20140193 Ver 1_Year 0 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

BASELINE MONITORING
DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT
BASELINE REPORT
Final
HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 005782
DMS ID No. 96306
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Data Collection Period: March — May 2016
Draft Submission Date: May 25, 2016
Final Submission Date: June 21, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
qkgvp
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) completed a full delivery project at the Henry Fork Mitigation Site
(Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environment Quality Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to
restore 3,087 linear feet (LF) of perennial streams and enhance 2,627 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 4,838 stream mitigation
units (SMUs) and 4.22 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
Division of Mitigation Services ILF requirements. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030, Lower
Henry Fork, was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in DMS' 2007 Catawba River Basin
Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan. The project streams consist of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the
Henry Fork River on the site of a former golf course, referred to herein as UT1, UT2, UT1A, and UT113
(Figure 2). The adjacent land to the streams and wetlands is primarily residential.
The Site is located in the Lower Henry Fork watershed which was designated as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) in the DMS' 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan. The RBRP
identifies a restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03050102 of removing conditions which cause
sediment impairments, including mitigating stressors from stormwater runoff. The Henry Fork
watershed was also identified in the 2005 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's Wildlife Action
Plan as a priority area, which calls for conservation and restoration of streams and riparian zones. In
addition, the 2010 NC DWQ Catawba River Basin Plan indicated that the section of Henry Fork that
drains the project area is impaired for high turbidity, among other stressors. The intent of this project is
to help meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and provide numerous ecological benefits
within the Catawba River Basin.
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 following
project goals established include:
• Decommissioning the existing golf course, with the targeted efforts of establishing a permanent
conservation easement to buffer the streams and Henry Fork floodplain.
• Improving aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including enhanced connectivity and diversity of
habitat.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between November 2015 and March 2016.
Some adjustments were made during construction, as needed, based on site conditions and availability
of materials. These design adjustments included log steps being replaced by rock steps, brush toe
replaced root wads in a few areas, as well as minor grading adjustments. Specific design changes are
detailed in Section 5.1 and in the Record Drawings (Appendix 4). Baseline (MYO) profiles and cross-
section dimensions closely match the design parameters. Cross-section widths and pool depths
occasionally exceed design parameters within a normal range of variability for natural streams; this is
not a concern at this time. With overbank events and vegetation growth, it is expected these stream
channels will narrow up with time. The Site has been built as designed and is on track to meeting the
upcoming monitoring year's success criteria.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES.........................................................1-1
1.1 Project Location and Setting......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach...................................................................1-2
1.3.1 Project Structure................................................................................................................1-2
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach........................................................................................1-2
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data...........................................................................1-3
Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..........................................................................................
2-1
2.1 Streams......................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Photo Documentation........................................................................................................2-2
2.1.5 Bankfull Documentation....................................................................................................2-2
2.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................2-2
2.4 Schedule and Reporting.............................................................................................................2-2
Section 3: MONITORING PLAN........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4 Photo Reference Points.....................................................................................................3-2
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................3-2
3.3.1 Hydrology...........................................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Visual Assessments....................................................................................................................3-3
Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN......................................................................4-1
4.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Wetlands....................................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.4 Site Boundary.............................................................................................................................4-1
Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)...................................................................................
5-1
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings..........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 UT1 Reach 1 Upper............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 UT1 Reach 1 Lower............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.3 UT1 Reach 2.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.4 UT1A...................................................................................................................................5-2
5.1.5 UT113 ...................................................................................................................................5-2
5.1.6 UT2.....................................................................................................................................5-2
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment.........................................................................................................5-2
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel..................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................5-3
KHenry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL ii

5.2.3 Stream and Wetland Hydrology.....
Section 6: REFERENCES ..................................
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL
......................................... 5-3
...................................... 6-1

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Figure 3.0-3.5
Monitoring Plan View
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
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 6a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7a -b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross -Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 Record Drawings
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL iv

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Henry Fork Mitigation Site (Site) is a stream and wetland project located in western Catawba County
approximately one mile southwest of the City of Hickory (Figure 1). The project is located on the old
Henry Fork Golf Course. The Site is located on a tract owned by WEI-Henry Fork, LLC (PIN 2791-0888-
3819). A conservation easement was recorded on 48.06 acres with the parcel (Deed Book 03247, Page
0476-0488).
The Site is located 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 Division of Mitigation Services ILF
requirements. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030, Lower Henry Fork, was identified as a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in DMS' 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan.
Located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the project
watershed consists of mostly residential, herbaceous fields and forest. The drainage area for the project
site is approximately 178 acres.
The Henry Fork River and the UTs of this Site are located within the NC Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) subbasin 03-08-35. Henry Fork River (NCDWQ Index No. 11-129-1(12.5)) is classified as C
waters. Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. The Site is approximately 15 miles upstream of the
South Fork Catawba River (Lincolnton) WS -IV, CA water supply watershed. Lower Henry Fork, was
identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in DMS' 2007 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priority
(RBRP) Plan. The RBRP identifies a restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03050102 of removing
conditions which cause sediment impairments, including mitigating stressors from storm water runoff.
In addition, the 2010 NC DWQ Catawba River Basin Plan indicated that the section of Henry Fork that
drains the project area is impaired for high turbidity and low pH, among other stressors.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Catawba River Basin. The Site
will help meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and provide numerous ecological
benefits within the Catawba River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Henry Fork
project area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and
terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project goals established were
completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to
meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the
watershed.
The following project specific goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) include:
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses; and
• Correct modifications to streams, wetlands and buffers;
• Improving and re-establishing hydrology and function of previously cleared wetlands;
• Reducing current erosion and sedimentation;
• Reduce nutrient inputs to streams and wetlands, and to downstream water bodies;
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-1

• Improve instream habitat; and
• 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;
• To resize and realign channels to address stream dredging and ditching. Plant native woody
species in riparian zones which have been maintained through mowing. By correcting these
prior modifications, the channels and floodplains will provide a suite of hydrologic and biological
function;
• Restoring appropriate stream dimensions and juxtaposition of streams and wetlands on the
landscape. Wetlands will be enhanced through more frequent overbank flooding, and also by
reducing the drawdown effect that current ditched channels have on wetland hydrology,
thereby enhancing wetland connectivity to the local water table. The project will extend existing
wetland zones into adjacent areas and support wetland functions;
• Removing historic overburden to uncover relic hydric soils. Roughen wetland re-establishment.
Restore streams for wetland benefit. Each of these will bring local water table elevations closer
to the ground surface. Create overbank flooding, and depressional storage for overland and
overbank flow retention. Decrease direct runoff, and increase infiltration;
• A native vegetation community will be planted on the Site to revegetate the riparian buffers and
wetlands. Conduct soil restoration through topsoil harvesting and reapplication, and leaf litter
harvesting and application from adjacent forested areas. This will return functions associated
with buffers and forested floodplains, as well as enhance soil productivity and bring native
biological activity and seed into the disturbed areas;
• By constructing diverse and stable channel form with varied stream bedform and installing
habitat features, along with removing culverts. These will allow aquatic habitat quality and
connectivity enhancement; and
• Placing a portion of the right bank Henry Fork floodplain under a conservation easement, and
planting all stream buffers and wetlands with native species. Creating a 100 foot -wide corridor
of wooded riparian buffer along that top right bank area and re-establishing native plant
communities, connectivity of habitat within Site and to adjoining natural areas along the river
corridor.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by the DMS in September of 2015. Construction,
planting, and as -built survey activities were completed in March 2016 by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.,
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc., and Kee Mapping & Surveying, PLLC, respectively. Please refer to Appendix
1 for more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background
information.
1.3.1 Project Structure
The project will provide 4,838 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 4.22 wetland mitigation units
(WMUs). Please refer to Figure 2 for the project component/asset map and Table 1 for the project
component and mitigation credit information for the Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The designed streams were restored to the appropriate type based on their topographic setting within
the surrounding landscape, hydrologic and climate conditions, and natural vegetation communities. The
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-2

project includes stream restoration and enhancement, along with wetland rehabilitation, re-
establishment and enhancement.
The stream restoration portion of this project includes:
• UT1 Reaches 1 and 2: This restoration stream enters the Site at the forested southern property
boundary and flows north until joining Henry Fork at the downstream property line;
• UT2: This stream enhancement originates from the west of the property and flows due east until
joining UT1;
• UT1A: This stream enhancement originates at the confluence of two hillslope seeps located near
the steep north facing hillside on the eastern half of the Site. This channel flows northward
through the wide floodplain of Henry Fork to its confluence with UTI; and
• UT113: This restoration stream begins at a groundwater seep and flows westward to its
confluence with UT1 Reach 1.
The project design was developed based on reference conditions, representing streams within the
Southern Piedmont Belt region with similar drainage areas, valley slopes, morphology, and bed material.
The restoration of the streams allows for the re-establishment of stream -wetland complexes that create
a unique synergy of aquatic habitats. In addition, the design is tailored towards restoring ecologically
beneficial hydrologic conditions in both the streams and the adjacent floodplain wetland resources. The
reconstructed channel banks were built with stable side sloped, planted with native materials, matted
and seeded for stability. The sinuous plan form of the channel was built to mimic a natural Piedmont
stream. Various types of constructed riffles were installed to provide grade control and address excess
shear stress.
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a full delivery contract with DMS. Tables 2, 3, and 4 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History, Project
Contacts, and Project Baseline Information and Attributes.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-3

Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream and wetland performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance
criteria presented in Henry Fork Mitigation Plan (2015). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits
will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream restoration sections of the
project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology,
and vegetation. Wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment areas will be assigned specific performance
criteria for wetland hydrology and vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the
seven-year post -construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and two
bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose to terminate stream
and/or vegetation monitoring after year five pending little to no prevalent invasive species issues. An
outline of the performance criteria components follows. An outline of the performance criteria
components follows.
2.1 Streams
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross-sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per DMS guidance, bank height ratios
shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored C- and E- type channels to
be considered stable. All riffle cross-sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether
the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising
thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or
enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase
in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward
stability. It is important to note that in fine-grained and sand bed channels pools and bed forms (ripples,
dunes, etc.) may migrate over time as a natural function of the channel hydraulics. These sorts of bed
changes do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. As mentioned above, migration of pools and
bed forms in fine-grained channels are expected and do not require remedial action.
2.1.3 Substrate
Channel substrate materials will be collected along UT1 Reach 1 and UT113, which are dominated by
cobble and gravel. The remaining streams within the project site are dominated by sand and silt -size
particles. Pebble count and/or bulk sampling procedures along these fine-grained streams would not
show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the monitoring period.
UT1 Reach 1 and UT113 restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance of
coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features. A reach -wide pebble
count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification purposes. A pebble count
will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-1

2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross-
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
2.1.5 Bankfull Documentation
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration and enhancement reaches, within the
seven-year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring
will continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have been
documented. Adequate hydrology for intermittent streams must be documented. Direct measurements
of continuous interval stream flow data will be made with a gage. The flow regime should indicate
sufficient flow to maintain an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), specifically a minimum of 30
consecutive days of flow during periods of normal rainfall. Photographic evidence of streamflow coupled
with rainfall gage data from the project site will be used to help support this assessment.
2.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted
riparian and wetland areas at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim
measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at
the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh
year of monitoring. If this performance standard met by year five and stem density is trending towards
success (i.e., no less than 260 five-year-old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be
terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with the NC IRT. Invasive
species treatment will be conducted in the mitigation area during the seven-year monitoring period as
needed to ensure the hydrologic and ecologic success of the project.
2.3 Wetlands
The preliminary wetland performance standard used to evaluate the Site's hydrology is that the water
table must be within 12 inches of the ground surface at each gage for a minimum of 20 consecutive days
(8.5%) of the 236 day growing season (March 20 through November 11) for Catawba County. The
growing season was determined from the long-term records from the National Weather Service
provided in the WETS table for the Hickory Regional Airport and may be evaluated at the project site
during the monitoring period using soil temperature loggers in order to base growing season on the
measured data.
2.4 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to DMS. Based
on the DMS Monitoring Report Template (version 1.5, 6/8/12), the monitoring reports will include the
following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background;
Monitoring plan view map of major project elements including such items as grade control
structures, vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, stream gages, photo points, and
groundwater gages;
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-2

