53
1 1 1 1 4
0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.02471 0.09884
5 5 5 7 9
324 567 486 769 536
7.6 4.1 2.8 2.4 4.2
Color for Density
T: Total stems
Volunteer species included in total
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Average Stem Height (ft)
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Table 9g. Planted Stem Average Heights
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
Permanent Plot 1 1.6 1.7 2.1 3.7 7.3 8.9
Permanent Plot 2 1.9 2.1 2.6 4.5 8.2 10.0
Permanent Plot 3 2.0 1.9 2.1 3.7 8.2 12.7
Permanent Plot 4 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.0 4.8 6.8
Permanent Plot 5 1.9 2.0 2.4 3.5 4.6 4.8
Permanent Plot 6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.5
Permanent Plot 7 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3
Permanent Plot 8 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.2 3.0 4.8
Permanent Plot 9 1.9 2.4 3.0 4.3 7.1 11.5
Permanent Plot 10 1.8 2.4 2.7 3.4 5.5 9.6
Permanent Plot 11 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.5 2.4 2.2
Permanent Plot 12 2.0 2.6 2.9 3.6 5.8 8.8
Permanent Plot 13 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.9 7.0 9.5
Permanent Plot 14 2.0 2.0 2.6 6.4 12.3 22.8
Permanent Plot 15 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.8 6.1 8.8
Permanent Plot Site Average 1.9 2.1 2.4 3.5 5.8 8.5
Average Stem Height (ft) by Plot
Table 9h. Stems Per Plot Across All Years
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Planted
Stems
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/Ac
Planted
Stems
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/Ac
Planted
Stems
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/Ac
Planted
Stems
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/Ac
Planted
Stems
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/Ac
Planted
Stems
Total
Stems
Total
Stems/Ac
12 18 728 14 16 648 14 16 648 14 14 567 14 14 567 16 16 648
15 48 1,943 16 27 1,093 16 21 850 16 17 688 16 17 688 18 18 728
15 29 1,174 15 23 931 15 17 688 15 15 607 16 16 648 16 16 648
16 42 1,700 16 26 1,052 16 16 648 16 17 688 16 16 648 16 16 648
13 59 2,388 11 45 1,821 12 35 1,416 12 31 1,255 12 32 1,295 16 16 648
14 37 1,497 13 21 850 14 24 971 16 39 1,578 16 16 648 16 16 648
15 39 1,578 14 21 850 14 17 688 14 129 5,221 14 14 567 15 15 607
16 109 4,411 14 61 2,469 14 96 3,885 14 65 2,631 14 21 850 16 16 648
15 90 3,642 15 57 2,307 15 131 5,301 15 111 4,492 15 46 1,862 16 16 648
19 82 3,318 16 35 1,416 16 28 1,133 16 218 8,822 16 18 728 17 17 688
11 36 1,457 11 11 445 16 17 688 17 46 1,862 17 39 1,578 17 17 688
17 94 3,804 16 56 2,266 15 25 1,012 15 29 1,174 16 16 648 16 16 648
13 23 931 12 12 486 13 14 567 13 14 567 13 13 526 16 16 648
11 18 728 13 19 769 13 18 728 13 14 567 13 13 526 16 16 648
12 136 5,504 13 51 2,064 14 92 3,723 14 44 1,781 14 59 2,388 16 37 1,497
MY1 (2016)MY0 (2016)
Permanent Plot 1
Permanent Plot 2
Permanent Plot 3
Plot
MY5 (2020)MY3 (2018)MY2 (2017)
Permanent Plot 15
Permanent Plot 5
Permanent Plot 6
MY7 (2022)
Permanent Plot 7
Permanent Plot 8
Permanent Plot 9
Permanent Plot 4
Permanent Plot 10
Permanent Plot 11
Permanent Plot 12
Permanent Plot 13
Permanent Plot 14

