20140193 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL 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: April 2016 - November 2016
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2016
Final Submission Date: January 13, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDL.ANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Henry Fork Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (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
DMS 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 project also
consists of several wetland restoration components, as well as buffer planting along Henry Fork. The
project watershed consists of agricultural, forested, and residential land uses.
The 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 DWQ Catawba River Basin Plan indicated that the section of Henry Fork that drains to
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 project goals
established in the mitigation plan focused on permanent protection, reestablishing natural hydrology
and vegetation, reducing water quality stressors and enhancing terrestrial and aquatic habitat. The
decommissioning of the existing golf course, establishment of a permanent easement, and completion of
construction and planting efforts have set a new trajectory that is intended to attain these goals, and
monitoring assessments are being completed as proposed to measure established success criteria.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between November 2015 and March 2016.
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments and site visits were completed between April and November,
2016 to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required stream and
vegetation success criteria for MY1. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as
designed.
Four automated and manual crest gages were installed on the Site to document bankfull events. One
bankfull event was recorded on UT1A since construction completion. Vegetation assessment indicates
that overall average stem density for the Site is 599 stems per acre, and is therefore on track to meet
the MY3 requirement of 320 stems per acre. Wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas are
meeting or exceeding hydrology conditions at the adjacent reference gage in this drought year. Of the 7
groundwater monitoring gages installed within the wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones, 3
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL

met the success criteria (water table within 12 inches of the ground surface for 8.5% of the growing
season consecutively). While not all gages at the Site met the wetland hydrology criteria, monthly
rainfall was below average for the majority of the growing season. It is anticipated that these wetland
areas will continue to recharge and meet hydrologic success criteria in the upcoming monitoring years
as precipitation normalizes.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL

HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component Map
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2.1
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.2
Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Project Information and Attributes
1.2.3
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Figure 3.0-3.5
1.2.4
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-4
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
1.2.5
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................
2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES..................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.5
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -c
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stems
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a -b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 12a -b
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Pebble Count Data
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 14
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
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).
Access to the Site is via Mountain View Road, approximately one mile southwest of Hickory, North
Carolina. Situated in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the
project watershed consists of agricultural, forested, and residential land uses. The drainage area for the
Site is 178 acres. (0.28 square miles).
The project streams consist of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Henry Fork River on the site of a
former golf course, referred to herein as UT1, UT2, UT1A, and UT113. Stream restoration reaches
included UT1 (Reach 1 and 2) and UT113, together comprising 3,087 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel. Stream enhancement reaches included UT1A and UT2, together totaling 2,627 LF. Stream
enhancement activities for UT1A and UT2 were the same as for restoration reaches, however the
tributaries are intermittent, and as such were credited as enhancement. The riparian areas of the
tributaries, as well as a 100 foot -wide buffer of the Henry Fork, were planted with native vegetation to
improve habitat and protect water quality. Wetland components included enhancement of 0.68 acres of
existing wetlands, rehabilitation of 0.25 acres of existing wetlands and re-establishment of 3.71 acres of
wetlands.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2016. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2016. A conservation
easement has been recorded and is in place on 48.06 acres (Deed Book 03247, Page Number 0476-
0488) within a tract owned by WEI-Henry Fork, LLC. The project is expected to generate 4,838 stream
mitigation units (SMUs) and 4.22 wetland mitigation units (WMUs). Annual monitoring will be
conducted for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria
are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed/site background information for this project.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
This Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Catawba River Basin. The Site
will help meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and provide numerous ecological
benefits within the Catawba River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the Henry Fork
project area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading, and improved aquatic and
terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. These project goals established were
completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to
meet the DMS mitigation needs while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the
watershed.
The following project specific goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2015) include:
• Permanently protect the project site from harmful uses; and
• Correct modifications to streams, wetlands and buffers;
• 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
Monitoring Year 1 Annual 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;
• Resizing and realigning channels to address stream dredging and ditching. Planting native woody
species in riparian zones which have been maintained through mowing. By correcting these
prior modifications, the channels and floodplains will provide a suite of hydrologic and biological
function;
• Restoring appropriate stream dimensions and juxtaposition of streams and wetlands on the
landscape. Wetlands will be enhanced through more frequent overbank flooding, and 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;
• 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.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success
criteria presented in the Henry Fork Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2015).
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for the MY1 were conducted in September 2016. All streams within the site are
stable.
In general, riffle cross sections show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or
width -to -depth ratio. Slight decreases in maximum bankfull depth were observed in pool cross sections
2, 3, 6, 11, and 13, which is common in newly constructed pools. Minor fluctuations in bed elevations
are expected especially in systems dominated by fine grained (sand/silt) particles. Surveyed riffle cross
sections fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen (Rosgen, 1994 &
1996) stream type. Pebble counts in UT1 Reach 1 and UT113 indicate maintenance of coarser materials in
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-2

the riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Refer to Appendix 2 forth e visual stability
assessment table, CCPV map, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological
data and plots.
Beaver activity was observed at the downstream end of the project site between Stations 123+00 and
127+00 of UTI Reach 2. Multiple beaver dams were removed between May and September 2016. The
short-term backwater associated with the dams was primarily contained within the active channel and
isn't impacting stream stability.
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration reaches. One bankfull event was recorded on UT1A during the
MY1 data collection. No automated stream gage data will be presented in Year 1, however, manual crest
gage readings are reported. Issues with automated stream gages were identified during data processing.
Upon field investigation and further data review, it was found that the inaccuracies in the automated
stream gage data were a result of the in -stream pressure gages and barotroll gage recording at different
times and intervals. The barotroll records the atmospheric pressure and is used to correct the reading
on the stream pressure gages. The in -stream pressure transducers and barotroll have been
reprogrammed to record at the same time and interval (every 15 minutes) going forward to provide
accurate stage height data. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
In addition, intermittent streams must be monitored to demonstrate that stream flow regimes are
sufficient to establish an Ordinary High Water Mark, specifically a minimum of 30 consecutive days of
flow during periods of normal rainfall. While gages were deployed, and data was collected for MY1, no
automated gage data will be presented in this report due to inaccuracies discussed in the previous
paragraph. In addition, while water was frequently observed during dry weather in the intermittent
channels, rainfall for the year was far below typical norms.
Due to issues that arose during data processing, we revisited all of our gage setups, on both perennial
and intermittent tributaries, to reprogram and ensure that all gages are functioning properly and
accurately correlated to benchmarks. In addition, we may consider alternate or additional approaches to
demonstrate intermittent flow such as timed cameras if our efforts to reprogram the gages is still not
effective on the intermittent streams.
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 15
vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement area. All
of the plots were installed using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted riparian and wetland corridor at
the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). 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 (MY3)
and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth monitoring year (MY5). Planted vegetation must
average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If this performance
standard is met by MY5 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the NC Interagency Review
Team.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in September 2016. The 2016 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 599 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems/acre required at MY3, but approximately 9% less than the baseline density recorded at MYO, 656
stems/acre in January 2016. There is an average of 15 stems per plot as compared to 16 stems per plot
in MYO. All 15 of the plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7 (Table 9, Appendix
3). Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table
and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Invasive species including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were present along the northern edge and southern end of the
Site. These areas were treated during MY1 and will be monitored in future years. These species are not
impacting survival rates of planted stems.
Minor encroachments of the easement occurred along the eastern edge of UT1 Reach 1, in the vicinity
of the existing offsite clubhouse. Encroachments included minor mowing infringement and a small area
of burning. The adjacent landowner has been notified that the activities are in violation of the easement
and the burned area will be reseeded, along with other areas that have sparse herbaceous vegetation, in
Spring of 2017. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table and Integrated
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV).
1.2.5 Wetland Assessment
Seven groundwater hydrology gages (GWG's) were established during the baseline monitoring within
the wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones (GWG's 1— 4 and 6 — 8). All gages were installed
at appropriate locations so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels
throughout the Site. Two additional gages (GWG 5 and 9) were installed for exploratory purposes in
areas not proposed for restoration or enhancement activities; as such, GWG 5 and 9 are not included in
gage performance evaluation. An additional gage was established in an adjacent reference wetland and
is being utilized to compare the hydrologic response within the restored wetland areas at the Site. A
barotroll logger (to measure barometric pressure used in the calculations of groundwater levels with
gage transducer data) and a rain gage were also installed on the Site. All monitoring gages were
downloaded on a quarterly basis and maintained on an as needed basis. Historical growing season data
is not available for Catawba County therefore the growing season from Burke County, which runs from
March 20th to November 11th (236 days), will be used for hydrologic success. The final performance
standard for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground
surface for 20 consecutive days (8.5 percent) of the defined 236 -day growing season under typical
precipitation conditions.
Of the seven groundwater monitoring gages within rehabilitation and re-establishment zones (GWG 1-
4 and 6 — 8), 3 met the success criteria for MY1. Of the gages that met, the measured hydroperiod
ranged from 12.3% to 100% of the growing season. Below normal precipitation was recorded for the
majority of the growing season. Although several on-site gages did not meet success criteria in MY1,
they generally exhibited groundwater levels and/or recharge greater than the adjacent reference gage.
With normal annual rainfall in subsequent monitoring years, groundwater recharge is expected and all
gages are expected to meet success criteria in the future. Refer to Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage
locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology summary data and plots.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
The streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. The average stem density for the Site
is on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria and all individual vegetation plots meet the MY1 success
criteria as noted in CCPV. Of the 7 groundwater gages, 3 met the success criteria for MY1. In general,
gages within the wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas are meeting or exceeding hydrology
conditions at the adjacent reference gage. It is anticipated that gages will meet hydrologic success
criteria in the upcoming monitoring years as precipitation normalizes. One bankfull event was
documented on UT1A during MY1.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 1-5

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

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2015). Henry Fork Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

0
� �30501011000V
nllj�n ! �'Q 3bnn
7 � Chic
I
i
N
k to
y
r•
In
J Pard_-
r
Z
CD IF
N 0
ti
030501
�,;�,
i
Hiokairy �,t
z- —
`fieTonal
g
�r
Z
Lenoir
oAirport
Z
,y
ofe�ge®`lf�,'v'fy,�
:2 :
2nd -Ave NI,�ll
3z�,
-
---
0305010114001(
—�—
_
HickOA!
--
s
,
�S�cftv+trt� LOn
4�'�VsE
,� 2nd Ave SW
''. „
� �`
'a!a 61,.d St
Rd
g�
View
I
Ics
�.
Hi:'I debtim -
' t'Y
i�
0366 02
G
t
♦IA
v
,03050102010020
%�p
WILDLANDS rkt
ENGINEERING
V305010203(�
%r207n ,
Valley
p, Wille
M1.1.-11
m
Catawba County, NC
CD IF
N 0
%�p
WILDLANDS rkt
ENGINEERING
V305010203(�
%r207n ,
Valley
p, Wille
M1.1.-11
m
Catawba County, NC