• Photographs showing views of the restored Stream Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Assessment of the stability of the Stream Site based on visual assessments and cross-section
survey;
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species;
• Groundwater gage attainment;
• Maintenance issues and remediation measures will be detailed and documented as needed; and
• Wildlife observations.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-3

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, vegetative, and hydrological data to assess the
project success based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis or until success criteria
is met. The success of the project will be assessed using measurements of the stream channel's
dimension, substrate composition, permanent photographs, vegetation, surface water hydrology, and
groundwater hydrology. Any areas with identified high priority problems, such as streambank instability,
aggradation/degradation, insufficient groundwater hydroperiod, or lack of vegetation establishment will
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The problem areas will be visually noted and remedial actions will
be discussed with DMS staff as needed.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification documents (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix
1 for monitoring locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, 14 permanent cross-sections were installed along stream
restoration and enhancement I reaches, with riffle and pool sections in proportion to DMS guidance.
Two cross-sections were installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle and pool
sections in proportion to DMS guidance. Each cross-section is permanently marked with capped rebar
installed in concrete and 1/2 inch PVC pipes. Cross-section surveys include points measured at all breaks
in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. If moderate bank erosion is
observed at a stream reach during the monitoring period, an array of bank pins will be installed in
representative areas where erosion is occurring for reaches with a bankfull width of greater than three
feet. Bank pins will be installed in at least three locations (one in upper third of the pool, one at the mid-
point of the pool, and one in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will be monitored by measuring
exposed rebar and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion progression. Annual cross-
section and bank pin survey (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one (MY1), two (MY2),
three (MY3), five (MY5), and seven (MY7). Photographs will be taken annually of the cross-sections
looking upstream and downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the 2003
USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Stream pattern and profile
will be assessed visually as described below in section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Substrate
Since UT1A, UT2 and UT1 Reach 2 are dominated by sand and silt -size particles, sampling procedures
were not conducted on these streams. Two reach -wide pebble counts were conducted; one on UT1 and
one on UT113. A wetted pebble count was performed at each surveyed riffle on UT1 Reach 1 Upper and
Lower, as well as on UT113, to characterize the pavement. Substrate analysis will be conducted in
monitoring years one (MY1), two (MY2), three (MY3), five (MY5), and seven (MY7).
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-1

3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 29 permanent photograph reference points were established within the project area after
construction. Photographs will be taken looking upstream and downstream once a year to visually
document stability for seven years following construction. Permanent markers were established so that
the same locations and view directions on the Site are monitored each year. Cross-sectional photos will
be taken of each permanent cross-section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will
also be taken for each of the vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo
point, cross-section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day of the stream and vegetation
assessments are conducted. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same
area in each photo over time.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Bankfull events will be documented using crest gages, pressure transducers (stream gages),
photographs, and visual assessments such as debris lines. Four stream hydrology monitoring stations
were installed each with one crest gage and one pressure transducer (stream gage); one on UT1, one on
UT1A, one on UT113, and one on UT2. The stream hydrology gages were installed within a surveyed riffle
cross-section of the restored channels. The stream hydrology gages will be checked at each site visit to
determine if a bankfull event has occurred and the intermittent stream channels are demonstrating a
flow regime that would be expected to maintain an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Photographs
will be used to document the occurrence of staining and debris and/or sediment deposition on the
floodplain.
3.2 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006) to monitor and
assess the planted woody vegetation. A total of 15 vegetation plots were established within the project
easement area. All of the plots were established as standard 10 meter by 10 meter squares.
Vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted corridor of the restoration areas to
capture the heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The vegetation plot corners have
been marked and are recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit.
Reference photographs at the origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner were
taken during the baseline monitoring in February 2016. Subsequent annual assessments following
baseline survey will capture the same reference photograph locations. Species composition, density and
survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire Site. Individual plot data will
be provided and will include diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and percent survival.
Planted woody stems will be marked annually as needed based off of a known origin so they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the
baseline year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
3.3 Wetlands
3.3.1 Hydrology
In order to monitor the wetland rehabilitation and re- establishment areas, wetland hydrology will be
monitored using groundwater monitoring gages and installed according to USACE recommended
procedures. The gages used for this activity are typically In-situ Level TROLL® 100 or 300 pressure
transducers. An additional gage will be established in an adjacent reference wetland and will be utilized
to compare the hydrologic response within the restored wetland areas at the Site. The proposed
location of monitoring gages and the proposed reference gage are denoted in Figure 3. All gages will be
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-2

set to record the ground water level two times per day. An onsite rain gage will be installed to record
daily rainfall, and will be utilized to assess whether typical weather conditions occur during the
monitoring period. If a particular groundwater gage does not meet the performance standard for a given
monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that of the
reference wetlands to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the monitoring
period.
3.4 Visual Assessments
Visual assessments will be performed along all stream, buffer, and wetland areas on a semi-annual basis
during the seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted and included in the Current
Condition Plan View Map (CCPV), such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or vertical instability, in -
stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated health (i.e. low stem density,
vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment) beaver activity, or easement encroachments.
Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed, accompanied by a written description in the annual
report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should remedial
actions be required, remediation approaches will be provided in the annual monitoring report
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-3

Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed on the mitigation project. A physical inspection of the
Site shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring
period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify components and
features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the
first two years following construction and may include one or more of the following components.
4.1 Stream
Stream problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual stream
assessment. Stream problems areas may include bank erosion, structure failure, beaver dams,
aggradation/degradation, etc. Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where storm water runoff flows into the
channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head -cutting.
4.2 Wetlands
Wetland problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual wetlands
assessment. Wetland problem areas may include supplemental installations of target vegetation within
the wetland. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the wetland may also require
maintenance to prevent scour. Routine wetland maintenance will be conducted and repair activities will
be implemented on an as -needed basis.
4.3 Vegetation
Vegetative problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual vegetation
assessment. Vegetation problems areas may include planted vegetation not meeting success criteria,
persistent invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous cover, or grass
suffocation/crowding of planted stems. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may
include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be
controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.
4.4 Site Boundary
Site boundary issues will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual visual assessment.
Site boundary issues may include mowing encroachment or boundary markers/fencing disturbed.
Routine maintenance will be conducted to address disturbed, damaged, or destroyed easement
boundary markers and will be repaired and/or replaced on an as -needed basis.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 4-1

Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed in March 2016. The survey included
developing an as -built topographic surface and locating the channel boundaries, structures, and cross-
sections. For comparison purposes, during the baseline assessments, reaches were divided into
assessment reaches in the same way that they were established for design parameters: UT1 Reaches 1
and 2, UT1A, UT1B, and UT2.
5.1 As-Built/Record Drawings
A half-size record drawing is located in Appendix 4 that includes the post -construction survey and
alignments for the project including redlines for any significant field adjustments made during
construction that were different from the design plans. Several minor adjustments were made during
construction, where needed. Specific changes along each stream are detailed below:
5.1.1 UT1 Reach 1 Upper
• The following log steps were converted to rock steps at the following stations:
o 100+47
o 100+58
o 101+50
0 101+64
0 101+70
0 101+76
0 102+20
0 103+07;
• Root Wads at Station 101+70 were replaced with Brush Toe;
• Sourwood transplants between UT1 Reach 1 Upper and UT113 were eliminated;
• An ephemeral pool was added in the left floodplain just upstream of the confluence of UTI
Reach 1 Upper and UT16; and
• Cascade structures were varied in the field based on available materials, a bed rock slide was
installed at Station 101+64 and wrapped soil lifts on banks noted in plans were eliminated.
5.1.2 UTI Reach 1 Lower
• Transplants added in the left floodplain;
• Two pilot channels were eliminated from the design in the left floodplain (see Record Drawings,
Sheet 1.2);
• Near station 105+72 the alignment was adjusted because a natural spring was found. The
alignment will differ from design in this location;
• Slight grade change made in field on left floodplain;
• Root wads were replaced with brush toe at station 110+88;
• Several log steps were replaced by rock steps along the reach (stations 106+96, 110+35, 111+63,
112+00, and 113+39); and
• A few structure changes were made per engineer's discretion/availability materials (stations
105+89, 106+76, and 110+40).
5.1.3 UTI Reach 2
• Sod mat added in several locations along UT1 Reach 2;
• A lunker log was added to the pool at Station 122+94;
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-1

• Log step angles were modified as needed per engineer's discretion/guidance within the reach;
• Brush toe was carried throughout pool at Station 123+77;
• Root wads at Station 125+20 were replaced with Brush Toe; and
• At the very downstream end of UT1 Reach 2 (near confluence of Henry River), the right bank
was graded back. Approximately 35 to 40 LF of boulder toe was added, along with two geolifts
to stabilize the bank.
5.1.4 UT1A
Where the ditch enters UT1A from the right hillside, a log and sod mat was added to the pool to
help prevent scour at the confluence;
Sod mat added in several locations along UT1A; and
• The 24 -inch Birch in the right floodplain near Station 185+00 was cut down.
5.1.5 UT1B
• A swale was added at the upstream end of UT1B coming from a small drainage in the right
floodplain;
• Ephemeral pool in left floodplain was eliminated during construction;
• A small rock outlet was added coming out of old Pond Bed 1 (ephemeral pool); and
• Riffle at Station 151+20 was converted from a Woody Riffle to a Constructed Riffle.
5.1.6 UT2
• Some rock was added at the upstream end of UT2 (near station 200+15);
• Brush toe was substituted for the root wad at Station 206+25;
• Sod mat added in several locations along UT2;
• Brush toe at Station 209+78 was eliminated; and
• Brush toe was added to pools at Stations 211+03 and 218+00.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between March and April 2016. The first annual monitoring
assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2016. The streams and wetlands will be monitored for
a total of seven years, with the final monitoring activities conducted in 2021. The close-out for the Site
will be conducted in 2022 given the success criteria is met. As part of the closeout process, DMS will
evaluate the Site at the end of the fourth year monitoring period to determine whether or not the Site is
eligible to closeout following monitoring year five. If the Site is meeting success criteria, DMS will
propose to the interagency review team (IRT) to proceed with the closeout process. If the Site is not
meeting success criteria, then an additional two years of monitoring will be conducted by Wildlands.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological data for the as -built profile was collected in May 2016. Please refer to Appendix 2 for
summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile and Pattern
The baseline (MYO) profiles closely match the profile design parameters. On the design profiles, riffles
were depicted as straight lines with consistent slopes. Additionally, maximum pool depths sometimes
exceed design parameters. Variations in pool depths do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for
remedial actions. The baseline (MYO) pattern metrics fell within the design parameters for all five
reaches.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-2

Dimension
The baseline (MYO) dimension numbers closely match the design parameters with minor variations in all
reaches. Minor variations in both the channel depth and width are present and are a function of the
small channel size and acceptable deviation within the design range, often times resulting from sod mat
installation.
Sediment Transport
As -built shear stresses and velocities are similar to design parameters and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along the restoration reaches. The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates
an overall increase in substrate particle size (Tables 6a and 6b). The substrate data for each constructed
reach were compared to the design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the
potential for bed degradation. The shear stresses calculated for the constructed channels are within the
allowable range, which indicates that the channel is not at risk to trend toward channel degradation.
5.2.2 Vegetation
The baseline (MYO) planted density is 647 stems/acre, which exceeds the MY5 density requirement.
Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
5.2.3 Stream and Wetland Hydrology
Stream and wetland hydrology being recorded on Site is currently being monitored and will be included
in the year 1 monitoring report.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-3

Section 6: 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, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John 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, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
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 Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities. http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/RBRPCatawba2007.pdf
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 (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.Stationte.nc.us/usgs/coaStationlp.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2015). Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh,
NC.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 6-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