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 2, UT1A and UT2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Upper Lower Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Reference Cross Section Number
Bankfull Width (ft)15.2 16.3
Floodprone Width (ft)18 19.8 23 46 150 200 60 110 81.3 149.8+
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)7.5 7.8
Width/Depth Ratio 30.7 34.4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 1.2 2.3 4.6 24.2 32.37 8.0 14.7 15.9 20.3
Bank Height Ratio 2.9 7.5
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)23.3 51.9 10.8 32.9 3.45 52.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.4 1.7 0.002 0.0080 0.005 0.0210 0.0020 0.0080 0.0000 0.0230 0.0010 0.0395 0.0000 0.0144
Pool Length (ft)15.4 83.1 10.2 47.5 10.28 60.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.3 2.5 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.8 2.2 3.5 0.9 2.6 1.6 2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)20 86 12 53 15 68 49 136 29 53 28 87
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)8 83 8 37 9 58 7 84 7 36 8 59
Radius of Curvature (ft)25 51 13 25 14 24 25 58 9 25 13 24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)19.2 39.2 15.3 29.4 14.7 25.3 2.4 5.5 1.4 3.8 2.3 4.2
Meander Length (ft)120 210 63 100 65 156 123 210 61 100 63 158
Meander Width Ratio 92.3 161.5 74.1 117.6 68.4 164.2 11.7 20.0 9.2 15.2 11.2 28.0
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.07
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)1.3 1.5 0.8 1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)4.0 6.7
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings 4.0 6.7
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.0016 0.0018 0.0037 0.0043 0.0016 0.0019
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0016 0.0018 0.0037 0.0043 0.0016 0.0019
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1 Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
2 Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT1 Reach 2, and UT1B.
3The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
4The 25-year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
5Sinuosity on UT1 Reach 2 is calculated by drawing a valley length line that follows the proposed valley; the existing valley is poorly defined
*Does not include last 150’ to tie-in to Henry Fork.
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASELINE
UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT2 UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT2 UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT2
31.4
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
9.4 12.5 10.1 6.2 7.5 10.5 6.6
0.9 0.40 0.850.7 0.2 0.82 0.51
14.4 56.0 12.3 12.1 12.9 11.4 17.0
XS9 XS8 XS5,XS6
0.80 1.2
6.1 2.8 8.3 3.2 4.4 9.7 2.5 4.6
1.4 0.7 1.30 0.85 0.95 1.5
5.65
17.9 23.1 96.7+
7.2
0.58
9.2+4.8
2.7 1.9 1.0 1.0
1.9 1.8
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1
5.3/N/A 0.28/0.34 SC/0.04
---------
N/A 0.34 0.04
38.1 N/A2 N/A2
Silt/Clay
---------
N/A2
6.7 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
Pattern
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2 N/A2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
0.8-1.6 0.7 0.18-0.25+4 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.13
SC/0.18/2.8/38/62/128-180 SC/SC/SC/SC/0.25/4.0/11.3-16 SC/SC/SC/SC/SC/8.0/45-64
Additional Reach Parameters
0.2 0.036 0.077
18.3 6.1 10.2
Modified B4c3 Modified B6c3 Modified F63
1,499*353 1,915
---------
---------
0.04 0.08
5.3%6.1%2.4%5.3%
0.24-0.28 0.04 0.08 0.24-0.28
6.1%2.4%5.3%6.1%2.4%
C6 C6
3.0 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.2 1 1.4
C6 C6 C6 C6
13 4
---------
14 6 5
1,174415
61 19 29
18.3 6.1 10.2 14 6 5
---------922
13 4
1.39 1.06 1.65 1.3 1.6
658 1,969
1.5 5 1.05 1.03 1.7
1,228 657 1,969 1,232
0.0015
0.0018
---------0.0037 0.0060
0.0023 0.0063
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 1 and UT1B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Upper Lower Min Max Min Max Min Max
Reference Cross Section Number
Bankfull Width (ft)3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 6.0 7.0 6.9 7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)6.7 11.4 17.5 19.8 15 20(403)10 15 51.3 118.3+
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.40 0.49 0.4 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)1.8 2.1 1.9 2 2.4 3.4 2.9 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio 5.1 5.7 3.7 5.1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.0 3.6 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.9 (5.73)1.8 2.7 7.0 17.1+
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 3.1 1.7 2.2
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)8.0 47.3 11.3 41.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.041 0.21 0.056 0.092 0.067 0.110 0.0142 0.0987 0.0259 0.0978
Pool Length (ft)4.3 33.4 5.6 20.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.6 1.5 0.7 1.3 0.9 2.8 0.5 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)10.4 20.5 12 35 11 28 10 60 7 43
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)6 28 5 21 10 26 4 19
Radius of Curvature (ft)14 30 10 18 8 31 8 32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)2.3 4.3 1.8 3.3 1.2 4.5 1.5 5.9
Meander Length (ft)52 104 46 92 56 104 48 90
Meander Width Ratio 9 15 8 17 8 15 9 17
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification B4a B4a (C4b5)
Bankfull Velocity (fps)4.8 5.3 3.8 4.1 4.6 4.1 2.6 3.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)8.5 11.4 10 15 7.6 12.6
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings 8.5 11.4 10 15 7.6 12.6
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity 1.11 1.16
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.0477 0.0527 0.0500 0.0565
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0477 0.0527 0.0500 0.0565 0.0241 0.0612
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1 Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
2 Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT1 Reach 2, and UT1B.
3 UT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is more typical of a C.
4The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
5UT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is more typical of a C.
6UT1B is classified in existing conditions as a sand bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment and
channelization resulting in a less steep stream). The restored stream, with slopes exceeding 2% grade throughout the reach, will be a
gravel dominated stream, and is classified as such.
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASELINE
UT1 Reach 1 UT1B
XS3,XS4 XS1,XS2
UT1 Reach 1 UT1BUT1 Reach 1 UT1B
6.9
2.1 2.2
12.3 14.7 15.8 37.7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
5.5 5.4
13.2
0.4 0.4
1.3 0.55 0.75 0.6
11.0
1.0
Profile
8.3 5.3 17.1
1.0 1.0