.11191,111,111.111..1111■(11 .....
♦ 1111.111.111.. 11'.I% I I I II II.I I.Ij�1j►. •./.,
i •,►,►►►II■Ina 1♦
�" '1 j//1 j1 j1 j1111►►11I1►■
y.
t ,V
Conservation Easement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Com'" Wetland Enhancement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Reach Breaks
OrIIIIXIXIXIL:g#qXXxIxIII,
•i
r
•
r •
kt� 0 150 300 Feet
WILDLANDS ,` i
ENGINEERING
Figure 2 Project Component Map
Henry fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
MITIGATION
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen 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
PROJECTPF • ••
As -Built Stationing/
Existing Footage/
Restoration (R) or
Non -Riparian Wetland
acres
Credits
Reach ID
Restoration
Approach Restoration Footage/Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
N/A
Location
Acreage
Restoration Equivalent (RE)
2,627
(SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
100+00 to 103+12
Wetland Re -Establishment
P1
Restoration
312
1:1
312
Wetland Rehabilitation
N/A
1,392
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Enhancement
N/A
0.68
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A
UTI Reach 1 Lower
103+12 to 114+97
N/A
Pi
Restoration
1,185
1:1
1,185
UTI Reach 2
114+97 to 127+29
1,499
P1/P2
Restoration
1,232
1:1
1,232
UT1A
180+00 to 186+58
353
P1
Enhancement
658
1.5:1
439
UT1B
150+00 to 153+58
478
P1
Restoration
358
1:1
358
UT2
200+00 to 219+69
1,915
P1
Enhancement
1,969
1.5:1
1,313
WETLANDS
Planting,
Wetland 1
Floodplain near UTI
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
2.48
1:1
2.48
Reach 2
improvement
Planting,
Wetland 2
Floodplain near UT2
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
1.23
1.1
123
improvement
Planting,
Wetland A
Floodplain between
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
0.18
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.18
1.5:1
0.12
improvement
Planting,
Wetland B
Floodplain between
0.01
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.013
1.5:1
0.01
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Planting,
Wetland C
Floodplain between
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
0.003
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.003
1.5:1
0.002
improvement
Wetland G
Floodplain near UTIA
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.01
Wetland H
East hillslope near
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.03
UT1A
Wetland I
East hillslope near
0.08
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.04
UT1A
Wetland)
East hillslope near UT1
0.04
Planting
Enhancement
0.04
2:1
0.02
Reach 2
Wetland K
East hillslope near UT1
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.03
Reach 2
Wetland M
East hillslope near UT1
0.13
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.07
Reach 2
Wetland
Floodplain towards
0.08
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.04
river from UT2
Wetland
FloodplaiUTZslope of
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.01
Wetland O
FloodplaiUTZ slope of
0.07
Planting
Enhancement
0.07
2:1
0.03
Floodplain in footprint
Significant
Wetland R
of Pond 3 near head of
0.06
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.06
1.5:1
0.04
UT1 Reach 2
wetland functions
Wetland S
UTI Reach 1 Valley
0.16
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.07
(Pond 1)
COMPONENT SUMMATION
�A
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetiand (acres)
Non -Riparian Wetland
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/AN/A
N/A
Wetland Rehabilitation
N/A
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Enhancement
N/A
0.68
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Activity or Report
D.
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 1
March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments1
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
April 2016 - November 2016
December 2016
Year 1 Beaver dam removal on UT1 Reach 2
N/A
May -September 2016
Year 1 Invasive species treatment
N/A
June & July 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
1Seed 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 1- 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 1- 2016
'The project site reaches do not have regulated floodplain mapping, but are located within the Henry Fork floodplain.
PROJECT• •
Project Name
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
CountyI
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
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-35
Project Drainage Area (acres)
178
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
39%- Herbaceous/Pasture, 36%- Forested, 25%- Developed, >1%- Water
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters
UTI Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2
UT1A UT1B
UT2
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,497 1,232
658 358
1,969
Drainage Area (acres)
106 129
23 31
49
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
39.5 32.5
27.25 31.25
27
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P P
I P
I
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 Vegon Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent CompositionetatiExotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
REGULATORY• •
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
PCN prepared
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
PCN prepared
and 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 bat,
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found
to be impacted (letter from SHPO
dated 3/24/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (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.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
0 250 500 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S , I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Catawba County, NC

Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
_ Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Cross Sections (XS)
Reach Breaks
----- Bankfull Lines
♦ Photo Points
Stream Gages
Additional Groundwater Gages (GWG)
Rain & Barotroll Gages
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
0 Criteria Met
Groundwater Monitoring Gages (GWG) - MY1
4 Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
AX
7
N
f
0 0 PGW G17 L, �y S
8
�T
GWG 8GWG 8
a --
lk�p
WILDLANDS nk�
ENGINEERING
n
•
•
•IF
•
•
•
z
- -t
•up
.r,
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

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

Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S nkDMSI
i I i I Project No. 96306
E"G'"EER'"GMonitoring Year 1 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

Conservation Easement
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
— Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Cross Sections (XS)
Reach Breaks
Bankfull Lines
+ Photo Points
Stream Gages
Rain & Barotroll Gages
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
© Criteria Met
Invasives
Easement Encroachment
Groundwater Monitoring Gages (GWG) - MY1
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
%�p
WILDLANDS nk�
ENGINEERING
0'r*WV, //// NJ
n•■uu■un•n■n■uu•ammo■■•■■•••�••
NJ's
■■•■u■,,,�■
'. ■n■nn•••■••••■•■.■ 27
-:� a nu■
r
40
29
3
Lk Chinese privet, Japanese honeysi
se.
00W
_ • • •
•• %4 .
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Catawba County, NC
fes,
29
3
Lk Chinese privet, Japanese honeysi
se.
00W
_ • • •
•• %4 .
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