03050101106d11
030501 f—V
Ave,- %'1v
-2
View
P
.J,
03050.102010020
-------------
ktww
W 11, D 1, A N DS rk�
ENGINEERING
Lenow-Rhyrie
collage
Ifick O/V 0305014 10 �1400
— — — — — — — — — - %%. I N
er.* k N,
I Irl Aw e.,.
0305010203001 t
40
f til -Ate
Hills
Mal
03050 02010030
A
Catawba County, NC

''�►i►�►�I�n111nlnn�'n1�i��rr�1j
' ;♦ 11111111 Ir 1111 ■7111Ia ■■111111■1 IN 1w a I�rrlrrrrrllrr
• rrrrrlrrrlrl
♦i AYh rrrlrl rr x1111111•
•
Vi
00
i 1 } •
• T I'r
i
♦ � t
• i `.
• 4
SII a 11111 ►1111111111111111111x1 J �'u '.
■11 Y, � 91
L1111 �
=....; Conservation Easement
Henry Fork River
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
7 Wetland Enhancement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Reach Breaks
•• r I +sr
xljljxxxxlJ
Nxlx �
x�f141J11
Figure 2 Project Component Map
0 150 300 Feet Henry fork Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S rk� I IDMS Project No. 96306
"G'`"`k,rvCMonitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
MITIGATION
a ML
Nitrogen
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE R RE R RE
Totals
4,838
N/A 3.88 0.34 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
PROJECT• ••
As -Built Stationing/ Existing Footage/
Restoration (R) or
N/A
N/A
Credits
Reach ID
Approach
Restoration Footage/Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
N/A
Location Acreage
Restoration Equivalent (RE)
Wetland Re -Establishment
N/A
(SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
100+00 to 103+12
Wetland Rehabilitation
Pi
Restoration
312
1 1
312
Wetland Enhancement
N/A
1,497
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation i
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
103+12 to 114+97
Pt
Restoration
1,185
1.1
1185
UTI Reach 2
114+97 to 127+29
1,232
P1/P2
Restoration
1,232
1.1
1232
UT1A
180+00 to 186+58
658
P1
Enhancement
658
1.5:1
439
UTSB
150+00 to 153+58
358
Pi
Restoration
358
1:1
358
UT2
200+00 to 219+69
1,969
PI
Enhancement
1,969
1.5:1
1313
WETLANDS
Planting,
Wetland 1
Floodplain near UT1
Reach 2
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
2.48
1:1
2.48
improvement
Planting,
Wetland 2
Floodplain near UT2
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
1.23
1:1
1.23
improvement
Planting,
Wetland A
Floodplain between
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
0.182 AC
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.18
1.5:1
0.12
improvement
Planting,
Wetland B
Floodplain between
UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A
0.013 AC
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.013
1.5:1
0.01
improvement
Planting,
Wetland C
Floodplain between
UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A
0.003 AC
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.003
1.5:1
0.002
improvement
Wetland G
Floodplain near UTIA
0.021 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.018
2:1
0.01
Wetland
East hillslope near
0.056 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.056
2:1
0.03
UT1A
Wetland
East hillslope near
0.078 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.04
UT1A
Wetland
East hillslope near UT1
0.036 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.04
2:1
0.02
Reach 2
Wetland K
East hillslope near UT1
0.062 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.03
Reach 2
Wetland M
East hillslope near UT1
0.131 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.07
Reach 2
WetlandN
Floodplain towards
0.084 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.04
river from UT2
Wetland P
FloodplaiUTZ slope of
0.023 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.01
Wetland q
FloodplaiUTZ slope of
0.069 AC.
Planting
Enhancement
0.07
2:1
0.03
Floodplain in footprint
Significant
Wetland R
of Pond 3 near head of
0.059 AC
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.06
1.5:1
0.04
UT1 Reach 2
wetland functions
Wetland 5
UTI Reach 1 Valley
0.159 AC
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.07
(Pond 1)
COMPONENT SUMMATION
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet
Upland (acres)
Restoration
3,087
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement 1
2,627
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Re -Establishment
N/A
3.71
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Rehabilitation
N/A
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Enhancement
N/A
0.68
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation i
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete Completion
or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan
August 2015
September 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans
October 2015
October 2015
Construction
November 2015 - March 2016
March 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
March 2016
March 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2016
March 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
April 2016 -May 2016
May 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Fall 2016
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
December 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
2020
December 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
2021
December 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
2022
December 2022
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
167-B Haywood Rd.
Jake McLean, PE
Asheville, NC 28806
828.774.5547
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
780 Landmark road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
780 Landmark road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Plugs
Wetland Plants, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
PROJECT• •
Project Name
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
County
I Catawba County
Project Area (acres)
148.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
PROJECT•
35°42'12.98"N, 81'21'53.20"W
SUMMARY INFORMATION
Physiographic Province
Inner Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03050102 (Expanded Service Area for 03050103)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03050102010030
D W R Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainiage 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
UTI Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2
UT1A UT18
UTZ
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,497 1,232
658 358
1,969
Drainage Area (acres)
106 129
23 31
49
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
39.5 32.5
27.25 :31.25
27
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P P
IP
1
Evolutionary Trend(Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
III IV/V
IV/V III
IV/V
Underlying Mapped Soils
Codorus loam, Dan River loam, Hatboro Loam,
Poplar Forest gravelly sandy loam 2-6% slopes, and
Woolwine-Fairview complex
Drainage Class
--- ---
Soil Hydric Status
Slope
0.024-0.056 0.0043-0.017
0.0095-0.016
0.015-0.077
0.0032
FEMA Classification
N/A*
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
REGULATORY• •
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
PCN prepared
USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
PCN prepared
and DWQ401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Henry Fork Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Catawba County listed
endangered species. June 5, 2015
email correspondence from
USFWS stated "not likely to
adversely affect" northern long-
eared hat.
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found
to be impacted (letter from SHPO
dated 3/24/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes*
No impact application was prepared for local
review. No post -project activities required.
Floodplain development permit
issued by Catawba County.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
'The project site reaches do not have regulated floodplain mapping, but are located within the Henry Fork floodplain.

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
UTI
Quantity/ Length by Reach
UT1A UT16 UT2
Wetlands 1 & 2
Frequency
Dimension
Riffle Cross Sections
3
1
1
2
N/A
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Pool Cross Section
3
1
1
2
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide/ Shallow 100
Pebble Count
RW -2, RF -2
N/A
RW -1, RF -1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
1
1
N/A
Quarterly
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
Quarterly
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
15
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
Annual
Project Boundary
Annual
Reference Photos
Photographs
29
Annual

Figure 3.0 Monitoring Plan View (KEY)
0 250 500 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
WI LD LA N D S 1 I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
"0'~GERI I- Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

:::::,,.Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
rr__"r1 Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Cross Sections (XS)
Reach Breaks
Bankfull Lines
Vegetation Monitoring Plot
♦ Photo Points
Groundwater Gages (GWG)
♦ Reference Gage
Stream Gages
Rain & Barotroll Gages
1,%f ! I.
r '
4
7a.
N
1
.....■.....
ktWW 0 75 150 Feet
WILDI,ANr)S ML
I I I I I
ENGI.IEERI..G
6
Figure 3.1 Monitoring Plan View (Sheet 1)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

Figure 3.2 Monitoring Plan View (Sheet 2)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W I LD L A N D S 1 I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
"0'~GERI I- Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

"•rr"•r"+•r"rr+r"�r•rrrr ' i � .rrrr�
,,rr �rrrr:Conservation Easement
rr"•.
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
+".,," Wetland Enhancement
r""•''+' ; Henry Fork River
.,"•""''*�{ Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
rrr"R"r•"rrerrrrrrrarrRrr
14 Stream Enhancement
Cross Sections (XS)
Reach Breaks
----- Bankfull Lines
Vegetation Monitoring Plot
♦ Photo Points
Groundwater Gages (GWG)
♦ Reference Gage
Stream Gages
+ Rain & Barotroll Gages
17
'I
a.
M
12 �;
,
IN
16 t GWG 5 r
Rain Gage & Barotroll 11
GWG1 9
50
• ® - _
/lo f 18/'�
oo
13
10
` Z
If
rrrrr,..
a
rr.rrra i
•r■rrrrrR ;.
true........
rrr+r rrrrrr"trrr rrrRfr"r•rrrr... <� ., •+r.
art L"•RIr �
•rrrr"+rrrr+rr rrrr.,t�0
Figure 3.3 Monitoring Plan View (Sheet 3)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
WI I.I7 L A N T7 S 1 I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

D
10�
IT.
XS3
u
..........
r.r}
...............
L
�.LL.I Conservation Easement
y
„ Stream Restoration
AIR
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Enhancement
Cross Sections (XS)
Reach Breaks
Bankfull Lines
' - O Vegetation Monitoring Plot
4 f Photo Points
F
w
f
Groundwater Gages (GWG)
Reference Gage
Stream Gages
Rain & Barotroll Gages
Fr.rf��L Lrrr r.
r t
w �
.. �3 '
•
*� riifysasf.
r `t}ti
Figure 3.4 Monitoring Plan View (Sheet 4)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W I I, D L A N D S 1 I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
"0'"46 RING Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