16/8.3 6.9/5.3
1.0
N/A2 N/A2
------
------
N/A2
Pattern
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
N/A2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
N/A2 N/A2
SC/0.18/2.80/38/62/128-180 FS/SC/SC/0.14/8.9/45/128-180
Additional Reach Parameters
2.3-3.1 1.3-2.4 0.91 0.87 1.321.0-1.2
0.17 0.048
8
Modified Low W/D B4a / E4b4 Modified B5a / E5b4
30 24
------
1,392 478
------
------
1.0 1.1
B4a6 B4a B4a
4.3 3.9
0.048 0.07-0.17 0.048
5.9%7.9%
0.07-0.17
7.9%5.9%7.9%5.9%
8 9 8.7
8.7
------
9
1,471 358 1,497 358
1,271 338------
0.0602
0.0369 0.0598
1.11.30 1.2
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Parameter
Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹Min¹Max¹
Reference Cross Section Number XS2 XS3 XS1 XS3 XS1 XS3 XS1 XS2 XS3 XS4 XS1 XS2
Bankfull Width (ft)12.4 9.7 8.6 7.0 6.2 5.7 6.1 8.4 4.4 4.2 3.2 7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)79 52 48.9 45.2 200+200+25.5 31.2 8.6 10.6 6.3 13
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)17.6 11.4 4.1 3.5 5.3 4.5 6.4 8.7 3.6 3.4 1.9 3.6
Width/Depth Ratio 8.7 8.2 18.3 13.9 7.4 7.2 5.7 8.2 5.5 5.2 5.2 16.4
Entrenchment Ratio 4.2 3.7 1.9 2.5 2.0 1.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0114 0.0605 0.0142 0.3451 0.0055 0.0597 0.0202 0.0664 0.0105 0.1218 0.0110 0.1400 0.0500 0.0700
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.3 3.0 1.8 2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)31 60 19 46 15 28 28 63 9 58 18 27 14 25
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)15.5 16.5
Radius of Curvature (ft)31 56 29 52 19 32 27 50 9 20 8.0 11.8
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)2.8 5.1 2.4 4.2 2.2 4.6 4.4 8.8 1.5 2.4 1.9 2.7
Meander Length (ft)65 107 52 79 39 44 29 45 45 72 31 34
Meander Width Ratio 4.4 5.7 2.4 3.0 3.1 4.2 9.6 13.3 3.6 3.8
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Drainage Area (SM)
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)3.9 3.5 2 2.1 3.3 3.2 3.3 4.4 3.6 3.4 5.4 3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1 Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
REFERENCE REACH DATA
XS4 XS2
UT to South Crowders Group Camp Tributary UT to Gap Branch Upstream UT1 to Henry ForkUT to Catawba River Reach 1 UT to Catawba River Reach 2 UT to Lyle Creek Vile Preserve
13.2 3.8
11.5 10.1
0.6
1.7 1.0
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
12.3 6.2
53 20.9
1.1
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
5.8+5.8+2.5+30+3.4
Profile
---------------
0.3 19.0 34.01.8 75.9 0.2 0.4 19.7
------------------------
---------
0.0063
1.5 N/A
44.8
--------------
2.5 N/A 1.3 1.4
Pattern
55 23 21 19
----------------
1.8 N/A N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
81 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
2.8/16/34/64/101/128-1800.3/0.4/1.8/12.8/25/90 0.5/29.8/75.9/170.8/332.0/>2048.0 -/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0 0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/2/-0.8/12.1/19.7/49.5/75.9/180.0 SC/0.1/0.3/16.0/55.6/128.0 0.4/8/19.0/102.3/256.0/>2048
1.60 1.60 0.25
58 83 8
Additional Reach Parameters
------------------------
1.09 0.22 0.10 0.04 0.05
16 25 12 19 12
B4a
6.3 5.0
E5 E3b/C3b C5 E5 E4 E5b Slightly entrenched B4a/A4
------------------------
2.2 1.6 N/A 1.11.2 1.1 1.1 1.1
------------------------
---------
---
---------------
---------------------
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
UT1 Reach 1 & UT1 Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)1 906.1 906.1 906.1 906.1 906.2 906.3 901.9 901.9 901.9 901.9 901.8 901.9 878.3 878.3 878.3 878.2 878.1 878.3
Low Bank Elevation 906.1 906.1 906.1 906.2 906.2 906.3 901.9 901.9 901.9 901.9 901.8 901.9 878.3 878.3 878.3 878.2 878.1 878.3
Bankfull Width (ft)7.3 6.8 7.1 7.8 5.5 5.9 8.8 9.6 10.9 11.3 12.2 11.1 7.8 7.7 9.6 10.0 8.8 10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)2 51 51 52 55 55 55 ------------------------------------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)3.5 2.9 3.3 4.3 3.4 3.4 10.7 9.5 10.0 8.0 5.1 5.0 9.1 8.1 8.8 9.0 8.1 10.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.4 15.7 15.0 14.3 8.8 10.3 ------------------------------------
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 7.0 7.5 7.3 7.0 10.1 9.4 ------------------------------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 ------------------------------------
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)1 877.6 877.6 877.6 877.5 877.7 877.9 873.5 873.5 873.5 873.4 873.6 873.6 872.7 872.7 872.7 872.8 872.8 872.8
Low Bank Elevation 877.6 877.6 877.6 877.5 877.6 877.7 873.5 873.5 873.5 873.5 873.5 873.5 872.7 872.7 872.7 872.8 872.8 872.8
Bankfull Width (ft)6.9 7.4 7.6 6.9 4.9 3.9 10.5 11.1 10.9 11.2 10.6 10.1 8.8 8.8 9.2 10.7 9.8 10.1
Floodprone Width (ft)2 118+118+118+60+60+62+97+97+97+75+73+73+------------------
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2.9 3.2 3.1 2.8 1.9 1.8 9.7 10.1 9.3 10.1 8.7 9.1 8.8 7.2 6.8 8.4 7.8 8.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.2 17.1 18.7 16.8 12.7 8.4 11.4 12.1 12.7 12.4 12.8 11.3 ------------------
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.1+16.0+15.5+8.6+12.2+15.8+9.2+8.7+8.9+6.7+6.9+7.2+------------------
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 ------------------
2 Floodprone width in MY3 through MY7 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
1Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
Cross-Section 4, UT1 Reach 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 5, UT1 Reach 2 (Riffle)Cross-Section 6, UT1 Reach 2 (Pool)
Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section 1, UT1 Reach 1 (Riffle)Cross-Section 2, UT1 Reach 1 (Pool)Cross-Section 3, UT1 Reach 1 (Pool)
N/A N/A N/A
N/AN/A N/A
N/A
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
UT1A, UT1B, & UT2
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)1 874.9 874.9 874.9 874.8 875.2 875.2 875.0 875.0 875.0 874.9 875.2 875.4 922.9 922.9 922.9 923.1 923.0 923.1 922.1 922.1 922.1 922.2 922.3 922.7
Low Bank Elevation 874.9 874.9 874.9 874.8 875.2 875.2 875.0 875.0 875.0 874.9 875.0 875.1 922.9 922.9 922.9 923.1 923.0 923.1 922.1 922.1 922.1 922.2 922.3 922.7
Bankfull Width (ft)5.6 5.8 4.5 4.2 5.0 3.5 6.6 6.3 7.7 6.5 4.9 4.1 5.5 5.9 6.9 8.3 6.9 8.0 5.4 5.9 4.3 6.5 5.7 5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)2 ------------------31+81+79+85+86+84+------------------38 56 54 56 60 63
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2.0 2.3 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.5 5.0 4.2 4.0 5.6 4.5 5.2 2.2 2.0 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio ------------------17.0 17.3 24.9 17.9 15.4 11.1 ------------------13.2 17.3 19.6 17.0 16.3 13.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------------------4.8+12.8+10.3+13.1+17.5+20.7+------------------6.9 9.4 12.5 8.6 10.6 11.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------------------1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 ------------------1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0