r
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
J t � �� y`
ItYY
1i�► t� ,
i � �•Y.
N
181
�2J
\\\\� Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
♦
Photo Points
Vegetation Monitoring Plots - MY1
Stream Enhancement
-0
Stream Gages
0 Criteria Met
Cross Sections (XS)
+
Additional Groundwater Gages
Invasives
Reach Breaks
♦
Reference Gage
Groundwater Monitoring Gages (GWG) - MY1
----- Bankfull Lines
-0
Rain & Barotroll Gages
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5)
0 100 200 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Catawba County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UTI Reach 111.497 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
39 39
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
33 33
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
33 33
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
33 33
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
33 33
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
81
81
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
70
70
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
81
81
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
81
81
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
46
46
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UTI Reach 2 11.232 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
14 14
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
15 15
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
15 15
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
15 15
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
15 15
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
12
12
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
6
6
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1A (658 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
14 14
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
13 13
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
13 13
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
13 13
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
13 13
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
6
6
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT1B (358 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11 11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8 8
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
8 8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
8 8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
8 8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
24
24
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
ZJ
27
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
27
27
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 (1.969 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
35 35
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
32 32
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
32 32
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
32 32
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
32 32
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
o
0
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth: Bankfull Depth >_1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Planted Acreage
Easement Acreage 48
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
0.2%
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0.0
0.0%
year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.0
0.0%
Easement Acreage 48
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold Id
(
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
2
1.0
2.1%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
2
0.1
0.2%

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— view upstream UT1B (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 1— view downstream UT1B (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 2 — view upstream UT1B (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream UT1B (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 3 — view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 3 — view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 4 — view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 4 — view downstream UT1 R1 Upper (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 5 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 5 — view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 5 — view upstream of UT1B (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 6 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 6 — view downstream UTI R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 7 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 7 — view downstream UTI R1 Lower (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 8 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 8 — view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 9 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 9 — view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 10 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 10 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 11— view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 11—view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 12 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 12 —view downstream UTI R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 13 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 13 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 14 —view upstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 14 — view downstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 15 — view upstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 15 — view downstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016) 1
-1
Photo Point 16 — view upstream UTI R2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream UTI R2 (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 17 — view upstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 17 — view downstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016) 1

Photo Point 18 —view upstream UT1A (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 18 — view downstream UT1A (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 19 — view upstream UT1A (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream UT1A (10/12/2016)
*tf;�
Photo Point 20 — view upstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 20 — view downstream UT2 (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 21— view upstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 21— view downstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1
I Photo Point 22 — view upstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 22 — view downstream UT2 (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 23 — view upstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 23 — view downstream UT2 (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 24 — view upstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 24 — view downstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 25 — view upstream UT2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 25 — view downstream UT2 (10/12/2016)
t.
�.:
� "a
Photo Point 26 — view upstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 26 — view downstream UT1 R2 (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 26 — UTI R2 floodplain overview (10/12/2016) 1
Photo Point 27—view upstream UTI R2 floodplain (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 27—view downstream UT1 R2 floodplain (10/12/2016)
Photo Point 28 — UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (10/12/2016) 1 Photo Point 28 — UT2 floodplain overview (10/12/2016)

Photo Point 29 — UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (10/12/2016)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 7 - (9/26/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 - (9/26/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 - (9/26/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 - (9/26/2016)
Vegetation Plot 11 - (9/26/2016) 1Vegetation Plot 12 - (9/26/2016)

Vegetation Plot 13 - (9/26/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 14 - (9/26/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 15 - (9/26/2016)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Plot MY5 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
9/21/2016 8:52
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 HENRY FORK MY1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02143 Henry Fork\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessmeni
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.),
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each,
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
96306
project Name
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Description
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Required Plots (calculated)
15
Sampled Plots
15

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
96306-WEI-0001
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0004 I
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
10
3
3
3
Alnus serrulota
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
Southern Hackberry, Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiono
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
61
6
61
41
4
41
11
1
11
21
2
21
3
31
31
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
4
4
4
6
6
6
1
1
1
4
41
4
Liquidomborstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatico
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Plotanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
13
4
4
4
Populus deltoides
JCottonwood
ITree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
ITree
1
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
ITree
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
Salix nigra
JBlackWillow
ITree
1
Stem count
14
14
14
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
121
12
32
161
161
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)l
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
51
51
5 1
41
41
51
51
51
51
41
41
41
51
51
6
5
51
5
Stems per ACRE
567
567
567
647
647
688
647
647
647
647
647
647
486
486
1295
647
647
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

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
96306-WEI-0007
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0010 I
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
Alnus serrulota
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Celtis laevigata
Southern Hackberry, Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiono
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
11
1
11
1
11
1
1
11
3
31
3
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
Liquidomborstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatico
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Plotanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
9
3
3
28
2
2
4
2
2
22
5
5
5
Populus deltoides
JCottonwood
ITree
1
1 5
2
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
ITree
31
31
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
41
41
4
3
31
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
ITree
11
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
11
1
Salix nigra
JBlackWillow
ITree
Stem count
141
141
14
14
14
21
15
15
46
16
16
18
17
17
39
161
161
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)l
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
51
51
5
61
61
6
5
51
71
61
61
6
6
6
71
5
Stems per ACRE 1
5671
5671
5671
5671
5671
8501
6071
6071
18621
6471
6471
7281
6881
6881
15781
6471
6471
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

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Current Plot Data (MY12016) 1 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
96306-WEI-0013
Species Type PnoLSTP-all T
96306-WEI-0014
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0015
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
Box Elder
Tree
20
20
12
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
12
12
22
13
13
13
Alnus serrulato
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
35
35
35
37
37
37
Celtis laevigata
Southern Hackberry, Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
32
32
32
32
32
32
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
52
52
52
57
57
57
Liquidombarstyracifluo
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
17
17
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
7
7
2
Nyssa sylvatico
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
ISycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
7
7
7
44
44
108
57
57
57
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
7
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
201
20
20
201
20
20
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
4
4
4
27
271
27
27
271
27
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
11
Stem count
131
13
13
131
131
13
14
14
59
2221
222
350
2431
2431
264
size (ares)
1
1
1
15
15
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.37
0.37
Species countl
61
61
61
61
6
6
4
4
8
7
7
14
7
7
11
Stems per ACRE
526
526
526
$9
526
526
567,
5671
2388
"9
5991
9441
6561
6561
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