M
W
A
...�, � •moi•%t �• -
' A
I
d,
.R P Conservation Easement
ing
Wetland Rehabilitation
Lao
i
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
,., Henry Fork River
- Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
�! Stream Enhancement
Cross Sections (XS)
r
Reach Breaks
Bankfull Lines
Q Vegetation Monitoring Plot
♦ Photo Points
•'r Groundwater Gages (GWG)
♦ Reference Gage
Stream Gages
Rain & Barotroll Gages
aim -
0
0 100 200 Feet
wii,DLANDS 1 I I I
CNGINCCRINC:
u
GWG 9
M
GWG7
E F8­�
a
GWG 8 -
INW
a;a
a aa`aya
i
aaa
.. _� —� - � 1 _ •H. � as L✓ -
M
Figure 3.5 Monitoring Plan View (Sheet 5)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 6a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 2, UT1A and UT2
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UTSA, UT2, UTI Reach 2, and UTSB.
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
the 25 -year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
sSinuosity on UTI 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.
PRE -RESTORATION
CONDITIONDATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Parameter
Gage
UTl Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT to Catawba River
Reach 1
UT to Catawba River
Reach 2
UT to Lyle Creek
Vile
Preserve
UTl
each 2
UT-
UT2
UT3 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Upper
Lower
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Reference Cross Section Number
XS9
XS8
XSS,X56
X52
I
X53
XS4
XSl
X53
X51
XS3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.4
12.5
15.2
16.3
12.3
8.6
7.0
6.2
5.7
10.1
6.2
7.5
10.5
6.6
5.65
Floodprone Width (ft)
17.9
23.1
18
19.8
53
48.9
45.2
200+
200+
23
46
150
200
60
110
96.7+
31.4
81.3
149.8+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.82
0.51
0.58
0.9
0.40
0.85
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
=49.7
1.7
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.30
0.85
0.95
1.5
0.80
1.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ft'
N/A
6.1
2.8
7.5
7.8
13.2
4.1
3.5
5.3
4.5
8.3
3.2
4.4
9.7
2.5
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
56.0
30.7
34.4
11.5
18.3
13.9
7.4
7.2
12.3
12.1
12.9
11.4
17.0
7.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.2
5.8+
5.8+
2.5+
30+
2.3
F 4.6
24.2
1
32.37
8.0
14.7
9.2+
4.8
15.9
1
20.3
Bank Height Ratio
2.7
1.9
2.9
7.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
5.3/N/A
0.28/0.34
SC/0.04
1.8
75.9
0.2
0.4
N/A
0.34
0.04
Silt/Clay
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
--
--
---
---
--
23.3
51.9
10.8
32.9
3.45
52.29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.4 1.7
6.7
N/A2
0.0114
0.0605
0.0142
0.3451
0.0055
0.0597
0.0063
0.002
0.0080
0.005
0.0210
0.0020
0.0080
0.0000 0.0230
0.0010
0.0395
0.0000
0.0144
Pool Length (ft)
--
-
-
-
--
-
15.4
83.1
10.2
47.5
10.28
60.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
2.5
N/A
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.5
0.8
1.5
0.0
1.8
2.2
3.5
0.9
2.6
1.6
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
38.1
N/Az
N/A'
31
60
19
46
15
26
44.8
20
86
12
53
15
68
49
136
29
53
28
87
Pool Volume ft3
---
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
55
23
21
19
8
83
8
37
9
58
7
84
7
36
8
59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
31
1
56
29
52
19
32
27
50
25
51
13
25
14
24
25
58
9
25
13
24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
2.4
4.2
2.2
4.6
4.4
8.8
19.2
39.2
15.3
29.4
14.7
25.3
2.4
5.5
1.4
3.8
2.3
4.2
Meander Length (ft)
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
65
107
52
79
39
44
2945
120
210
63
100
65
156
123
210
61
100
63
158
Meander Width Ratio
N/Az
N/Az
N/Az
4.4
5.7
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.1
4.2
92.3
161.5
74.1
117.6
68.4
164.2
11.7
20.0
9.2
15.2
11.2
28.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.18/2.8/38/62/128-180
SC/SC/SC/SC/0.25/4.0/11.3-16
SC/SC/SC/SC/SC/8.0/45-64
0.3/0.4/1.8/12.8/25/90
0.5/29.8/75.9/170.8/332.0/12048.0
-/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/2/-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ibftz
N/A
0.8-1.6
0.7
0.18-0.25+°
0.06
0.13
0.05
0.00
0.11
0.13
0.07
Max size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
part
Stream Power (Capacity) W m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.2
0.036
0.077
1.60
1.60
0.25
1.09
0.24-0.28
0.04
0.08
0.24-0.28
0.04
0.08
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
5.3%
6.1%
2.4%
---
---
---
---
5.3%
6.1%
2.4%
5.3%
6.1%
2.4%
Rosgen Classification
Modified B4c3
Modified B6c'
Modified F6'
E5
E3b/C3b
C5
E5
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
2.2
1.3
1.5
3.9
1
3.5
6.3
2
1
2.1
3.3
3.2
1.7
2.0
1.2
1
1.4
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
18.3
6.1
10.2
58
83
8
16
14
6
5
13
4
4.0
6.7
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
N/A
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
61 19 29
Q-Manningsl
18.3
1 6.1 1
10.2
14
6
5
13
4
4.0
6.7
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
922
415
1174
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1499'
3531,915
--
1,228
657
1,969
1,232
658
1,969
Sinuosity
1.5s
1.05
1.03
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.39
1.06
1.65
1.3
1.6
1.7
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
--
---
---
--
---
---
--
0.0016
0.0018
0.0037
0.0043
0.0016
0.0019
0.0023
0.0063
0.0018
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0016
0.0018
0.0037
0.0043
0.0016
0.0019
0.0037
0.0060
0.0015
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UTSA, UT2, UTI Reach 2, and UTSB.
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
the 25 -year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
sSinuosity on UTI 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 6b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
OMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 .2016
Henry Fork-UT3 Reach 1 and UT3B
int/t:lay—uot mm ammeter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'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
a — Reach 1 Mower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what iz presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and tlmp m master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width Is more typl WI of a C.
°The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These dassifications are for illustrative purposes only
'UTz Reach i (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.
'UTrB 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 z%grade throughout the reach, will be a
gravel dominated stream, and is classified as such.
PRE
CONDITION
REFERENCE
REACH
DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
-RESTORATION
Refere ce Cross Section Number
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Flcmdipmne Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
191®mmm®mmmommmm®®®mmmmom
e
�e
ChamneIBaIftwidthZM
®mm®m®®mom��
mmmmo®v®
m�®mmmmmmm®m
®�mmm�mm
Meander Width Ratm
r
...
r..:....
r
rr•:
�
.r
��
r
r r
rr•
rr
rr r
rr.:
rr r
r,,:
®®�
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
Q_USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Valley length (ft)
e
®e
ChannelTha ngth
e
�e
WaterSu ...
int/t:lay—uot mm ammeter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'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
a — Reach 1 Mower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what iz presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and tlmp m master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width Is more typl WI of a C.
°The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These dassifications are for illustrative purposes only
'UTz Reach i (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.
'UTrB 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 z%grade throughout the reach, will be a
gravel dominated stream, and is classified as such.

Table 7a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Lcross-Section
Dimension and Substrate Base MYl
1, ILIT1 Reach I (Riffle) =�Iwl oss-Section
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1
2, UTI Reach I (Pool)Al6Sross-Section 3, UT1 Reach 1 (N!�
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation 906.1
901.9
878.3
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.3
8.8
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 51.3
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7
2.2
2.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 3.5 1 1
1 1 10.7
1 1 1 9.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 7.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
Cross -Section
Dimension and Substrate Base MY3
4, UT1 Reach I (Riffle) Cross -Section
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY3
5, ILIT1 Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross -Section 6, UT1 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation 877.6
873.5
872.7
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.9
10.5
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 118.3+
96.7+
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8
1.5
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ) 2.9 1 1
1 1 1 1 9.7 1 1
1 1 1 1 8.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.2
11.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.1+
9.2+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0

Table 7b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
oss-Section
7, U ClA„fPgp � Cross -Section
S, UT1A Ss- Section
9, gT� R,�?oA,l Cross -Section IQ_UT3_BJfiffld_
Dimension and Substrate
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
Flood..ne Width (ft)
Bankfull .
BankfullWidth/DepthRatiommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Bankfull Entrenchment
Cross
11, UT2 Cross
12, UT2
13, UT2 Cross 14, UT2
-Section
(Pool) -Section
(RiffleM�ross-Section
(Pool) -Section (Riffle)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
BankfullWidth/DepthRatioMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Upper (STA 100+00 -103+00) UT1 Reach 1 Lower (STA 103+00 -114+71)
930
925
920
c
0
w 915
910
! } a.I♦
k•
-♦♦ ♦ ♦ End UT1 Reach 1 Upper
----- ♦ Begin UTI Reach 1 Lower
Y
- •
- A !
10000 10025 10050 10075 10100 10125 10150 10175 10200 10225 10250 10275 10300 10325 10350 10375 10400 10425 10450 10475 10500
Station (feet)
—TW (MY"3/2016) ------- WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) • RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)
920
915
a
w 910
0
i
w 905
900
10200 10225 10250 10275 10300 10325 10350 10375
10400 10425 10450 10475 10500 10525 10550 10575
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-03/2016) ---- I WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)
1
1
I
N 1
x
I
x 1
♦
I
1
• •
1
1
-- -- -
A♦.♦
1
1
�"; ♦
1
10400 10425 10450 10475 10500 10525 10550 10575
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-03/2016) ---- I WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI Reach 1 Lower (STA 103+00 -114+71)
905 -
900
895
890
A
1
A
F -I
Lx
A AALA
AAA AA
A
A♦AAV
A, A
A,
kAA
A'A A!!t±
A AL
A
AA
A&�
�7�A&
A AAA AAA
ILA
AA
A
A4
AAL AA
AA A M
A
IWL A
885
10500 10525 10550 10575 10600 10625 10650 10675 10700 10725 10750 10775 10800 10825 10850 10875 10900 10925 10950 10975 11000
Station (feet)
— TW (MYO-03/2016) ------- WSF (MYO-03/2016) 11 LBKF/LTOB (MYD-03/2016) A RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)
890
885
880
875
A A
4' A
A
F -I
Lx
A AALA
AAA AA
A
A♦AAV
A, A
kAA
A'A A!!t±
A AL
AA
�7�A&
A AAA AAA
AA
870
11000 11025 11050 11075 11100 11125 11150 11175 11200 11225 11250 11275 11300 11325 11350 11375 11400 114
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-03/2016) WSF (MYO-03/2016) A LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) A RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI Reach 2 (STA 114+71- 127+29)
890
• • ♦ • • • • • . •. At • • •• • • A • ! • • Y 4L • • • . • .' A,• ♦ •
------------------------------------------ . • • • • �• • • • 'A
885
v
880
c
0
_N
875
870
11500
885
880
875
C
0
v
w 870
865
12000
11550 11600 11650 11700
TW (MYO-03/2016)------- WSF (MYO-03/2016)
11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000
Station (feet)
LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) . RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)
12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-03/2016) ------- WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) A RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)
x 1 x 1
1 1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
•. .
••'--- •
• N • A
• • Z
A--- .• ••
AA------
• • . .
j ! :
..
• . . • .
• • .
. .
• ♦ • A •
- ----"-_"'--_---..
"""'-----------
--- ----
A
AL
1
1
1
1
1
1
12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-03/2016) ------- WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) A RBKF/RTOB (MYO-03/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UTI Reach 2 (STA 114+71- 127+29)
880
875
870
c
0
_N
865
860
12500
12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-03/2016) ------ WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) . RBKF/RTOB (MYO
-------- ----
-
4♦ A&A .
r ,A
AL
AA
12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-03/2016) ------ WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) . RBKF/RTOB (MYO

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 1-UT1 R1
104+28 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
912
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
51.3
W flood prone area (ft)
910
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0 908
0
v
w
906
904
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Width (ft)
+MYO(3/2016) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
51.3
W flood prone area (ft)
7.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 2-UT1 R1
905
903
0
v 901
w
899
80
105+36 Pool
90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2016) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
9.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 3-UT1 R1
880
879 -
$ 878
c
0
v
w
877
876 4-
60
113+46 Pool
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 4-UT1 R1
880
879
c
878
0
v
w
877
876
113+64 Riffle
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
+MYO(3/2016) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.9
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
7.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
118.3+
W flood prone area (ft)
17.1+
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 5-UT1 R2
877
875
0
v 873
w
871 +
0
121+63 Riffle
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
MY0 (3/2016) —Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
96.7+
W flood prone area (ft)
9.2+
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date:
3/2016
Field Crew:
Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 6-UT1 R2
122+09 Pool
876
874
c
0
v
w 872
870
45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
9.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1113, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
27
30
30
30
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
32
r
Fine
0.125
0.250
gp
1
1
1
33
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
34
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
60
3
3
37
w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
3
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5 50
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
40
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
42
_
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
44
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
3
5
5
49
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
1 16.0
22.6 1
1
4
5
5
54
Coarse
22.6
32
8
1
9
9
63
10
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
65
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
8
73
Small
64
90
5
1
6
6
79
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Small
90
128
4
3
7
7
86
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
91
Large
180
256
5
5
5
96
................................................
Small
256
362
2
2
2
98
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
2
2
2
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100 1
100
UT1113, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.63
D50 =
17.1
D80. =
115.7
D95 =
238.6
D100 =
512.0
UT1113, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Siluclay
Sandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
ble
90
r
80
gp
a ro
a 70
70
m
�
60
w
j 60
0
h
50
5 50
u
m
30
E
20
40
_
10
y 30
u
0
eti by It, 4P
00 oy o•
ti ti tiw a 5� � titi tie e 3ti oh 0° Co V% 'p '0 eti titi ti° ��
titi' ti ti ti 3 e do ,yo tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
Ow 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--d- MYO-05/2016
UT1111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
60
w
0
h
50
40
u
m
30
20
_
10
0
eti by It, 4P
00 oy o•
ti ti tiw a 5� � titi tie e 3ti oh 0° Co V% 'p '0 eti titi ti° ��
titi' ti ti ti 3 e do ,yo tp
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1R1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
2.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
er
10
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
14
a
�
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
16
60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
16
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
20
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
44
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
46
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
58
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
64
Small
64
90
10
10
74
Small
90
128
6
6
80
Large
128
180
4
4
84
Large
180
256
10
10
94
Small
256
362
4
4
98
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024 1
2048 1
98
98
98
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Bedrock
2048
>2048 1
2
2
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
UT1111, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross Section
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
2.00
Di5 =
18.10
D50 =
35.9
D84 =
180.0
D95 =
279.2
D100 =
>2048
UT1111, Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Individual Class Percent
avel
100
90
bbl
er
80
80
C
70
a ro
a
�
X 70
a
h
50
M
40
60
u
10
30
m
7
v
50
20
E
30
0
40
oO�'Loy,�h O,lh Oh
'ti ti ,L0 b 5� titi 16 ,L,yt° 3ti bh 6b CO yl<b 1�0 Cyd ��ti yyti'e, �ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
w 30
u
a 20
10
Li III
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016
UT1R1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
60
a
h
50
M
40
u
30
m
7
v
20
30
0
oO�'Loy,�h O,lh Oh
'ti ti ,L0 b 5� titi 16 ,L,yt° 3ti bh 6b CO yl<b 1�0 Cyd ��ti yyti'e, �ObO �90
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1R3, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
14.12
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
bble
6
80
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
8
d
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
a ro
a
8
70
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
u
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
12
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
34
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
44
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
56
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
68
Small
64
90
16
16
84
Small
90
128
2
2
86
Large
128
180
6
6
92
Large
180
256
6
6
98
Small
256
362
98
30
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
2
2
98
100
100
111111111111[................................................Bedrock
2048
>2048
Totall
100
1 100
100
100
UT1R1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
14.12
Di5 =
23.40
D50 =
37.9
D84 =
90.0
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
1024.0
UT1R1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Individual Class Percent
avel
100
90
bble
80
er
70
80
d
d
60
a ro
a
50
70
m
u
40
m
60
30
20
50
c
_
10
E
0
pp ytih "O pp
p, p, p•
1 ti ti� b 5� 'byti yo Lo �ti b� �b �O tib �p y0 a- h ;y, ,tib b% 0°
1ti S S 'ti '6 y0 1tip by
i? 40
Particle Class Size (mm)
e MVO -05/2016
y 30
u
a 20
30
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000. 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--G-- MYM5/2016
UT1R1, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
d
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
_
10
0
pp ytih "O pp
p, p, p•
1 ti ti� b 5� 'byti yo Lo �ti b� �b �O tib �p y0 a- h ;y, ,tib b% 0°
1ti S S 'ti '6 y0 1tip by
Particle Class Size (mm)
e MVO -05/2016