Dimension and Substrate1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)1 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.1 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.1 876.2 875.1 875.1 875.1 875.0 875.0 875.0 875.2 875.2 875.2 875.2 875.2 875.3
Low Bank Elevation 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.1 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0 876.1 875.1 875.1 875.1 875.0 875.0 875.0 875.2 875.2 875.2 875.3 875.1 875.2
Bankfull Width (ft)10.2 11.5 11.1 10.8 10.9 11.4 8.1 9.1 8.6 8.0 8.3 8.4 7.8 8.2 10.0 12.0 10.9 10.2 7.4 6.9 7.5 8.5 8.0 7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)2 ------------------81+51+51+51+51+51+------------------150+150+150+59+59+59+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)8.6 9.5 9.7 8.5 8.0 8.1 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.3 4.9 4.8 8.8 8.1 9.4 8.0 8.0 7.1 4.2 3.8 4.4 4.8 3.1 3.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio ------------------11.5 15.0 12.3 12.1 14.2 14.7 ------------------12.9 12.7 12.6 14.8 20.4 16.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio ------------------10.1+5.6+5.9+6.3+6.1+6.0+------------------20.3+21.8+20.1+7.0+7.4+7.7+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio ------------------1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 ------------------1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.9
2 Floodprone width in MY3 through MY7 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
N/A N/A N/A
Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A
Cross-Section 14, UT2 (Riffle)
Cross-Section 10, UT1B (Riffle)
N/A
Cross-Section 7, UT1A (Pool)Cross-Section 8, UT1A (Riffle)Cross-Section 9, UT1B (Pool)
1Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
Cross-Section 13, UT2 (Pool)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cross-Section 12, UT2 (Riffle)Cross-Section 11, UT2 (Pool)
N/A N/A
N/A
UT1 Reach 1
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)6.9 7.3 6.8 7.4 7.1 7.6 6.9 7.8 4.9 5.5 3.9 5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)51 118+51 118+52 118+55 60+55 60+55 62+
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.9 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 4.3 1.9 3.4 1.8 3.4
Width/Depth Ratio 15.7 17.1 15.0 18.7 14.3 16.8 8.8 12.7 8.4 10.3
Entrenchment Ratio 7.0 17.1+7.5+16.0+7.3+15.5+7.0 8.6+10.1 12.2+9.4 15.8+
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0
D50 (mm)35.9 37.9 56.1 87.0 87.3 93.6 73.0 104.7 66.2 88.3 47.7 68.5
Shallow Length (ft)8.0 47.3
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)0.0142 0.0987
Pool Length (ft)4.3 33.4
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.9 2.8
Pool Spacing (ft)10 60
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)10 26
Radius of Curvature (ft)8 31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.2 4.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)56 104
Meander Width Ratio 8 15
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.0241 0.0612
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
MY5
Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
1.0 1.0 1.0
15.8
0.75 0.7
MY6 MY7
0%N/A 0%0%0%
Pattern
Profile
Additional Reach Parameters
0%
N/A
0%
1,497
1.2
0.0369
B4a
N/AN/A
UT1 Reach 2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)23.3 51.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0230
Pool Length (ft)15.4 83.1
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.2 3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)49 136
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)7 84
Radius of Curvature (ft)25 58
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)2.4 5.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)123 210
Meander Width Ratio 11.7 20.0
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
97+97+97+
10.5 11.1 10.9 11.2
MY5
Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
9.2+8.7+8.9+6.7+
11.4 12.1 12.7
9.7 10.1 9.3 10.1
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
9.1
11.3
7.2+
N/A
75+
0.9 1.0
1.6
12.4
1.0 1.0
N/A
MY6 MY7
10.6
73+
0.8
1.6
8.7
12.8
6.9+
10.1
73+
0.9
1.6
Silt/Clay
Profile
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A N/A0%0.8%0%0%0%
C6
1,232
0.0037
1.3
0.0023
UT1A
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)10.8 32.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0010 0.0395
Pool Length (ft)10.2 47.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.9 2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)29 53
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)7 36
Radius of Curvature (ft)9 25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.4 3.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)61 100
Meander Width Ratio 9.2 15.2
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Table 12c. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5MY4
6.5
N/A
85+
0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4
31+81+79+
0.8
2.5 2.3
0.8 0.6 0.6
6.6 6.3 7.7
1.0 1.0
4.8 31.9+10.3+
2.4
17.0
Profile
MY6 MY7
0.8
4.9
86+
0.3
0.8
0.8
1.6
15.4
17.5+
4.1
84+
0.4
0.8N/A 1.5
0%0%0%
11.1
20.7+
1.0 1.0
0%
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A 0%
13.1+
2.4
17.9
0%
0.0060
658
1.6
0.0063
17.3 24.9
C6
UT1B
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Shallow Length (ft)11.3 41.2
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)0.0259 0.0978
Pool Length (ft)5.6 20.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)0.5 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)7 43
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)4 19
Radius of Curvature (ft)8 32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.5 5.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)48 90
Meander Width Ratio 9 17
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
MY5
Table 12d. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
68.5
Profile
23.3
N/A
N/A
6.9 9.4 12.5 8.6
1.0 1.0
5.4 5.9 4.3 6.5
0.6
1.0 1.0 1.1
11.4
N/A
19.6 17.017.3
0.5 0.3 0.6
56 54 56
0.3 0.2
B4a
0.0602
358
1.1
0.0598
0%N/A 0%0%0%0%0%
5.7
60
0.3
0.6
2.0
16.3
10.6
0.9
47.7
13.2
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
11.0 40.2 69.0
13.2
5.5
MY7
63
0.4
0.7
2.3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
MY6
2.2 2.0 1.0 2.5
38
0.4 0.4
UT2
Parameter
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)7.4 8.1 6.9 9.1 7.5 8.6 8.0 8.5 8.0 8.3 7.7 8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)81 150+51+150+51+150+51+59+51+59+51+59+
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.8 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.2 5.7 3.8 5.5 4.4 6.0 4.8 5.3 3.1 4.9 3.6 4.8