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 2. UT1A and UT2
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(---1: 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, U71 Reach 2, and UT16,
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
4Th e 25 -year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
'Sinuosity on UT1 Reach 2 I calculated by drawing a valley length line that follows the proposed valley; the existing valley is poorly definec
*Does not include last 150' to tie-in to Henry Fork.
PRE-RESTORATIONr
DATA
Parameter
Gage
UT1 Reach 2
1 UTSA
UT2
UT to Catawba River Reach 1
UT to Catawba River Reach 2
UT to Lyle Creek
Vile Preserve
UT3 Reach
2
UT1A
UT2
UT3 Reach
2
UT1A
UT2
MinMax
Min Max
Min
Max
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
Min'
Max'
U er
Lower
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Reference Cross Section Number
XS9
XS8
XS5,XS6
1 XS2
XS3
XS4
XS3
XS3
XS3
XS3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.4
12.5
15.2
16.3
12.4
9.7
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
79
52
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
1.4
1.2
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
1.7
1.7
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
17.6
11.4
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
8.7
8.2
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
4.6
24.2
32.37
8.0
14.7
9.2+
4.8
15.9
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
050 (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
52.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.4 1.7
6.7
N/A'
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)
---
---
--
-1
---
---
--
15.4
83.1
10.2
47.5
10.28
60.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
2.5
N/A
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.5
0.8
1.5
D.0
1.8
2.2
3.5
0.9
2.6
1.6
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
38.1
N/A'
N/A'
31
60
19
46
15
28
44.8
20
86
12
53
SS
68
49
136
29
53
28
87
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A'
N/A'
N/A�
55
23
21
19
8
83
S
37
9
58
7
84
7
36
8
59
Radiusof Cuwature(ft)
N/A�
N/A'
N/A'
31
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/A'
N/A'
N/A'
2.8
5.1
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/A'
N/A'
N/A
65
107
52
79
39
44
29
45
120
210
63
100
65
156
123
210
64
100
63
158
Meander Width Ratio
N/A'
N/A'
N/A'
4.4
5.7
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.1
4.2
92.3
1
161.5
74.1
117.6
68.4
164.2
11.7
20.0
9.2
15.2
11.2
1
28.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d1D0
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
.5/29.8/75.9/170.8/332.0/>2048
-/0.1/0.2/0.5/4.0/8.0
0.2/0.3/0.4/0.9/2/-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft'
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
O.11
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity)
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 B4c'
Modified B6c'
Modified F6'
ES
E3b/C3b
CS
E5
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
2.2
1.3
1 1.5
3.9
3.5
6.3
2
2.1
3.3
3.2
1.7
2.0
1.2
1
1.40.8
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)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr
N/A
61
19
29
Q -Mannings
18.3 6.1 10.2 14 6 5 13 4
Valley Length (ft)
---
--
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
--
922
415
1,174
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,499•
353
1,915
---
---
---
--
1,228
657
1,969
1,2358
6
1,969
Sinuosity
1.5s
1.05
1.03
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.39
1.06
1.65
3
1.2
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
Bankfull5lope (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
(---1: 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, U71 Reach 2, and UT16,
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
4Th e 25 -year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
'Sinuosity on UT1 Reach 2 I calculated by drawing a valley length line that follows the proposed valley; the existing valley is poorly definec
*Does not include last 150' to tie-in to Henry Fork.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project Nu.96306
Monitoring year 1- 2016
Nsnry Fnr4.1ITi Rwarh 1 and IIT1R
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
I--): 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 pmfde diversity, no pmfile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT3 Reach 2, and UT18.
a UT3 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and 0oodprone width Is more typical of a C.
the Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and imm-tstreams have been heavily m nipulated. These classifications are forillustranwe purposes only
'UT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodpmne width is more typical of a C.
6UT113 is classified in existing conditions as a sand bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment anc
charr"bation resulting in a less steep stream). The restored stream, with slopes exceeding 2% grade throughout the reach, will be a
gravel dominated stream, and is classified as such.
PRE -RESTORATION
CONDITION
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprome Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Cresi Area (ti
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Pool Ma� Depth (ft)
®mm®m®®mom��
mmmmo®o®
Meander Length (11)
m�®mmm�mmm®m
®�mmm�mm
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/,2
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m'1
Watershed I miservious Cover Estimate (%)
m�
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
Channel 1halweg L:ngth (ft)
Water Surface SI
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
I--): 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 pmfde diversity, no pmfile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT3 Reach 2, and UT18.
a UT3 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and 0oodprone width Is more typical of a C.
the Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and imm-tstreams have been heavily m nipulated. These classifications are forillustranwe purposes only
'UT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodpmne width is more typical of a C.
6UT113 is classified in existing conditions as a sand bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment anc
charr"bation resulting in a less steep stream). The restored stream, with slopes exceeding 2% grade throughout the reach, will be a
gravel dominated stream, and is classified as such.

Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
906.1
906.1
901.9
901.9
878.3
878.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.3
6.8
8.8
9.6
7.8
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.3
50.5
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7 1
0.7
2.2
1.7
2.2
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
3.5
2.9
10.7
1 9.5 1
1 9.1 1
8.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
15.7
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
7.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Cross-Section
Base
1.0
4, UT1
MY3 MY2
---
Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
---
-Section 5, UT1
MY1 MY2
---
Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
---
-Section 6, UT1 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
877.6
877.6
873.5
873.5
872.7
872.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9
7.4
10.5
11.1
8.8
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 118.3+ 118.3+
96.7+
96.7+
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)1
2.9
3.2
9.7
10.1
8.8
7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol
16.217.1
11.4
12.1
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.1+ 1
16.0+ 1
9.2+
1 8.7+ 1
1 1---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0 1
1.0 1
1 1 1 1 1.0
1 1.0 1
1 1 1 1 --- I
---

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
874.9
874.9
875.0
875.0
922.9
922.9
922.1
922.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.6
5.8
6.6
6.3
5.5
5.9
5.4
5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
--
---
31.4+
80.6+
---
---
37.7
55.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.2
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ)
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.3
5.0
4.2
1 2.2
1 2.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
17.0
17.3
---
--- 1
1 13.2
17.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
--- I
---
1 4.8 1
12.8+
--- I I
1 1 6.9
9.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
Cross
1.0
11, UT2
1.0
Cross
---
12, UT2
---
1.0
13, UT2
1.0
Cross 14, UT2
Dimension and Substrate
Base
-Section
MY3
(Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
-Section
MY1 MY2
(Riffie)MlWross-Section
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
MY3 MY2
(Pool)
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
-Section (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
875.1
875.1
875.2
875.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.2
11.5
8.1
9.1
7.8
8.2
7.4
6.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
--
---
81.3+
50.8+
---
---
150+
150+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ)
8.6
9.5 1
1 1 1 5.7 1
5.5 1
8.8
1 8.1 1
4.2
3.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio--
11.5
15.0
12.9
12.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
10.1+
5.6+
---
---
20.3+
21.8+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
--
1.10
1.10
1.09
1.09

Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 2. UT1A and UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
Min
I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min
I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
6.6
7.4
8.1
11.1
6.3
6.9
9.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
96.7+
31.4+
81.3
150+
96.7+
80.6+
50.8+
150+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.5
0.6
1.0
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
9.7
2.5
4.2
5.7
10.1
2.3
3.8
5.5
Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
17.0
11.5
12.9
12.1
17.3
12.7
15.0
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2+
4.8
10.1
29.0+
8.7+
31.9+
5.6+
21.8+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
D56 (mm)
Silt/Clay
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23.3
51.9
10.8
32.9
3.45
52.29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 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) 2.2 3.5
0.9 2.6 1.6 2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
49
136
29
53
28
87
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7
84
7
36
8
59
Radius of Curvature (ft) 25 58 9 25 13 24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 2.4 5.5 1.4 3.8 2..34.2
Meander Wave Length (ft) 123 210 61 100 63 158
Meander Width Ratio 11.7 20.0 9.2 15.2 11.2 28.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
C6
C6
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 1,232
658 1,969
Sinuosity (ft) 1.3
1.6 1.7
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0063
0.0018
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0037
0.0060
0.0015
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 1 and UT113
Parameter
UTI Reach
As-Built/Baseline
1
UT1B
UTI Reach
Myl
1
UT18
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9
7.3
5.4
6.8
7.4
5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.3
118.3+
37.7
50.5
118.3+
55.6
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.75
0.6
0.7
0.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.9
3.5
2.22.9
3.2
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
15.8
13.2
15.7
17.1
17.3
Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
17.1+
6.9
7.5+
16.0+
9.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
17.1
11.0
33.6
40.2
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
8.0
47.3
11.3
41.2
Shallow Slope (ft/ft) 0.0142 0.0987 0.0259 0.0978
Pool Length (ft) 4.3 33.4 5.6 20.0
Pool Max Depth (ft) 0.9 2.8 0.5 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
10
60
7
43
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
26
4
19
Radius of Curvature (ft) 8 31 8 32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.2 4.5 1.5 5.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)l 56 1 104 1 48 90
Meander Width Ratiol 8 1 15 1 9 17
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
B4a
1,497
Boa
358
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
0.0369
0.0598
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
0.0241
1
0.0612
0.0602
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d 50/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 1-UT1 R3
104+28 Riffle
912
910
6.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
x
c
width -depth ratio
50.5
W flood prone area (ft)
7.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0 908
v
w
906
904
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) s MY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
50.5
W flood prone area (ft)
7.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 2-UT1 R3
105+36 Pool
905
903
x
0
w 901
899
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016)-BankfuII
9.5 x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
10.3 wett
r �.
ed perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
-
0`
J•
Bankfull Dimensions
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)
ed perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 3-UT1 R3
113+46 Pool
880
879
7.7
width (ft)
�.�POO
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
8.3
-
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.3
width -depth ratio
c 878
0
v
w
877
876
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016)—BankfuII
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.7
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
8.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 4-UT1 R3
113+64 Riffle
880
7.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
879
17.1
width -depth ratio
118+
W flood prone area (ft)
16.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
c 878
0
v
w
877
876
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) —Bankfull— FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1
width -depth ratio
118+
W flood prone area (ft)
16.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 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
1
33
34
34
34
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
34
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
be
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
gp
v
�
60
34
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a roc
1
1
1
35
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
4
39
j 60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
39
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
39
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
E
0
39
Doti titih tit, 1P
o, o, o
Fine
5.6
8.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
40
• MY0.05/2016 • Myl-10/2016
39
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
40
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
3
4
4
44
Coarse
1 16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
47
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
2
2
49
Very Coarse
32
45
5
2
7
7
56
Very Coarse
45
64
4
1
5
5
61
Small
64
90
4
5
9
9
70
0
Small
90
128
9
9
9
79
Large
128
180
8
8
8
87
Large
180
256
5
5
5
92
Small
256
362
2
2
2
94
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
94
94
94
Bedrock
2048
>2048
5
1
6
6
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT1R1, Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
1.00
D50 =
33.6
D. =
158.4
D95 =
2298.8
D100 =
>2048
UT1R1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1111, Reachwide
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sandavel
90
80
be
r
70
gp
v
�
60
v
a roc
a
2° 70
50
40
u
j 60
m
30
-23 50
v
20
c
10
E
0
Doti titih tit, 1P
o, o, o
ti ti tiw o- 5� til do ti� 3ti ay oa oo tiw �o ho oti titi a$ eo
ti ti ti ti 3 5 doyo-
Particle Class Size (mm)
40
• MY0.05/2016 • Myl-10/2016
Will
y 30
u
CL 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/2016 MYl-10/2016
UT1111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
�
60
v
a
50
40
u
m
30
v
20
c
10
0
Doti titih tit, 1P
o, o, o
ti ti tiw o- 5� til do ti� 3ti ay oa oo tiw �o ho oti titi a$ eo
ti ti ti ti 3 5 doyo-
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MY0.05/2016 • Myl-10/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UTiRl, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
m--7 max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
36.68
Silt/Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
4
D95 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
a avel
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
bbl
Coarse
0.5
1.0
r
80
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
Very Fine
2.0
2.8 1
70
d
�
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
60
4
60
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
m
40
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
m
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6 1
4
4
12
Coarse
22.6
32
y 30
u
12
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
22
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
32
1 'L ,y'b b 06 W yh y`o ��d .yti by �b -O yti<b yp 'y6 �y'L yti1, yOclQ -pp. �'CO
Small
64
90
20
20
52
Small
90
128
24
24
76
Large
128
180
10
10
86
Large
180
256
10
10
96
Small
256
362
2
2
98
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
98
98
98
Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
Total
100
100
100
UT1R1. Cross Section 1
Cross Section
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
36.68
D35 =
67.36
D50 =
87.0
D84 =
168.1
D95 =
247.1
D100 =
>2048
UT1R1. Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1111, Cross Section 1
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90 Silt/Clay
a avel
90
bbl
r
80
80
a ro
70
d
�
d
60
60
a
10
50
50
m
40
u
E
m
30
20
U= 40
y 30
u
i 20
0
O�b�Otiryy o y9 Oy
1 'L ,y'b b 06 W yh y`o ��d .yti by �b -O yti<b yp 'y6 �y'L yti1, yOclQ -pp. �'CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
10
•."1 5/2016 E Wl-10/2016
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�k MVO-OS/J016 MYl-10/2016
UT1111, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
d
60
a
50
m
40
u
m
30
20
0
O�b�Otiryy o y9 Oy
1 'L ,y'b b 06 W yh y`o ��d .yti by �b -O yti<b yp 'y6 �y'L yti1, yOclQ -pp. �'CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
•."1 5/2016 E Wl-10/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT1R1, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage FCumulative
17.95
Silt/Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
2
2
4
D95 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
le
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
� 70
d
�
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
j 60
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
m
40
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
12
3
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
20
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
34
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
40
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
56
0ti by by Oy
00 oy o•
Small
64
90
6
6
62
0MYO-05/2016 •MY3-10/2016
Small
90
128
22
22
84
Large
128
180
6
6
90
Large
180
256
6
6
96
Small
256
362
2
2
98
'
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
S 12
1024
512
1 2
0 4
2048
98
98
98
Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
Totall
100
100
100
UT1111. Cross Section 4
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
17.95
D35 =
33.87
D50 =
56.1
D84 =
128.0
D95 =
241.4
D100 =
>2048
UT1111. Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1R3, Cross Section 4
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90 Silt/ClaySan'd'vel
90
le
II*er
80
gp
a ro
� 70
d
�
60
`m
j 60
a
H
50
50
m
40
U
m
E
3
30
v
40
20
y 30
U
a 20
0
0ti by by Oy
00 oy o•
1 'L ,1� b ,6 0 ,y1 y0 0 ,5'L 'o 0b 00 ,y0 y20 y0 0ti titi p� p 00
ti ti 3 h 10 ,yo �o
10
0MYO-05/2016 •MY3-10/2016
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Myo-os/2a16 Mnan/2—
UT1R3, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
60
`m
a
H
50
m
40
U
m
3
30
v
20
10
0
0ti by by Oy
00 oy o•
1 'L ,1� b ,6 0 ,y1 y0 0 ,5'L 'o 0b 00 ,y0 y20 y0 0ti titi p� p 00
ti ti 3 h 10 ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016 •MY3-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 5-UT1 R2
121+63 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
877
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
875
W flood prone area (ft)
8.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
c
M 873
371
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
10.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.1
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
96.7+
W flood prone area (ft)
8.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/11/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 6-UT1 R2
122+09 Pool
876
874
c
0
w 872 -
870
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016)-BankfuII
Bankfull Dimensions
7.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
9.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/11/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 8-UT1A
182+16 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
877
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
876
x
c
0
>
w 875
374
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016)-BankfuII
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
6.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 8-UT1A
182+16 Riffle
877
876
x
6.3
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
c
0
875
width -depth ratio
80.6+
W flood prone area (ft)
12.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
M
e i
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.3
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
80.6+
W flood prone area (ft)
12.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 9-UT1B
151+92 Pool
930
929
5.9
width (ft)
928
mean depth (ft)
1.2
927
926
6.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
c
° 925
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.5
width -depth ratio
w 924
923
922
921
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
t MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016)—BankfuII
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
6.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 30-UTlB
152+05 Riffle
929
927
c
° 925
v
923ell
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.5
max depth (ft)
6.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
55.6
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
921
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2016) s MYl (10/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.5
max depth (ft)
6.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
55.6
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT16, 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
6
16
22
22
22
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
22
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
1a
22
ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
w
�
22
w
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
3
4
4
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
16
40
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3 50
7
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
20
26
£
Fine
5.6
8.0
a
1
1
1
27
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
29
ppti yti5 by Oh
p, p, p•
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
1
4
4
33
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
35
Coarse
22.6
32
2
5
7
7
42
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
12
12
54
Very Coarse
45
64
8
4
12
12
66
Small
64
90
9
6
15
15
81
Small
90
128
6
3
9
9
90
Large
128
180
6
6
6 1
96
Large
180
256
1
1
2
2
98
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
L1T1R. Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
22.60
D50 =
40.2
D. =
101.2
D95 =
170.1
D100 =
362.0
L1T1R. Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Sif.vclaY
Sand
Individual Class Percent
vel
100
90
We
r
80
1a
ro
0 70
w
�
w
60
d
60
50
16
40
u
m
30
3 50
7
20
TO
£
a
-
13 40
0
ppti yti5 by Oh
p, p, p•
titi ,yP �� p6
1 'L ,y'b b h6 0 y1 1rO ,L�o .5'L by rob p0 ,L'b �O h6 Wti b0
-y 'Y 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,ti0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MY.05p— • MYS-10/2016
a 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-- MY -/2616 MV 1-10/JO] 6
UT1B, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
�
w
60
d
50
16
40
u
m
30
7
20
TO
10
a
-
0
ppti yti5 by Oh
p, p, p•
titi ,yP �� p6
1 'L ,y'b b h6 0 y1 1rO ,L�o .5'L by rob p0 ,L'b �O h6 Wti b0
-y 'Y 1 'L 3 5 ,y0 ,ti0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MY.05p— • MYS-10/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT1B, Cross Section 10
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100-
Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
16.00
Silt/Clay
Very fine
0.000
0.062
0.062
0.125
74.5
D84 =
0
0
D95 =
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
80
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
w
u
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
60
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
10
3
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
20
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
28
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
36
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
42
0
Small
64
90
18
18
60
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
90
128
14
14
74
Large
128
180
12
12
86
Large
180
256
10
10
96
Small
256
362
4
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
50
E
i? 40
r
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT1B. Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-41- MY -5/2016 MYl-10/2016
Cross Section
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.00
D35 =
43.12
D50 =
74.5
D84 =
170.1
D95 =
247.1
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
50
E
i? 40
r
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT1B. Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-41- MY -5/2016 MYl-10/2016
UT16, Cross Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
w
u
d
60
a
50
m
40
U
m
3
30
v
2
20
10
C
LiA
0
O�6'LOytS o y5 Oy
1 'L ,y'b b h6 W ti~ ti� �,y6 ,6'L b5 �b -O yyb yy�0 Cyd �rati ytiti yO,yb �ob0 ���
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016 • MY1-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 11-UT2
206+86 Pool
878
877
876
�' y
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
c
0
875
width -depth ratio
v
w
874
F -I
I
i
873
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) t MY1(10/2016) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.5
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 12-UT2
207+26 Riffle
878
9.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
877
x
c
max depth (ft)
9.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
0 876
v
w
875
width -depth ratio
50.8+
W flood prone area (ft)
5.6
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
9.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0
width -depth ratio
50.8+
W flood prone area (ft)
5.6
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 13-UT2
212+15 Pool
878
877
876
c
0
875
v
w
874
873
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2016) t MY1(10/2016) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