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1A (STA 180+00 - 186+58)
885
880
875
0
L
870
865
18000
.
1
1
1
1
. .
A.--4`-_
1
It
_-
. .. • IL
------ ---
- • •
1
-
•
• •.f ..
•• ...•
•
—AL
--!
1
x
I�1 x
1
18050 18100 18150 18200 18250 18300 18350 18400 18450
Station (feet)
—�— TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016)
18500 18550 18600 18650 18700
. RBKF/RTOB(MYO-01/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 7-UT1A
877
876
5
0
'w 875
w
874
200
182+00 Pool
210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.6
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
5.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)
310

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 8-UT1A
182+16 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
876
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
875
max depth (ft)
6.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.0
width -depth ratio
0
0
v 874
w
W flood prone area (ft)
4.8
entrenchment ratio
873
low bank height ratio
165 175 185 195
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.6
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
6.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.0
width -depth ratio
31.4
W flood prone area (ft)
4.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Mitigatin Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT3B (STA 150+00 -153+58)
940
935
v
930
c
0
w 925
920
15000 15010 15020 15030 15040 15050 15060 15070 15080 15090 15100 15110 15120 15130 15140 15150 15160 15170 15180 15190 15200
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-01/2016)------• WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016( ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MY401/2016(
925
920
905
15200 15210 15220 15230 15240 15250
1
♦•1•
o+
1
•
•
x
I
•
1
1
- 4--
1
__ r
•
Ak
1
1
___--- ____
1 'x
1
1
1
'---
-- ---- ---
•r♦ A
•♦
920
15000 15010 15020 15030 15040 15050 15060 15070 15080 15090 15100 15110 15120 15130 15140 15150 15160 15170 15180 15190 15200
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-01/2016)------• WSF (MYO-03/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016( ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MY401/2016(
925
920
905
15200 15210 15220 15230 15240 15250
1
♦•1•
•
•
•
1
•
Ak
1
___--- ____
1 'x
1
1
1
t TW (MYO-01/2016)
15260 15270 15280 15290 15300 15310 15320 15330
Station (feet)
WSF (MYO-01/2016) a LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 9-UT1B
151+92 Pool
926
925
924 —
c
0
923 —
v
w
922
921
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
6.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 10-UT1B
152+05 Riffle
925
5.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
924
5.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
923
c
0
width -depth ratio
37.7
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9
v
w
1.0
low bank height ratio
922
921
40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO(3/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
5.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
37.7
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT36, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
each Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
8
31
39
39
39
39
D100 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
41
bble
Medium
0.25
0.50
gp
41
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
42
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
2
S
5
47
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
u
j 60
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m 30
47
Fine
4.0
5.6
47
Fine
5.6
8.0
50
0
47
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
8
11
11
64
Coarse
22.6
32
4
2
6
6
70
Very Coarse
32
45
7
1
8
8
78
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
85
Small
64
90
5
1
6
6
91
Small
90
128
5
5
5
96
Large
128
180
3
3
3
99
Large
180
256
1
10
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MVO -05/2016
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT36, Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35=
Silt/Clay
D50 =
11.0
D%0. =
60.9
D95 =
119.3
D100 =
256.0
UT36, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
100
90
90
Silt/clay
T Sandavel
bble
er
gp
C 70
m
60
`w
aro
3° 70
50
40
u
j 60
m 30
3
20
c 10
50
0
Doti yti5 tih Oh
S 'L ,y� b 5� 0 ,y'v y� tib 3ti Ah 6A AO ti� WO h6 dti 1ti •lb R$ 0�O
1 1 'L 3 h ,yo ,yo �Q
Particle Class Size (mm)
. MYO-05/2016
E
40
a 30
u
20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
� MVO -05/2016
UT1B, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C 70
m
60
`w
0
50
40
u
m 30
20
c 10
0
Doti yti5 tih Oh
S 'L ,y� b 5� 0 ,y'v y� tib 3ti Ah 6A AO ti� WO h6 dti 1ti •lb R$ 0�O
1 1 'L 3 h ,yo ,yo �Q
Particle Class Size (mm)
. MYO-05/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UT1B, Cross Section 10
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.25
Silt/Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
14
14
14
14
D95 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
28
a
�
a
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
a
H
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
m
3
30
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
30
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
34
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
40
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
52
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
72
�0'L �h .lh Oh
00 oti o
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
78
0 MYO 05/2016
Small
64
90
10
10
88
Small
90
128
4
4
92
Large
128
180
2
2
94
Large
180
256
2
2
96
Small
256
362
2
2
98
:......:Large/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
2
2
98
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
u
a 20
30
0 +--
0.01
UT1B, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000. 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0- MYO-05/2016
Cross Section
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.25
Di5 =
16.95
D50 =
30.2
D84 =
78.5
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
1024.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
d
30
u
a 20
30
0 +--
0.01
UT1B, Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000. 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0- MYO-05/2016
UT1B, Cross Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
a
�
a
60
a
H
50
40
u
m
3
30
v
20
10
_
0
�0'L �h .lh Oh
00 oti o
'y ti tib. P y6 4a .yA a0 A�
titi. ti v ti a 5 do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO 05/2016

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
UILtbIALUU+UU-
882
880
878
io
° 876
a
d
874
872
20000 20020 20040 20060 20080 20100 20120 20140 20160 20180 20200 20220 20240 20260 20280 20300 20320 20340 20360 20380 20400 20420 20440 20460 20480 20500
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) . LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016)
880
878
876
° 874
v
872
1
x 1
1
�
X
I
I
I
'------
-------'
-------'
------ -
•.
AA
♦
. . ♦
♦• •A
• •'
♦ 1 .
• .
I • .
.
---------------
------'
-------
--------
-'------
--------
--------
--------
--------
♦
•
• ♦4L
• ♦
♦♦• AAAA
♦.
----------
----------
----------
-
- -- ---
- --
1
--
1
1
-
872
20000 20020 20040 20060 20080 20100 20120 20140 20160 20180 20200 20220 20240 20260 20280 20300 20320 20340 20360 20380 20400 20420 20440 20460 20480 20500
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) . LBKF/LTOB (MYO-03/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016)
880
878
876
° 874
v
872
870
20500 20525 20550 20575 20600 20625 20650 20675 20700 20725 20750 20775 20800 20825 20850 20875 20900 20925 20950 20975 21000
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) -. LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016) 9 STRUCTURE (MYO-01/2016)
1
x 1
1
�
X
I
I
I
♦
. . ♦
♦• •A
• •'
♦ 1 .
• .
I • .
.
I
♦
•
• ♦4L
• ♦
♦♦• AAAA
♦.
----------
----------
----------
-
- -- ---
- --
1
--
1
1
-
----------
----------
-----------
----------
----------
----------
---------------
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
870
20500 20525 20550 20575 20600 20625 20650 20675 20700 20725 20750 20775 20800 20825 20850 20875 20900 20925 20950 20975 21000
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) -. LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016) ♦ RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016) 9 STRUCTURE (MYO-01/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigatin Site (NCDMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 0- 2016
UT2 (STA 200+00 - 219+69)
880
878
876
w
0 874
'm
872
870
21000 21025 21050 21075 21100 21125 21150 21175 21200 21225 21250 21275 21300 21325 21350 21375 21400 21425 21450 21475 21500
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016) a RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016) O STRUCTURE (MYO-01/2016)
880
878
876
0 874
w
872
I
I
�
I
1
{L ♦ ♦
x I
I
• •
♦ A •
♦
y
♦♦♦ ♦♦
•
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦♦ •
♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
! •
♦ ♦♦
f- --------
--------_
I
"""--- '-'-'-'---
---------'
--"---'--
--
1
1
1
I
4•
♦ • •
A ♦
AL
I
1
_________
r________
__________
_________
__________
__________
__________
___ 1 __
I
__________
___l______
I
__________
'----------
----------
----------
----------
----------
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
870
21000 21025 21050 21075 21100 21125 21150 21175 21200 21225 21250 21275 21300 21325 21350 21375 21400 21425 21450 21475 21500
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-01/2016)------- WSF (MYO-01/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016) a RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016) O STRUCTURE (MYO-01/2016)
880
878
876
0 874
w
872
870
21500 21525 21550 21575 21600 21625 21650 21675 21700 21725 21750 21775 21800 21825 21850 21875 21900 21925 21950 21975 22000
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-01/2016) W5F (MYO-01/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016) a RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO-01/2016)
{L ♦ ♦
♦ e
♦
• •
♦ A •
♦
y
♦♦♦ ♦♦
•
♦ ♦♦ ♦
♦♦ •
♦♦ ♦♦ ♦
! •
♦ ♦♦
f- --------
--------_
---"'
"""--- '-'-'-'---
---------'
--"---'--
--
870
21500 21525 21550 21575 21600 21625 21650 21675 21700 21725 21750 21775 21800 21825 21850 21875 21900 21925 21950 21975 22000
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-01/2016) W5F (MYO-01/2016) LBKF/LTOB (MYO-01/2016) a RBKF/RTOB (MYO-01/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYO-01/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 11-UT2
878
877
876
c
0
875
v
w
874
873
206+86 Pool
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 12-UT2
207+26 Riffle
877
876
c
0
v 875
V,w
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.1
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
5.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
5.1
width -depth ratio
81.3
W flood prone area (ft)
15.9
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)
19.1

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 13-UT2
878
877
876
c
0
875
v
w
874
873
0
212+15 Pool
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2016) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Cross Section 14-UT2
877
876
c
0
a' 875
w
874
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.6
0
212+58 Riffle
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) -Bankfull - Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.9
width -depth ratio
149.8+
W flood prone area (ft)
20.2
entrenchment ratio
1.09
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2016
Field Crew: Kee Surveying
View Downstream (5/6/2016)

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— looking upstream UT113 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream UT113 (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream UT113 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream UT113 (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 3 — looking downstream UT1 R1 Upper (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 6 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 6— looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 7 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 7— looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 8— looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016)

MEN W6,7"',
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 9— looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 10 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 10 —looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 11— looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) Photo Point 11—looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 12 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 12 —looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 13 — looking upstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 13 —looking downstream UT1 R1 Lower (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 14 — looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 15 — looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 15 — looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 16 — looking upstream UTI R2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 16 — looking downstream UTI R2 (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 18 — looking upstream UT1A (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 18 — looking downstream UT1A (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream UT1A (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream UT1A (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 21— looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 24 — looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 24 — looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 25 — looking upstream UT2 (03/16/2016) Photo Point 25 — looking downstream UT2 (03/16/2016)
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 26 — looking downstream UT1 R2 (03/16/2016) 1

Photo Point 26 — looking UT1 R2 floodplain (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 27 — looking upstream UT1 R2 floodplain (03/16/2016) I Photo Point 27 — looking downstream UTI R2 floodplain (3/16/2016)
Photo Point 28— UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (03/16/2016) 1 Photo Point 28 — UT2 floodplain overview (03/16/2016)

Photo Point 28 — UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (03/16/2016) 1
Photo Point 29 — UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (03/16/2016)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Current Plot Data IMYO 20161
Scientific Name
Common Name
96306-WEI-0001
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0003
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Tree
Acer rubrum
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
2
2
2
7
7
7
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
lTree
Linodendron tulipifera
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
34
4
4
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Stem count
16
16
16
18
18
18
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
16
16
16
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
5
647
1
0.02
5
647
5
647
5
728
1
0.02
5
728
5
728
1 5
1 647
1
0.02
5
647
5
647
4
647
1
0.02
4
647
4
647
1 5
1 47 1
1
0.02
5
647
5
1 647
5
647 1
1
0.02
5
647
5
1 647
5
607 1
1
0.02
5
607
5
1 607
6
647
1
0.02
6
647
6
647
Color For Density
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Table 8. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 0 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MYO 2016)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
96306-WEI-0009
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0013
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0014
PnoLs P -all T
96306-WEI-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
MYO(2016)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acernegundo
Tree
12
12
Acer rubrum
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
13
13
13
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
37
37
37
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
32
32
32
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
57
57
57
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
lTree
1
5
5
Linodendron tulipifera
Tree
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
6
6
6
8
8
8
57
57
57
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
20
20
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
27
27
27
Stem count
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
37
243
243
264
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE 1
5
647
1
0.02
5
1 647
5
1 647
6
1 688
1
0.02
6
1 688
6
1 688
6
1 688
1
0.02
6
688
6
688
5
1 647
1
0.02
5
1 647
5
1 647
6
1 647 1
1
0.02
6
647
6
1 647
6
1 647 1
1
0.02
61
647
6
1 647
1 4 14
1 647 1
1
0.02
647
8
1497
7
656
15
0.37
7
656
11
712
Color For Density
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total Stems

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1- (03/31/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (03/31/2016) 1
I Vegetation Plot 3 - (03/31/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 - (03/31/2016)
Vegetation Plot 5 - (03/31/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (03/31/2016)

J�
" sa
t9i
Y {,
046, 1 r iY, -
b
xf p
a
-74
WALE W,r
.4op ..

APPENDIX 4. Record Drawings

Henry Fork Mitigation Site Record Drawings
w3Oz
9NNmLL
nmZ
anmv
Z�=rvoc
Catawba County, North Carolina �wQLLE
for
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
NCDEQ -
Division of Mitigation Services
RECORD DRAWINGS
ISSUED JUNE 21, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
AND
ACCURACY
I, NOLANR.CARMACK CERTIFY THAT THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
PORTION OF THIS PROJECT WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION
FROM AN ACTUAL SURVEY MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, THAT THE
RECORD DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED BY WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC
FROM DIGITAL FILES PROVIDED BY KEY MAPPING AND SURVEYING, PA AS
SHOWN ON AN AS -BUILT SURVEY FOR "THE STATE OF NC, DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES" DATED APRIL 22,2016; THAT THIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED ATTHE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVELTO MEETTHE FEDERAL
GEOGRAPHIC DATA COMMITTEE STANDARDS; THATTHIS SURVEY WAS
PERFORMED TO MEETTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TO
THE ACCURACY OF CLASS A HORIZONTALAND CLASS C VERTICAL WHERE
APPLICABLE; THATTHE ORIGINAL DATA WAS OBTAIN BETWEEN THE DATES OF
3/18/16-4/20/16 ;THAT THE CONTOURS SHOWN AS BROKEN LINES MAY
NOT MEETTHE STATED STANDARD AND ALL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON
NAD 83 (NSRS 2011) AND ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASE ON NAVD 88; THAT THIS
MAP MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS AS STATED IN
TITLE 21, CHAPTER 56, SECTION .1606; THAT THIS MAP WAS NOT PREPARED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. 47-30, AS AMENDED AND DOES NOT REPRESENT
AN OFFICIAL BOUNDARY SURVEY.
WITNESS MY ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, REGISTRATION NUMBER, AND SEAL THIS
THE DAY OF :5 .20�.
OFFICIAL SEAL
�`Q`.•'E3S%6
!/moi
O: pF
\F.
:° SEAL
.� L•5076 Q;
R. CARS``•
J__ /
N R L-5076
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
General Notes and Symbols 0.2
Project Overview 0.3
Stream Plan and Profile
-UT1 Reach 1 Upper 1.1
-UT1 Reach 1 Lower 1.1-1.4
-UT1 Reach 2 1.4-1.7
-UT1A 1.8-1.9
-UT1B 1.10
-UT2 1.11-1.15
Wetland Grading 2.1-2.3
Planting Plan 3.1-3.4
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Jake McLean, PE, CFM
828-774-5547
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Nolan Carmack, PLS
828-575-9021
Owner:
NLut u
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
DMS Project Manager:
Matthew Reid
828-231-7912
NCDEQ Contract No. 5782
DMS ID No. 96306
Fix
A

Existing & Design Features
Design Stream Features (NTS)
As -Built Stream Features (NTS)
......
� w.Rw, R.Mmn
— wxaea —,[wn
fF PN ikuigaih
—aw.w—Ra,.,w—
mma rl..ew.r
— a —a —a
— ba,ervana, baemem
—n —n —n
— PropeM Gne
— eVx VM
— Coverva,un FaxmenUPmpepV tire
•��
4.PUIM1 PAM Gaaael
G<alPatq 3a<p
— `'
by Ye fl<Wpkin PiW CMnM
®
= hiVr bnklull
-BCV-
- Cesyn Malor fgmeur
- CesrOn M�noKon,ou,
1:7:L'
GIYINwenantl
CealPa P.M was
�
Tx Lvee Ouring Cnnssm4en
��
xenry hrk l0pen wafeQ
hKiM Ouneinp
*Deviation from design shown in red.
As -Built Features
Design Stream Features (NTS)
As -Built Stream Features (NTS)
......
� w.Rw, R.Mmn
�
Rmvo Poek step
�
a:.amn wak st<p
—�
Rs-PUPI ThaIwe6 Pl4nnent
•��
4.PUIM1 PAM Gaaael
G<alPatq 3a<p
N.PUIrc I,g Mp
®
PeR,m mgmcon,o.dvmnrvnl
Pa emn mmo, uma..
CealPa P.M was
�
aa.amrc woM w.e
��
�
PSWI,WMane PeaYahlehment
G<xe. R,..n me
uRmh m.m roe
P` axn w<mm q<beaimwa
—
Pspulh We,bM En NnttmeM
JJ,�
����V
h,IP FMeme,al P<d
hh<4
VVV
Rs&aN FPMmenlPwl
OeaiBa WnMrtry
A,.I WA., tq
Oq{p ConrtrvnM PlMe
Cq{P Conr<rvaM PMla
G�Wp Wrrtly Pink
<PWP Wepey Pink
Grs u„Mma
Geaw �aYrvYm nim<
cprz n„nim.
[PCH OUA'...
CflLN qunM pHM
®
GEC t4 flW Umtle Plme
®
fl3t tN-noak G,Weglme
oaap�xe m.,
P,.Rmrcsm mat
OerR�GeuliR
pa RUM Gervtifl
Ia�OMh ConNrvFee PiMe
Varka
f
O
v U
$a�S
as��a

i
\ WET -HENRY PoPK LLC
PIN: 27914888381
w 9
o0xrexHARRinx \ D8:3238 PG:3rviEZ ge-0VEM HA� e=X6 PB: ]3 PG: 1331
DB: MIDL]P6: 959
\ AAAAA�zz�
Ll
E(grW p2I9u69 £ / /$/ / c� '�' • a �.a/[E9
.ev w.m.a]n
/?T PICKET PAUL COME
y
I t PIN: 2]91-0G: 18563 \ HENA PIN, 27 GOLFCOUPSE, INC. ELAI
08:3180 PG: 1856 PIN, 2791-0987-9772 {\
P0: 53 PG:60 08:2663 PG: 303
P8: 73 PG: 131 T•�^'°�' $
9
\
F— I.
0
• � Et
�Pc�ti �f
i
\ } We
\
srnxr u# Euxv1=7
ua9]
\
\ I
\ I ACCESS WISE gEMM
i B
EumNG aNNIrvG PL: UVI
/ I IW PM E9 CLV9MUSE1
� 1
a
\\ \ \ '?o Mouxrux hew xo
Isx zz9zl —�
a ,n
r.9 SLTie
I g
/ 309891 1593
\ SLPPi ViI xEP[X I UYPEP
1W.05. 103.L:
s
n
N
F
�os
F O
Ali!
I!
NIIAA
/
` `
Hrv9P5 ME \
PDr00V. i9E59
'1
EC
xCLUSinxM
\
4
"AC
C NE 2 I
`
PIN727910 3567
\ PI0::]K3PG
HENRY RIVER GOLF COURSE, INC.
U22
00: 3313 PG U22
PIN: 279108879]R
P0: 95 PQ 72
1 OB: 2643 PG: 303
1 P8:]3 AS 131
\ } We
\
srnxr u# Euxv1=7
ua9]
\
\ I
\ I ACCESS WISE gEMM
i B
EumNG aNNIrvG PL: UVI
/ I IW PM E9 CLV9MUSE1
� 1
a
\\ \ \ '?o Mouxrux hew xo
Isx zz9zl —�
a ,n
r.9 SLTie
I g
/ 309891 1593
\ SLPPi ViI xEP[X I UYPEP
1W.05. 103.L:
s
n
N
F
�os
F O
Ali!
I!

a• s to' s
az ® Qa
Pos-MV
® la R�.^o
MO a a tlmmtl
d: an 3
_ 2
z
BI6 J tea
ow qt LLi'GPAOF PID
� 1
W6
W
ad .�
IWq] f�rb Idrd 101 ✓v0 lmwo imKo td.ro Id.60 1Mad td.i9
Note: Profile stations and match line" bas d on deligt svnen ali t. eye+
I-1
O �
U o
let,
-
s*snGoo.w�Oj
�� 1 0 ]
fq LPoS a"Gla.l
ITKavvu¢o wx O v
wa o
n o y
mP 1 U
t F
a
UT REAC 1 Ci4 � .f]
101roo - - UPPE aom2 t 1 w tad
r
uao%ooeoroU
xoaoc
- �uauiil Eux Euvv6a aGmP �TO tlrna 1
. aAmbo' essu"E au:tss%f G
C aEPlpfEp ITI
Q4 s 'O'•q>+r'EE�� FExa s UTI REA H1
\ 6vvxwa L WER �.. -
G
��iaw a Vis, qsz 1 I Sheet lndex
OaaSTRU
\ \\ Pao a a
1.7
\ ( t1 cnu nr:w Z \ 1.6
1.3 a,EyE
1 :
HEk 1.1 1.z �
---�— s t —.1—------ 1 it
ATCH SHEET 1.10

so' sr
G15 s ® y ^
D w Zi g
a=��3sp
!� ia
em B Q2q_--s
I --
�°
W
' BW
y
B00
IWr90 IWrsY IOS�W IfE50 ,WNO IMrBD ,WrW IOIrW IOBrN 1Wr50 1p9rM
Note: Profile statiom and match lines based on design Migvnent.
X TM AFF — _ _ u" ]R
i
MMPD � 6XSMDChD �n
\. • ,' • \'.'r locsrsr I l �D''w "'rov
Short LWex
�2� ]o wnM r i wllx wD.
_-____ --- _.�s--_____
z svuxD _________
\
'W

M1a+W IIDHO 111 M0 111 b0. nE�W 113rW if]KO 1
Note: Profile stations and match linea based an design alignment.
FA
5' W
®s N
Zogg^S
ag��Fsx
P µ
% _ B2
Sheet Index
RR
0
O A
V u

In.x "..so 1".W nYso „swo naso 1.le.ao ne.co in.00 m so Ili.
Note: Rofile stations and march lines based on design aligrunent.
Sheet Index
I

W111.&J 11 B.M 118.50 1Is.N In. ne. 1. Ifl.
Now Profile stations and match lines based on design alignment.
1
SCn MP)NOFO
0 IBKV,,
-
8
.LLlNetla dr _
I5 ,
Sheet index
ds:d�l

M
an
a.
908 ♦—
f]b9Y
Note: Profile stations and match lines based on des.
Sheet Index
i sw
2•

Note: Profile stations and match lines based on deign aligmnent.
• ` f
i
A
r
3�\
1011c ml
—
. . sn-zzi.xs�_�
rid
". .`. F�`. `. `.'. `.mow• ��
Sheet Index
r
Sheet Index

INKO IWrfp IBIrW IBIKO 10N00 1B3r)b IB)rM
Note: Rofile stations and match linesbas i on design alignment.
Sheet coda.
T,
0
0
a
alel�l�l�l

Note: Profile statiore and match lines bast on design aligmnent.
� CR-Bfl
\ wetlan'tl/ • ,
\P3
\ I'I'et/anC y
I..
.00m
UT1A
Q
Fy
Sheet Index

IsO�W 1Wr50
Note: Profile stations and match lines based on
ISI. Islrsi Ist. iNrSp ISN00 I..” na. 1.
Sheet Index
rG
O
M

+a Imo
}grpp ?CpSp p�rpp plr]G. ]0]rW p3r'b AtlrW :1W 90 ]W WO tdr]0
Note: Profile station and match lines based on design nligmnent.
V
i
A /
OO MPT
3,y'i A
N
�N �a=�tlmsz
3
Sheet Index
asE&OIEI

M
BIB
ntw.30 za+�Bo .1. aa. zmwo a. tor..00 on.. M.m aoB•w zee.w
Nate: Profile stations and match lines bored on
/
/
/
877.
/
ryOCj/ wo°oeon
/ae soBMa
e,pY norco
rr�l
SOOMAiq' iiY 5..
I
m / .
Sheet Index
I
W -D

Note: Profile stations and match lineal
.siuxeo xo+
= oo mn
wosx nlFaE iooEo T
8 woruceouc iso RIFFLE
sno mai Jn.'
' aa�E aaaEa
Eo � 1 CP -P Cq
.. mn ¢
oMoo x q i
ED
xExf�W
\
'Xusx
\ .noo.
Q
`V
�nDAI
ete J
w?
IF
Bx6
Sheet Index
y
r�
.a
I@
r�r
.a
Q
O V
v
� i
O
E
� O
AN
Pq}t;
O
w a
T V
x
I@
E
t—I
Pq}t;

2141W
21.
�
\
� d1 -g
§
hut
d�
` fi �
\�

Note: Refile stations and match lines based on design alignment. zn.. :mwo .1. z+s.ao ns.w 21.
Sheet Index
i

yw
�
�
�
|
Ove
§
ii
{
)
}

/
Wj
N
e

M
+�[gnixc wEiV.xo
She te
N
Q
-Zolo
y�uq!
C0msp:
3
71

NOTE:
-PER ANENT SENDING' 15 FOR ALL DISTURBED DEISM WJTFPN OLEDDRA➢ON FPSEMENT, ALL SITOBEOAREBS
—H FILE- IIMA- — I I I ILL. FEN MIME 'IF ... All.— TO IFFINI.— ISMIN.
NEEDINESS MDS
SokntiNO Nama
Ebadm
Commn Nemo
DMRRy RNNmmNl
RYRsysane
xN
a1501eNen1
a
Mn. a1La
All YAR,
E—m�PmreL
reb
RMkPPmkynu
i
AMY..,
I-.H.n, .
1'2'Mq
FRAN,e.mm...
PB Ywr
MR—S.—Mlm'w
HH&
IXrrtDS.
S
MYnr
15%
BMMMe
PbvIME 9m.n
t
ear
RNA,
aRRAMAee
wy
i
µY
Ownv>mywvT
Mom
PN N.ARY•r
0.a'atmmWNiauW
SOH— IAOSAMAD,
gyMun
Emu M.O.
C:
W
Waa
M.A wnNlreln ,
7D
H..—. AN,
W,HBu. Roof RorMbq
S[mrrMNN.rre Common WIDE
RYRsysane
Inaw. spvclne
Mn. a1La
.Mt cemmnRun
%
r
AND—.1
MIT`
SRebn3Np
RN.IIr. aaamr.Ix
3M1
1'2'Mq
W
Waa
M.A wnNlreln ,
7D
UPS NNNN`
W,HBu. Roof RorMbq
S[NnMm N.rre
Common Namx
TS
&NREM, NMN
Comrunisam
%
r
AND—.1
m%.
RN.IIr. aaamr.Ix
MADAN
W
Waa
M.A wnNlreln ,
7D
/scientlEFFISHEre
W,HBu. Roof RorMbq
S[NnMm N.rre
Common Namx
TS
&NREM, NMN
Comrunisam
%
r
AND—.1
m%.
RN.IIr. aaamr.Ix
MADAN
Em
Wwuu.gMbr
WmawpMOa
bn OA'
15%
BNWnpa
15%
BMMMe
Ern BM
NOTE
MPiCNM6ASRONIN, ACTUAL PADEMEMB
EMEReISMUS
ANNAM—RITUAL, N"I
a \
JJJ
ID%
M.
Ownv>mywvT
SHALL ALDOWINGI0DISFA
0.a'atmmWNiauW
.NOAl Bare. Pamir,
/scientlEFFISHEre
W,HBu. Roof RorMbq
S[NnMm N.rre
Common Namx
TS
&NREM, NMN
Comrunisam
%
r
AND—.1
m%.
RN.IIr. aaamr.Ix
MADAN
Em
Wwuu.gMbr
WmawpMOa
bn OA'
15%
BNWnpa
15%
BMMMe
Ern BM
5%
ANNAM—RITUAL, N"I
A%
FUAu¢NmDEANDSM
ID%
M.
Ownv>mywvT
OF,
0.a'atmmWNiauW
15%
gyMun
Emu M.O.
Aao-M.un
RN MAems
5%
Ixw MMe+x
10%
DR, MN+im
PH..
PgWA m.Rw..
10%
wwNr a.mRN.
I
/scientlEFFISHEre
HE
• m'm
PLU65MALL BE MHAL MIX OF SPECIFIED SPEOES.
/scientlEFFISHEre
• m'm
NOIe
MM
TABLIZAIONSEMI G'11 FOR AIDES OF DAYDREAMS OUROF
'-
NOTE:
W
ON SLOPING UINMS PUNTINGMNTPATOB SMALL ROME ALL RIPARIAN BARE
RWTAKIES PERDENTADE.AND
SLASHED COMPLETION AOR SLOPE$ STEEPER THIN AI AHDWIMN
—ASH
/
OS VFR
SHALLBEESTABLDNED PORALLSRNRBES ME. INTERN
NPL
�UTIB
/'
YS ORIS GLFNWRDAYSIMmCHFVEODSHOMEB)
M DARxiCOMPHnwxovroNSTRDrnoN.
= I IN
W W ��
b Z Z f1"
~ � Q
M&
b®.
Sheetl Ec
• m'm
NOIe
W
ON SLOPING UINMS PUNTINGMNTPATOB SMALL ROME ALL RIPARIAN BARE
RWTAKIES PERDENTADE.AND
—ASH
/
NPL
SUBSTITUTE AS SAN NUN05PECIBS MUCH AS WHNF OAR.IDURWODO. PMXA
MR UPI BEPOIy011g
EBN BEECH ANDOTHER PVAIUBLE
AND ALSO OISEOIEOF Ui3.
PILANDB[EEOBFPSVB PPESFXi1OP[I MAPONEAT.
E
M
N
SIT
LOS
2
w
,
I
/
/
//
UTI
REACH 1
=_
UPPER
moXMP1NTIASSEDIN
to
T, BE.. SLOW
UT1
REACH
1
Y.
'/.
'/.
'/.
'/.
LOWER
%
'/.
%
/,
'/.
7.
SRW
'
1pFW
'
,
%
YSLID
\
/
/
T
= I IN
W W ��
b Z Z f1"
~ � Q
M&
b®.
Sheetl Ec
W
—ASH
NPL
= I IN
W W ��
b Z Z f1"
~ � Q
M&
b®.
Sheetl Ec

z
ZIZ
+ + * + + + + + + + m m
+
+ + F + $ + # + + + + r $+ + + Fe' t + + + + + + + + + I I N YF
+ + + + + + + + + + 'Po + + + + + + + + +
+ + + - + + y +
+ + + + + + + + + + F + + + + + + + + + ° i
+r. E., + t ' + + + + + + + + + + + r # + +. , it %/r/r '/, '/. 'i % % n+ zs.w+ + + + E+ + + .. + +
_w,�� zzzzzzzzzzzzzf�;,
i ��„, zzzz2zizzzz ,
n
LIERSIERAISSE
xl.�un=M.me
ummtlXxeXn
x
RG
rywma
ALY—E,
unFPALA .•
Eexmi
PRE
ARrA
PiwtBM
1.
RWnm
uvea.
X.H,
EEAAAPtls
S+enpL N
'.LE
La.wal.re,®a
LLenNa�wreroea
z
my—
cx.XaaaEw:.
Pn Am.
PoWN+MMetlea
EmIem LMomwW
ES
LEFT HOOSPLAIN I".
PMASWOXIx COWERV ONMEMEM ALLDIVURSEDARW
JMNi v SE[mN� RED MULM NG PER DETAIL VSJB IN ADDRION TO PERMANwi SEEMxG.
BNMMxk xeX. smwn cxxXxtlD x.m. EMNPxvi
MATCHLINE-SHEET3.2E
P.mn..m�Iw
MATCHLINE-SHEET3.1
Rea4myM5xn ReOePP.xoyw
nPPEP DA
LIERSIERAISSE
xl.�un=M.me
ummtlXxeXn
x
RG
rywma
ALY—E,
unFPALA .•
Eexmi
PRE
ARrA
PiwtBM
1.
RWnm
uvea.
X.H,
EEAAAPtls
S+enpL N
'.LE
La.wal.re,®a
LLenNa�wreroea
z
my—
cx.XaaaEw:.
Pn Am.
PoWN+MMetlea
EmIem LMomwW
ES
aroGn
RIERRI-FLEAMPLA.E.
LIERSIERAISSE
xl.�un=M.me
ummtlXxeXn
x
RG
rywma
ER
unFPALA .•
..OAl
PRE
ARrA
PiwtBM
1.
RWnm
Gessim.
HE
M.-
PAAAAERa
pre'aa mMauN
S+enpL N
'.LE
RM MCSM
SEARS
Nuyl+wkpmfm
PertLrvron
ILRE
PoWN+MMetlea
EmIem LMomwW
RIERRI-FLEAMPLA.E.
LIERSIERAISSE
xl.�un=M.me
ummtlXxeXn
x
RG
rywma
ER
unFPALA .•
'hMry Wk
9+4rM Nie
PiwtBM
RWnm
Gnen NN
ISTE
PAAAAERa
pre'aa mMauN
S+enpL N
'.LE
RM MCSM
SEARS
Nuyl+wkpmfm
PertLrvron
ILRE
PoWN+MMetlea
EmIem LMomwW
ROTE
a
iOMNM51mtL0LLUPK[OMIXG i00EiAILy65 HFRPAXROYSE
FWGSFXALLBEEOYALMIXOFSPFCIFIEDSPEGES.
si>&JuiUxsEEDEREPTI nPRFAsoE msrvNPAxfEOursmE
ONSERV>90H FASEMEXi.
HATHE
..O
GwuxonesnluTlDx sxALLUEnANuwEDwnxixzw.vs DE
100AVSEORSLOPEEa.1EOXFN 03PE.Axi MNGRO XDCi1OVER N
SHALL BE FD FOR ALL DLRURBEO AREAS WITXIN IS
OR SO.ENMR. (PETER.. IS SHOR EEN
PoLLOMHG WMP.flION OF CONSTRUMON,
LIERSIERAISSE
ROTE
a
iOMNM51mtL0LLUPK[OMIXG i00EiAILy65 HFRPAXROYSE
FWGSFXALLBEEOYALMIXOFSPFCIFIEDSPEGES.
si>&JuiUxsEEDEREPTI nPRFAsoE msrvNPAxfEOursmE
ONSERV>90H FASEMEXi.
HATHE
..O
GwuxonesnluTlDx sxALLUEnANuwEDwnxixzw.vs DE
100AVSEORSLOPEEa.1EOXFN 03PE.Axi MNGRO XDCi1OVER N
SHALL BE FD FOR ALL DLRURBEO AREAS WITXIN IS
OR SO.ENMR. (PETER.. IS SHOR EEN
PoLLOMHG WMP.flION OF CONSTRUMON,

Approved Mh
UleMMa Name I 54alum I
Common Nam
anW(
%
,.M eeedW nel
a,
NYear
P++Inun nOAM+n
PMo Pan raa
p
MY..
FpoC YemGa WN
Mama .e,_
r
NYear
"mlMkFvm IkA
Rree0e6
J—
NYev
ldelnb' bmmmz 11aN
IH6wn
t
NY®
enexr+. r.na. wn
�B mY4e
roµY mw
NYear
e.m eweYma Nmd
pm s.e.6.re
a �♦
peMam sYre
oearmnew
.A`
wry\ g.
MATCHLINE— SHEET 3.3
MATCHLINE -SHEET 3.2
iJ9/
+a
a,a
aa�
4
al
��
i
+
[x snow
wstwno pxnNi NGln'PI
Approved Mh
UleMMa Name I 54alum I
Common Nam
anW(
%
,.M eeedW nel
a,
NYear
P++Inun nOAM+n
PMo Pan raa
p
MY..
FpoC YemGa WN
Mama .e,_
a
NYear
"mlMkFvm IkA
Rree0e6
J
NYev
ldelnb' bmmmz 11aN
IH6wn
t
NY®
enexr+. r.na. wn
�B mY4e
roµY mw
NYear
e.m eweYma Nmd
pm s.e.6.re
peMam sYre
oearmnew
.A`
i + + +}+ + +
Wamad.m RmiPMr
NeRapws Plupa
Sn .Name
co.N..
%
FMawvaalNiM[
a,
6w
s FanNus
k
I6%
-z•M
aa.
8a am. 1.
m
.,.a
Ornrtu mM
6wiTt
SY.
aaN
M.w
lUWe'UI
�
tN.
roµY mw
envoi
tOY.
ILL/L�i����%%�1 JLU1L1(J
Shm Index
+++++ w
"3q
S \ S \ S \ \+ \ +
y 1_ ++ +++
+T+
t
+++ +
K m
W W
+ +
.,
11 i +
\ + + + + 1+
+ + + +�\p` + + + 4 Q I a
+
+ + + + r+ + 1 + I G G
+ + + + + + +
+
NeRapws Plupa
I \ "I
,
I
Comlw Wrro WiSp.nS
Ir ,r .n8
6w
n...re a.6oamnw.d
-z•M
Ca ,_a,
8a am. 1.
1,
.4
lUWe'UI
+++++ w
"3q
S \ S \ S \ \+ \ +
y 1_ ++ +++
+T+
t
+++ +
K m
W W
+ +
.,
11 i +
\ + + + + 1+
+ + + +�\p` + + + 4 Q I a
+
+ + + + r+ + 1 + I G G
+ + + + + + +
+
NeRapws Plupa
I \ "I
,
SCImIHIC Nacre
Comlw Wrro WiSp.nS
Ir ,r .n8
6w
n...re a.6oamnw.d
-z•M
Ca ,_a,
8a am. 1.
1,
+++++ w
"3q
S \ S \ S \ \+ \ +
y 1_ ++ +++
+T+
t
+++ +
K m
W W
+ +
.,
11 i +
\ + + + + 1+
+ + + +�\p` + + + 4 Q I a
+
+ + + + r+ + 1 + I G G
+ + + + + + +
+
p
I \ "I
,
',, uL 1HCO IoIla
4
-
T
+++++ w
"3q
S \ S \ S \ \+ \ +
y 1_ ++ +++
+T+
t
+++ +
K m
W W
+ +
.,
11 i +
\ + + + + 1+
+ + + +�\p` + + + 4 Q I a
+
+ + + + r+ + 1 + I G G
+ + + + + + +
+
p
I \ "I
,
',, uL 1HCO IoIla
4
.4
lUWe'UI
..
.A`
wry\ g.
MATCHLINE— SHEET 3.3
MATCHLINE -SHEET 3.2
d_
p
I \ "I
,
',, uL 1HCO IoIla
4
lUWe'UI
..
.A`

HEAROYMORK
YA �
\ am
NTE
PLXMPNERI EEnINS' I$ PLAT ALL GULTDAEB MEPSWRMN GLANNERMALUDIN EASEMENT. PNwsrvXBEOPXG5
SHALL EERIVE iEMPoMASFEGIHG PXG MNtdING pE0. GRPX 3/661H POOf11GN i0 pE0.MRNENi SFFGING. @.4
\ �R
WproveJ DM $tlaMMt Wn+ Sbatum Cnmmon Ndm¢ MroT/10Yxn1
I
+++ +++++ +++++++
+ 1
W¢XaM B¢n. P.,
Xa2[[aaro %yq
I Go
RIpYIN Roo1PNMlnP
MYevr
alID nlWtnl
ReEIW Pon ME
Gommen Nama
IS
p
µ1eM 9eNpma
%
.Tear„
BYmrm
Wax 0.p
RNnu¢�'MMeNs
NVear
Ru ,IWwnmrwc NM
MMeEM Ewr
MVear
awr NtnaNb HAD
In MARROMwyn
2
BARRAILe
,AMNYma
PA Erma
EMYaga
Elm'..
P.NmY.W.nxmA wm
omrmmn
Gem Wl
+++ +++++ +++++++
+ 1
W¢XaM B¢n. P.,
Xa2[[aaro %yq
I Go
RIpYIN Roo1PNMlnP
8[YMM[NYn
5[Nntlllz Nuro
Gommen Nama
IS
p
nnmoEYlte
%
wY.ur w.cwxma
BYmrm
M%
RNnu¢�'MMeNs
Syumue
p%
Ovaw MYw
Or ,Nrb¢
SAN..
SEES
BARRAILe
PNa bM
1.
EMYaga
Elm'..
�
EruMui HT+M+A'a
Gem Wl
ID%
R¢Mm WDSHAR S
GA -WR
PER
V
SmmyG OeL
..W
6wamP Llnun
1B%
APPE n�
PM Mix
5%
ARM.
A.MaW
CNpYw MMdme
PWmIm
10%
-AREAS DAMARA
PAPARS »a
FARMERS A[
LAND. mm
1.
HATCHING, AS SHOWN, IS VILAWLE. ALLAN PIMEMEXL 0.EGTIVE
TO1IT BE EOVUACCO.A. NUFS .1 PEOTE .ETAILD.1. KEEM 0U5
RULES DUAL
ME SIOPDLL UNDER Pwxx EDGULTHEI SxPY RESUME NL REAGAN WE TOOT SPECIES PERCENTAGE, AN G SUBMNOIF AS MM
UPLAND
HS APPIEENLE SUCH
EFT R[Rcn GAR,
UiO,AN D ALSSAM
U PAMPF OF UTZ AND
PL�GNSELE AREASREPRESENT 2C REAL ORP THIS SHERTspxER.
Xa2[[aaro %yq
I Go
SN[MM[Namo
8[YMM[NYn
Conner N[ne Na¢Sp[Irm
Mllv.$gclnB
MAL fbe
p
mmn Run Bn
Bn
il"
I
Aox Boit
U
¢NA
HATCHING, AS SHOWN, IS VILAWLE. ALLAN PIMEMEXL 0.EGTIVE
TO1IT BE EOVUACCO.A. NUFS .1 PEOTE .ETAILD.1. KEEM 0U5
RULES DUAL
ME SIOPDLL UNDER Pwxx EDGULTHEI SxPY RESUME NL REAGAN WE TOOT SPECIES PERCENTAGE, AN G SUBMNOIF AS MM
UPLAND
HS APPIEENLE SUCH
EFT R[Rcn GAR,
UiO,AN D ALSSAM
U PAMPF OF UTZ AND
PL�GNSELE AREASREPRESENT 2C REAL ORP THIS SHERTspxER.
UM se 1.
I Go
SN[MM[Namo
Conmon N.
X
/I
�I
STAG WMA
p
I
6EEU ONnM
]mA
I
EpmYny
U
HATCHING, AS SHOWN, IS VILAWLE. ALLAN PIMEMEXL 0.EGTIVE
TO1IT BE EOVUACCO.A. NUFS .1 PEOTE .ETAILD.1. KEEM 0U5
RULES DUAL
ME SIOPDLL UNDER Pwxx EDGULTHEI SxPY RESUME NL REAGAN WE TOOT SPECIES PERCENTAGE, AN G SUBMNOIF AS MM
UPLAND
HS APPIEENLE SUCH
EFT R[Rcn GAR,
UiO,AN D ALSSAM
U PAMPF OF UTZ AND
PL�GNSELE AREASREPRESENT 2C REAL ORP THIS SHERTspxER.
NOTE:
'STX6WmG iI o SFEEEOFMF li iGPKPSOEOISNN
PNCEOORWE
NOTE:
SIPBILIEgry0N I.A.1 IMANGT5NEOWIMIN B DED 06
EALL.CEHAUT ME "O'DNE MEGAS LOPESStELRX IX AN is L ANO WIEXIN N
DEL
SHALL BE ESTUBLAHM MX PLL DOIDXBED AREAS WITHIN 15
DHATERSED DAYS OR AT GIE..A. (WXIENEVER IS INSIDER)
WLLOWIHIS CORAETCH SE CONSTRUCT...
$ckmEffAR NAM
I Go
/I
�I
NOTE:
'STX6WmG iI o SFEEEOFMF li iGPKPSOEOISNN
PNCEOORWE
NOTE:
SIPBILIEgry0N I.A.1 IMANGT5NEOWIMIN B DED 06
EALL.CEHAUT ME "O'DNE MEGAS LOPESStELRX IX AN is L ANO WIEXIN N
DEL
SHALL BE ESTUBLAHM MX PLL DOIDXBED AREAS WITHIN 15
DHATERSED DAYS OR AT GIE..A. (WXIENEVER IS INSIDER)
WLLOWIHIS CORAETCH SE CONSTRUCT...
:-
rN
/I
�I
R
I
�
2
I
OV
U
✓�
°
p
o
U
\
�
a
/
w
V
N.
:-