Width/Depth Ratio 11.5 12.9 12.7 15.0 12.3 12.6 12.1 14.8 14.2 20.4 14.7 16.3
Entrenchment Ratio 10.1 29.0+5.6+21.8+5.9+20.1+6.3+7.0+6.1+7.4+6.0+7.7+
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)3.45 52.29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0144
Pool Length (ft)10.28 60.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.6 2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)28 87
Pool Volume (ft3)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)8 59
Radius of Curvature (ft)13 24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)2.3 4.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)63 158
Meander Width Ratio 11.2 28.0
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
MY6MY5MY4
Table 12e. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
As-Built/Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3
1.0 1.0
N/A
MY7
0%N/A 0%0%0%0%0%
0.9 0.9
N/A
Profile
Pattern
Additional Reach Parameters
0.0015
1,969
1.7
0.0018
C6
Cross-Section 1-UT1 R1
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
6.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.3 width-depth ratio
55.4 W flood prone area (ft)
9.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
View Downstream
904
905
906
907
908
35 45 55 65
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
104+28 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross-Section 2-UT1 R1
Bankfull Dimensions
5.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.1 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
11.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
24.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
View Downstream
899
900
901
902
903
40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
105+36 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 3-UT1 R1
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
2.5 max depth (ft)
12.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
View Downstream
875
876
877
878
879
880
20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
113+46 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross Section 4-UT1 R1
Bankfull Dimensions
1.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.9 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
4.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.4 width-depth ratio
62.2 W flood prone area (ft)
15.8 entrenchment ratio
0.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
View Downstream
876
877
878
879
880
20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
113+64 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross-Section 5-UT1 R2
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.1 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
10.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3 width-depth ratio
73.3 W flood prone area (ft)
7.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
871
872
873
874
875
876
20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
121+63 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross-Section 6-UT1 R2
Bankfull Dimensions
8.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.1 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
10.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
870
871
872
873
874
875
30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
122+09 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 7-UT1A
Bankfull Dimensions
1.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.5 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
4.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.5 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
873
874
875
876
877
30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
182+00 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 8-UT1A
Bankfull Dimensions
1.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.1 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
4.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1 width-depth ratio
84.3 W flood prone area (ft)
20.7 entrenchment ratio
0.8 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
873
874
875
876
877
30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
182+16 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross-Section 9-UT1B
Bankfull Dimensions
5.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.0 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
8.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
View Downstream
920
921
922
923
924
925
30 40 50 60 70
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
151+92 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 10-UT1B
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.5 width (ft)
0.4 mean depth (ft)
0.7 max depth (ft)
5.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2 width-depth ratio
63.2 W flood prone area (ft)
11.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
View Downstream
920
921
922
923
924
925
30 40 50 60 70 80
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
152+05 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross-Section 11-UT2
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.4 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.6 max depth (ft)
12.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.0 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
874
875
876
877
878
0 10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
206+86 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 12-UT2
Bankfull Dimensions
4.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.4 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
8.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7 width-depth ratio
50.8 W flood prone area (ft)
6.0 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
874
875
876
877
878
0 10 20 30 40
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
207+26 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Cross-Section 13-UT2
Bankfull Dimensions
7.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft)
11.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
873
874
875
876
877
10 20 30 40 50 60
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
212+15 Pool
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)Bankfull
Cross-Section 14-UT2
Bankfull Dimensions
3.6 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
8.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.3 width-depth ratio
59.3 W flood prone area (ft)
7.7 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:03/2022
Field Crew:Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross-Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
874
875
876
877
0 10 20 30 40 50
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Width (ft)
212+58 Riffle
MY0 (03/2016)MY1 (10/2016)MY2 (04/2017)
MY3 (04/2018)MY5 (04/2020)MY7 (03/2022)
Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 BKF XS Area Elevation