Cross Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 14-UT2
212+58 Riffle
877
6.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
876
x
c
0
7.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
150+
W flood prone area (ft)
21.8
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
w 875
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) s MY1(10/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
150+
W flood prone area (ft)
21.8
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (10/10/2016)

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
* N/A, no bankfull events recorded.
** U, Unknown

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Summary of Groundwater Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year1 2016
( )
Year 2017
( )
Year 2018
( )
Year 2019
( )
Years 2020
( )
Year 2021
( )
Year? 2022
( )
No/0 Days (0%)
1
Yes/ 29 Days
2
(12.3%)
Yes/236 Days
3
(100%)
No/3 Days (1.3%)
4
Yes/79 Days
6
(33.5%)
No/7 Days (3.0%)
7
No/1 Days (0.4%)
8

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
c0
-30
-40
-50
-60
liLL Q Q N 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
c0
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 L? C — OA Q +"' > U
LL Q 5 —3 Q to O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
o
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #3
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
v �O
20
W
c p
oN
6.0
0 0
3 \
10m
N
o
5.0
ca
�
0
Ln
w -
4.0
10
— — — — — — — — —
— — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — —
— — — — —
a
>
3.0
-20
L
C
cb
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
JL
0.0
-60
bD Q +"'
Q N 0
> V
Z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
c0
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 L T C OA Q +' > U
li mD OJ 0 CU
Q 5 —3 Q !n O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #4 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #6
o
C
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
v �O
20
W
c p
O
rj
6.0
0 0
3 \
10m
N
0
o
5.0
m
c
0
n
LL'
-
4.0
10
— — — — — — — — —
— —
- — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — —
— —
—— — — — -
a
>
3.0
-20
m
L
C
m
c0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
I
-60I
0.0
C
>- C — W fl_ +—'
o
> V
a 3;a Ln
z° o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
10
0
-10
a
-20
L
c0
-30
-40
-50
-60
Q 5 Q in O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #7 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #8
o
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
v
Le) 1
20
W
cp
0
6.0
0 0
3 \
10M
o
O
o
5.0
m
c
0
n
LU
-
4.0
10
— — — — — — — — —
— — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
--
—— — — — —
a
3.0
-20
m
L
C
c0
-30
2.0
-40
1.0
-50
-60
,L..LI
0.0
CT
C W Q +'
m
O
U
>(U
-
LL
Q 5 -3 Q !n
Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
Y
f6
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
c > c75 no a — > U
n O °
cu
2!g a z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016
10
9
8
7
c
6
c
0
0 5
Y
'u
d
3
2
1
0 —e ■
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16
Date
On-site Rain Gage USGS Station 354616081085145 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
1 2016 rainfall collected by onsite rainfall gage and USGS station 354616081085145