To: DMS Technical Workgroup, DMS operations staff 
From: Periann Russell, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 
RE: Pebble count data requirements 
Date: October 19, 2021 

The DMS Technical Work Group met September 29, 2021 to discuss Interagency Review Team (IRT) and 
DMS requirements for collecting pebble count data as part of monitoring (MY0‐MYx).  Agreement was 
reached between all attending parties that pebble count data will not be required during the monitoring 
period for all future projects.   
Sediment data and particle distribution will still be required for the mitigation plan as part of the 
proposed design explanation and justification. 
Pebble counts and/or particle distributions currently being conducted by providers for annual 
monitoring may be discontinued at the discretion of the DMS project manager.  If particle distribution 
was listed as a performance standard in the project mitigation plan, the provider is required to 
communicate the intent to cease data collection with the DMS project manager. The absence of pebble 
count data in future monitoring reports where pebble count data was listed as part of monitoring in the 
mitigation plan must be documented in the monitoring report.  The September 29, 2021 Technical Work 
Group meeting may be cited as the source of the new policy. 
The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count data/particle distributions if deemed necessary 
during the monitoring period. 

1
Kristi Suggs
From:Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:26 PM
To:Kristi Suggs
Cc:Mimi Caddell
Subject:RE: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements
I am absolutely OK with not doing pebble counts anymore! 

As stated in the memo, please add a statement in the monitoring reports citing the policy. 

Thanks! 

Matthew Reid
Project Manager – Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services

828-231-7912 Mobile
[e-mail]

Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Kristi Suggs [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 1:24 PM 
To: Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Mimi Caddell <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to Report 
Spam. 

Matthew, 

Jason Lorch in our Raleigh Office forwarded this meeting memo to me.  It says that conducting pebble counts for DMS 
monitoring (MY0 – MY7) projects is no longer needed as long as it has been okayed by the DMS PM.  Moving forward, are you 
going to allow us to stop doing them on your projects?  If so, will DBB projects be treated the same?  Please let me know.  Thank 
you! 

Kristi 

Kristi Suggs  |  Senior Environmental Scientist 
O: 704.332.7754  x110  M: 704.579.4828 
2

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104  
Charlotte, NC 28203 

From: Jason Lorch <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 9:05 AM 
To: Kristi Suggs <[e-mail]> 
Subject: FW: Pebble Count Data Requirements 

FYI! 

Jason Lorch, GISP  |  Senior Environmental Scientist 
O: 919.851.9986  x107  M: 919.413.1214 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 
Raleigh, NC 27609 

From: Russell, Periann <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:05 AM 
To: King, Scott <[e-mail]>; Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV 
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Brad Breslow <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B 
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; grant lewis <[e-mail]>; Jeff Keaton 
<[e-mail]>; katie mckeithan <[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell 
<[e-mail]>; Kevin Tweedy <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Ryan 
Smith <[e-mail]>; Melia, Gregory <[e-mail]>; Allen, Melonie <[e-mail]>; 
Famularo, Joseph T <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Bryan Dick <[e-mail]>; Ryan Medric 
<[e-mail]>; Kim Browning <[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell <[e-mail]>; 
Worth Creech <[e-mail]>; Jason Lorch <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Tsomides, Harry 
<[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>; Dow, Jeremiah J <[e-mail]>; 
Horton, Jeffrey <[e-mail]>; Ullman, Kirsten J <[e-mail]>; Ackerman, Anjie 
<[e-mail]>; Blackwell, Jamie D <[e-mail]>; Xu, Lin <[e-mail]>; Mir, Danielle 
<[e-mail]>; Corson, Kristie <[e-mail]>; Russell, Periann <[e-mail]>; 
Sparks, Kimberly L <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Pebble Count Data Requirements 

Please review the attached memo documenting the agreed upon policy for pebble count data requirements.   
Please reply (me only) to this email if accept that this memo represents (or misrepresents) our discussion on Sept 29. 
Thank you. 

Periann Russell
Geomorphologist
Division of Mitigation Services, Science and Analysis
NC Department of Environmental Quality

919 707 8306 office
919 208 1426 mobile
[e-mail]

Mailing: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Physical: 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

MY Method
MY1 Crest Gage
MY3
6/19/2020
4/13/2020
8/15/2020
Crest & Stream
Gage
Crest & Stream
Gage
UT1 Reach 2 - SG2
Stream Gage
2/15/2021
3/25/2021
8/17/2021
UT1A - SG3
3/26/2021
8/17/2021
Stream Gage
9/25/2020
10/31/2019
6/19/2020
8/15/2020
9/2/2020
9/17/2020
11/12/2020
Unknown
MY2
4/24/2017
10/8/2017
6/9/2019
10/11/2018
10/31/2019MY4
MY5
Table 13a. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Reach Date of Occurrence
11/12/2020
MY2
4/24/2017
10/8/2017
2/7/2018
MY3
6/9/2019
4/25/2018
5/29/2018
9/16/2018
10/11/2018
10/26/2018
MY4
MY5
5/21/2020
10/11/2020
MY6
3/24/2022
MY7
5/23/2022
8/6/2022
MY6
5/23/2022
6/26/2022
8/6/2022
MY7
7/8/2022
7/30/2022
7/8/2022
7/30/2022
MY Method
MY2 Crest & Stream
Gage
MY6
MY2 Crest & Stream
Gage
1Multiple bankfull events recorded
MY7
3/23/2022
4/18/2022
5/24/2022
7/8/2022
7/30/2022
8/6/2022
9/6/2022
MY6
1/28/2021
1/31/2021
2/12/2021 - 2/18/20211
2/26/2021
3/18/2021
3/26/2021
3/31/2021
5/3/2021
8/17/2021
8/15/2020
9/2/2020
9/18/2020
9/25/2020
10/11/2020
11/12/2020
1/12/2020
1/24/2020
3/25/2020
4/30/2020
5/21/2020
6/19/2020
UT2 - SG4
4/24/2017
MY3 2/7/2018
Stream Gage
5/29/2018
MY4 6/9/2019
10/31/2019
MY5
Stream Gage
8/24/2019
10/31/2019
MY5
6/19/2020
8/15/2020
11/12/2020
3/25/2021
MY7 7/8/2022
UT1B - SG1
10/8/2017
MY4
6/9/2019
7/30/2022
Table 13b. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Reach Date of Occurrence
Year 1 (2016)Year 2 (2017)Year 3 (2018)Year 4 (2019)Year 5 (2020)Year 6 (2021)Year 7 (2022)
Reference No/18 Days
(8%)
Yes/59 Days
(25%)
Yes/79 Days
(34%)
Yes/61 Days
(26%)
Yes/63 Days
(27%)
Yes/59 Days
(25%)
Yes/40 Days
(17%)
GWG 1 No/0 Days
(0%)
Yes/23 Days
(10%)
Yes/48 Days
(20%)
Yes/42 Days
(18%)
Yes/27 Days
(11%)
Yes/30 Days
(13%)
Yes/29 Days
(12%)
GWG 2 Yes/ 29 Days
(12.3%)
No/7 Days
(3%)
No/12 Days
(5%)
Yes/39 Days
(17%)
Yes/49 Days
(21%)
Yes/33 Days
(14%)
Yes/36 Days
(15%)
GWG 3 4 Yes/236 Days
(100%)
No/3 Days
(1%)
No/5 Days
(2%)
Yes/35 Days
(15%)
Yes/49 Days
(21%)
Yes/31 Days
(13%)
Yes/36 Days
(15%)
GWG 4 No/3 Days
(1.3%)
Yes/25 Days
(11%)
Yes/46 Days
(20%)
Yes/68 Days
(29%)
Yes/64 Days
(27%)
No/14 Days
(6%)
Yes/37 Days
(16%)
GWG 5 3 N/A Yes/189 Days
(80%)
Yes/102 Days
(43%)
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
Yes/202 Days
(85%)
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
GWG 6 Yes/79 Days
(33.5%)
Yes/89 Days
(38%)
Yes/96 Days
(41%)
Yes/76 Days
(32%)
Yes/116 Days
(49%)
Yes/65 Days
(27%)
Yes/76 Days
(32%)
GWG 7 No/7 Days
(3.0%)
Yes/21 Days
(9%)
Yes/44 Days
(19%)
Yes/44 Days
(19%)
Yes/89 Days
(38%)
Yes/31 Days
(13%)
Yes/37 Days
(16%)
GWG 8 No/1 Days
(0.4%)
No/14 Days
(6%)
No/11 Days
(5%)
No/19 Days
(8%)
No/14 Days
(6%)
No/18 Days
(8%)
No/6 Days
(3%)
GWG 9 3 N/A No/13 Days
(6%)
Yes/20 Days
(9%)
Yes/68 Days
(29%)
Yes/90 Days
(38%)
Yes/65 Days
(27%)
Yes/44 Days
(19%)
GWG 10 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/236 Days
(100%)
Yes/202 Days
(85%)
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
GWG 11 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/61 Days
(26%)
Yes/113 Days
(48%)
Yes/63 Days
(27%)
Yes/42 Days
(18%)
GWG 12 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/36 Days
(15%)
Yes/61 Days
(26%)
Yes/30 Days
(13%)
Yes/36 Days
(15%)
GWG 13 5 N/A N/A N/A Yes/236 Days
(100%)
Yes/202 Days
(85%)
Yes/237 Days
(100%)
Yes/138 Days
(59%)
GWG 14 6 N/A N/A N/A Yes/67 Days
(28%)
Yes/89 Days
(38%)
Yes/41 Days
(17%)
Yes/45 Days
(19%)
GWG 15 6 N/A N/A N/A Yes/45 Days
(19%)
Yes/89 Days
(38%)
Yes/33 Days
(14%)
Yes/41 Days
(17%)
N/A, not applicable
1Growing season dates March 20 - November 11
2Success criteria is 20 consecutive days (8.5%) of the growing season.
3GWGs 5 and 9 were installed on April 7, 2017.
4GWG 3 was relocated in January 2017.
5GWGs 10 -13 were installed on February 20, 2019.
6GWGs 14-15 were installed on March 7, 2019.
Gage
Success Criteria Achieved2/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season1 (Percentage)
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022 End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
29 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #1
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
36 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #2
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
36 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #3
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
37 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #4
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
237 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #5
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
76 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #6
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
37 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #7
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
6 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #8
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
44 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #9
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022 End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
237 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #10 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #10
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
42 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #11 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #11
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
36 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #12 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #12
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
138 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #13 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #13
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022
End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
45 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #14 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #14
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Start of Growing Season
3/20/2022 End of Growing Season
11/11/2022
41 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
i
n
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #15 Criteria Level Manual Water Level Measurements
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #15
Stream Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
49 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
920.0
920.5
921.0
921.5
922.0
922.5
923.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall UT1B - SG1 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Stream Gage 1 -UT1B
Stream Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
318 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall UT1 Reach 2 - SG2 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Stream Gage 2 -UT1 Reach 2
Stream Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
158 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
872.0
872.5
873.0
873.5
874.0
874.5
875.0
875.5
876.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall UT1A - SG3 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Stream Gage 3 -UT1A
Stream Gage Plots
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
124 days
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
Au
g
Se
p
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
872.0
872.5
873.0
873.5
874.0
874.5
875.0
875.5
876.0
876.5
877.0
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
f
t
)
Monitoring Year 7 -2022
Rainfall UT2 - SG4 Water Depth Thalweg Elevation Bankfull
Stream Gage 4 -UT2
Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
1 2022 rainfall collected by NC CRONOS Station Hickory 4.8 SW, NC
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Conover Oxford Shoal, NC
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Date
Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2022
Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile