20140193 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171220

MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Catawba County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 005782
DMS Project No. 96306
Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Data Collection Period: April 2017 - November 2017
Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2017
Final Submission Date: December 20, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
INCrkt
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
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 3,057 linear feet (LF) of
perennial streams and enhance 2,626 LF of intermittent streams, enhance 0.68 acres of existing
wetlands, rehabilitate 0.25 acres of existing wetlands, and re-establish 3.71 acres of wetlands in
Catawba County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 4,807 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 2 (MY2) assessments and site visits were completed between April and November 2017
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation
success criteria for MY2, and is on track to meet wetland hydrologic success criteria. 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. Each
stream and manual crest gage recorded a bankfull event. Vegetation assessment indicates that overall
average stem density for the Site is 594 stems per acre, and is therefore on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Of the nine groundwater monitoring gages installed within the
wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones, five met the success criteria (water table with 12
inches of the ground surface for 8.5% of the growing season consecutively). GWGs 5 and 9 were
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL

installed April 7, 2017 and the data is also being included. It is anticipated that these wetland areas will
continue to recharge and meet hydrologic success criteria in the upcoming monitoring years as
precipitation normalizes, especially during the winter months.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL

HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW......................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 2
1.2.1
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
Project Contact Table
1.2.2
Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
Table 12a -b
1.2.3
Stream Areas of Concerns..................................................................................................1-3
Cross Section Plots
1.2.4
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.2.7
Adaptive Management Plan...............................................................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................
2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES..................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.5 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 2 Annual Report— FINAL iii

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 3,057 linear feet (LF) of perennial stream
channel. Stream enhancement reaches included UT1A and UT2, together totaling 2,626 LF. Stream
enhancement activities for UT1A and UT2 were the same as 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 2 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 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY2 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 MY2 were conducted in April 2017. All streams within the site appear to
be stable.
In general, riffle cross sections show little to no change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or
width -to -depth ratio. 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 the riffle features and finer particles in the pool features.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) map,
and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

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. According to the stream gages, UT1 and UT1A each had
two bankfull events recorded during MY2. UT113 and UT2 only had one recorded bankfull event during
MY2. During MY1, there was only one recorded bankfull event on UTIA; therefore, the performance
criteria has been partially met for this Site.
In addition to monitoring bankfull events, 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. Rainfall in 2017 was consistently low
throughout the year, but especially during the winter months, which resulted in low flow or the absence
of water in streams. UTI and UT1A were observed with water during each site visit; however, UT2 and
UT113 were frequently observed dry. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.3 Stream Areas of Concerns
During a site walk, Wildlands and the Inter -Agency Review Team (IRT) observed an area located
between stations 104+00-105+00 of UT1 Reach 1 where water flows subsurface. This area has been
monitored during quarterly visits to understand the issue which is likely related to prior golf course
water management efforts, and remedial maintenance efforts are scheduled for December 2017 to
attempt to resolve the matter.
1.2.4 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 MYS, with stem density trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old
stems/acre) and there is no invasive species prevalent, 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.
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in July 2017. The 2017 vegetation monitoring resulted in an
average stem density of 594 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems/acre required at MY3. There is an average of 15 stems per plot with an average stem height of 2.4
feet. 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.
1.2.5 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 in accordance with the herbicide application rates used in cut/spray
techniques during MY2 and will be monitored in future years. These species are not impacting survival
rates of planted stems.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

Several areas located on the lower portion of the site contained little to no herbaceous ground cover
during monitoring visits earlier in the year. Poor soil nutrients and dry soil conditions could have been
potential factors affecting herbaceous growth; however, the establishment of vegetation is common
and typically occurs by MY2 or MY3 once the ground has been able to acclimate to the recent ground
disturbance. These areas were addressed during the fall of MY2 with an additional seeding and
fertilizing application, and subsequent new growth was observed during the November site visit.
The minor mowing encroachments of the easement has continued along the eastern edge of UTI Reach
1, as shown in the CCPV (Appendix 2). The adjacent landowner has been notified that the activities are
in violation of the easement.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Seven groundwater hydrology gages (GWGs) were established during the baseline monitoring within the
wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones (GWGs 1— 4 and 6 — 8). Gages were distributed so
that the data collected would provide a reasonable indication of groundwater levels throughout the
wetland components on the Site. A gage was established in an adjacent reference wetland and is being
utilized to compare with 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. Two additional gages (GWG 5
and 9) were installed within the Wetland Re -Establishment areas during 2017 (MY2) in order to further
assess wetland performance. In addition, GWG 3 was relocated during 2017. During the initial GWG
installation, GWG 3 was installed in a seep where hydrology was much stronger than the surrounding
area represented by GWG 3. During the MY1 monitoring period, GWG 3 documented groundwater at or
just above the ground surface; therefore, GWG 3 was relocated January 2017 to an area that was more
representative of the surrounding wetlands.
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), is being used for hydrologic
success. The final performance standard (success criteria) for wetland hydrology will be a free
groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 20 consecutive days (8.5%) of the
defined 236 -day growing season under typical precipitation conditions.
Of the nine GWGs, five met the success criteria for MY2. Of the gages that met, the measured
hydroperiod ranged from 6% to 80% of the growing season. The relocated GWG 3 did not meet criteria
during the MY2 period. The GWG 3 hydrology was below the reference gage for a majority of the year;
however, the hydrology reflected improvement during the later portion of the growing season. Refer to
the CCPV in Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology
summary data and plots.
1.2.7 Adaptive Management Plan
Quarterly site visits will continue to address any areas of concern. If necessary, future adaptive
management will be implemented to improve herbaceous cover, treatment and control of invasive
plants, and remedial action to resolve stream issues.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
The streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. The average stem density for the Site
is on track to meet the MY7 success criteria and all individual vegetation plots meet the MY2 success
criteria as depicted in the CCPV. Invasive species are being treated as prescribed in the mitigation plan.
Of the nine GWGs, five met the success criteria for MY2. It is anticipated that gages will meet hydrologic
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

success criteria in the upcoming monitoring years as precipitation normalizes. Two bankfull events were
documented on UT1 and UT1A and one bankfull event was recorded on UT113 and UT2 during MY2.
Therefore, the hydrology success criteria has been partially met for this Site.
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 2 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 2 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 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. Figures and Tables

•t 03050101100011
Glenn !
tb 7 w o- Hilton - 1 w
0hryy ► „y+ e. civic
gd w r Park
Y% u, is �r -
er o f�C,�
P� 030501 9Q02�°'d Gte� rUj
g l !I iRAwpori l ! p' Lenoir-RhyneColp e9t11 Ave N +~ •
�, •'` -' 0305010114001
Hi
ckor/
- w/' - o -'� � ■ T � � # *1, ♦, 751 Aye _S* 21-0 Ave SIN ►. � + �` -
Rd
�+�k' / �• 1 ;+ ,Q3050102030010
t 1 1207 ft
Hildebrafn
�.�.. -c ` .. •. Gata�+�VIN. I lvF VFI+II�y
s Is
•.,
4 1W
+
03050 02010030
-.�
=H
A _ r
F X ZL
3 ■ n
03050102010020 " 41 • `"
r, It r ti
• !ate - ] • s chGrCh'IAf} + * ► n
Mau fib - � ► � . � � • _ �' _,. �
40,
•ats
'ou
0 . It
WIL.DL.ANDS
k NG I N k k a i NO
Catawba County, NC

.1
,,,::,,.,Conservation Easement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
® Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Enhancement 4 --
Stream
--Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I R
Reach Breaks ■�
1k
•% 1 �� ..........
••,u...
J4�
4P
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
ON0 150 300 Feet Henry fork Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS MLI I DMS Project No. 96306
W1LDLANDS ML
€NaIN€F. R..a Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Catawba County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Restoration Level
COMPONENT
Stream (LF)
Nitrogen
Stream Riparian Wetlandland Buffer Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
=ER
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Nutrient Offset
Typc
R RE R RRE
Totals
4,808 N/A 3.88 0.N/A N/A N/A N/A
• • '•L1 I
Proposed
N/A
Enhancement)
2,626
N/A
N/A
Existing Footage/
Restoration (R) or
Wetland Re -Establishment
Credits
Reach ID Stationing/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration Equivalent (RE)
Restoration Footage/Acreage* Mitigation Ratio
(SMU/WMU)*
Location*
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
STREAMS
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
100+00 to 103+02
N/A
P1
Restoration
302
1:1
302
N/A
N/A
1,392
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
103+02 to 114+71
P1
Restoration
1,169
1:1
1,169
UT1 Reach 2
114+71 to 126+99
1,499
Pl/P2
Restoration
1,228
1:1
1,228
UT1A
180+00 to 186+57
353
Pi
Enhancement
657
1.5:1
438
UT1B
150+00 to 153+58
478
Pi
Restoration
358
1:1
358
UT2
200+00 to 219+69
1,915
Pl
Enhancement
1,969
1.5:1
1,313
WETLANDS
Planting,
Wetland 1
Floodplain near UT1
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
1.23
improvement
Planting,
Wetland A
Floodplain between
0.18
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.18
1.5:1
0.12
UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A
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
0.003
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.003
1.5:1
0.002
UT1 Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Wetland G
Floodplain near UT1A
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 1
East hillslope near UTI
0.04
Planting
Enhancement
0.04
2:1
0.02
Reach 2
Wetland K
East hillslope near UTI
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.03
Reach 2
Wetland M
East hillslope near UTI
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 P
Floodplain u2pslope of
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.01
UT
Wetland q
Floodplain u2pslope of
0.07
Planting
Enhancement
0.07
2:1
0.03
UT
Floodplain in footprint
Significant
Wetland R
of Pond 3 near head of
0.06
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.06
1.5:1
0.04
UTI Reach 2
wetland functions
Wetland S
UTI Reach 1 Valley
0.16
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.07
(Pond 1)
Restoration Level
COMPONENT
Stream (LF)
SUMMATION
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
Restoration
3,057
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement)
2,626
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Re -Establishment
N/A
3.71
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Rehabilitation
N/A
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Enhancement
N/A
0.68
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg and updated to be calculated along stream ceneterlines for Monitoring Year 2 after discussions with NC IRT.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
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 areal March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' March 2016
March 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2016
March 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey March 2016
May 2016
Vegetation Survey March 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey October 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Survey September 2016
Year 1 Beaver dam removal on LIT1 Reach 2 May -September 2016
Year 1 Invasive Species treatment June & July 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey April 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey July 2017
Year 2 Invasive Species Treatment August 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
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 2 - 2017
PROJECT• •
Project Nam I Henry Fork Mitigation Site
County Catawba County
Project Area (acres) 148.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35°42'12.98"N, 81°21'53.20"W
PROJECT•' •
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 Arez 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 39%- Herbaceous/Pasture, 36%- Forested, 25%- Developed, >1%- Water
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters UT1 Reach 1
UTI 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'sModel) -Pre-Restoration III
IV/V IV/V III
IV/V
Underlying Mapped Soils Codorus loam, Dan River loam, Hatboro Loam, Poplar Forest gravelly sandy loam 2-6% slopes, and Woolwine-Fairview complex
Drainage Class --- --- ---
Soil Hydric Status --- --- I --- I ---
Slope 1 0.024-0.056 0.0043-0.017 1 0.0095-0.016 0.015-0.077 0.0032
FEMA Classification N/A*
Native Vegetation Community I Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration 0%
REGULATORY• •
Regulation Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes
PCN prepared
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes
PCN prepared
and DWQ 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3885.
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety) N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act Yes
Yes
Henry Fork Mitigation Plan;
Wildlands determined "no effect"
on Catawba County listed
endangered species. June 5, 2015
email correspondence from
USFWS stated "not likely to
adversely affect" northern long-
eared bat.
Historic Preservation Act Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found
to be impacted (letter from SHPO
dated 3/24/2014)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) 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

F
_ 1
• ® - yenry For j
Sheet 3
--------------
i Sheet 2 1
i .,•' j � 1 i 1 I
1 I
'UT1- Reach 2
i Sheet 1
UT2
1
-
1 ♦ GWG 8 GWG 7
XS 12 1 ♦ AWG 1
o s S s -
;
` GWG 9i LGWG 5:� XS 5 z
Cl) GWG6j ♦ - 1
1.............` x
.r .. - GWG 3 1 S� GWG 4 1
♦ 1 XS'4 ♦ GWG 2 j
i i -'s h ut 4
.•i'' TUT1A 1
1 1 i
i -
t 1 ! -,i i
r UT1 Reach 1 1 ;
Lower I 1
3
� 1 i
k %Mountain View Road
i
o
UT1 Reach 1 N 1
i Upper '� x
I
\UT1B
1 1
i
! i
AL
R�
e
f
v" ►Mt.
2014 Aerial Photography` '
i
i

%t�
WILDLANDS r
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Catawba County, NC

W W-00-
� .,�, mss•- .. � ,•,
1
r�
ti
=/ 6 /1
X4
9
GWG2
N s : Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Cross -Section (XS)
Reach Break
Bankfull Line
♦ Photo Point
Stream Gage (SG)
♦ Reference Gage
+ Rain & Barotroll Gages
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY2
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY2
= Criteria Met
Areas of Concern - MY2
Bare ground
EInvasive Plant Population
Easement Encroachment
IRON... El
11
5
10♦
INNER,,
10
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
ktww 0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W I L D L n N D S ' I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
€NGI CER NC Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Catawba County, NC

WILDLANDS 1
ENGIriCCR R C•
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Catawba County, NC

WWAIW027
etland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
C Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Cross -Section (XS)
Reach Break
Bankfull Line
♦ Photo Point
Stream Gage (SG)
+ Rain & Barotroll Gages
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY2
+ Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plots - MY2
0 Criteria Met
Areas of Concern - MY2
Bare ground
Invasive Plant Population
Easement Encroachment
WILDLANDS rk'
E NGINE E R- NO
.jam
♦5'••••••••••••,•••�i�..
W.
• '� 2
■
q
4
loss.. Isoll mail,
. • ,.'
�• 1 29
3 `
r % % : 1 } 4 ' r
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
t I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Catawba County, NC

WI LD LANDS
EI
Jr}
�i • � r
7.'
' Conservation Easement
®J Wetland Rehabilitation
Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer Along Henry Fork
_ skt•. i S
a'
- - H ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦`♦�♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
it
Stream Restoration
♦ Photo Point
Groundwater Gages (GWG) - MY2
Stream Enhancement
Stream Gage (SG)
Criteria Met
Cross -Section (XS)
♦ Reference Gage
♦ Criteria Not Met
Reach Break
Rain & Barotroll Gages Areas of Concern - MY2
----- Bankfull Line
Vegetation Plots - MY2
V/moi Bare ground
0 Criteria Met
= Invasive Plant Population
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5)
0 100 200 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
i I i I z DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Catawba County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI Reach 1 (1,497 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
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
simply from 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 21.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
46
46
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sb. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UTI Reach 2 (1.232 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
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
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
i5 15
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from 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
6Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
M
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 2 - 2017
UT1A (658 LFI
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
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
simply from 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
6Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
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 Scl. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1B (358 LFI
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
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
simply from 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
JTotals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
24
24
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
27
27
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
27
27
100%
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 2 - 2017
UT2 11.969 LF)
Major ChannelStable,
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
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
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
simply from 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
6Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
0
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 2 - 2017
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
5
2.5
17.1%
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
5
2.5
17.1%
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
5
2.5
17.1%
Easement Acreage 48
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
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 UT113 (06/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 1— view downstream UT113 (06/16/2017) 1
Photo Point 2 — view upstream UT1B (06/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 2 — view downstream UT113 (06/16/2017)
Photo Point 3 — view upstream UT1 R1 Upper (06/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 3 — view downstream UTI R1 Upper (06/16/2017)

Photo Point 4— view upstream UTI R1 Upper (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 4— view downstream UTI R1 Upper (6/16/2017) 1
Photo Point 5 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 5 — view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017)
Photo Point 5 — view upstream of UT1B (6/16/2017)

Photo Point 6 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 6 — view downstream UTI R1 Lower (6/16/2017)) 1
Photo Point 7 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 7 — view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017)
Photo Point 8 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 8 —view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017)

1 )
.:n
'��
� l
' F�� �r� pry x ✓ � / �� , n � t Y
r ah

Photo Point 12 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 12 —view downstream UTI R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1
Photo Point 13 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 13 —view downstream UTI R1 Lower (6/16/2017)
Photo Point 14—view upstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 14—view downstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017)

Photo Point 15 — view upstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 15 — view downstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017) 1
Photo Point 16 —view upstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream UTI R2 (6/16/2017)
i
Photo Point 17 —view upstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 17 —view downstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017)

Photo Point 21— view upstream UT2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 21— view downstream UT2 (6/16/2017) 1
I Photo Point 22 — view upstream UT2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 22 — view downstream UT2 (6/16/2017)
Photo Point 23 —view upstream UT2 (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 23 — view downstream UT2 (6/16/2017)

ARMW
a
IL
Photo Point 24 — view upstream UT2 (6/16/2017) Photo Point 24 — view downstream UT2 (6/16/2017)
4 441
11
'4 4+4 -F "'• '* r'k,�w ��sag� sy a `s c�rc€r �,a +� Y,
y 7
_A9 �3 �
Photo Point 25 — view upstream UT2 (6/16/2017) Photo Point 25 — view downstream UT2 (6/16/2017)
Y
Photo Point 26 — view upstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017) Photo Point 26 — view downstream UT1 R2 (6/16/2017)

Photo Point 26 — UT1 R2 floodplain overview (6/16/2017) 1
Photo Point 27 — view upstream UT1 R2 floodplain (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 27 — view downstream UT1 R2 floodplain (6/16/2017)
Photo Point 28 — UT1 R1 Lower floodplain overview (6/16/2017) 1 Photo Point 28 — UT2 floodplain overview (6/16/2017)

Photo Point 29 — UTI R1 Upper floodplain overview (6/16/2017)

Vegetation Photographs

r
IM
r
1
�

0'

6D
t

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Plot MY5 Success Criteria
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 2 - 2017
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
8/7/2017
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 HENRY FORK MY2.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02143 Henry Fork\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation Assessment
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 9a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 20171
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0003
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
4
3
3
5
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
6
6
61
41 4
41
11
1
1
2
2
21
31
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
11
1
1
7 7
7
3
3
31
6
6
6
1
1
11
41
4
4
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
11
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
4
4
5
3
3
18
4
4
22
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
41
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
4 4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
Salix sericea
ISilky Willow
IShrub Tree
1
Stem count
14
14
14
16 16
17
15
15
15
16
16
17
12
12
31
16
16
39
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
51
51
51
41 41
51
51
51
51
41
41
41
51
51
61
5
5
6
Stems per ACRE
567
1 567 1
567
1 647 1 647 1
688 1
607
1 607
1 607 1
647
1 647 1
688
1 486
1 486 1 12551
647
1 647
1578
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data IMY2 20171
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0007
PnoLSTP-all T
96306-WEI-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0009 1
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0010
PnoLs P -all T
1 96306-WEI-0011
PnoLs P -all T
96306-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
75
4
4
9
4
4
4
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
5
1
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
8
2
2
2
3
3
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1 8
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
31
3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
61
61
6
6
6
6
1
1
31
3
3
41
4
4
5
5 5
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
36
2
2
53
3
3
70
2
2
202
2
2
28
5
5 9
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
11
16
11
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
31
31
3
1
1
1
31
31
3
41
4
5
31
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
22
2
2
2
1
1 1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
Stem count
14
14
129
14
14
65
15
15
111
16
161
218
17
17
46
15
15 29
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
51
51
6
61
61
61
51
51
71
61
61
71
61
61
81
51
5 6
Stems per ACRE 1
567
1 567 1 5220
567 1
567 1 26301
607
1 607
14492 1
647
1 647
1 88221
688
1 688 11862 1
607
1 607 1 1174
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%_
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 9c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 20171 1 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0013
PnoLSFP-all IT
96306-WEI-0014
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
19
19
20
12
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
2
1
12
12
100
12
12
22
13
13
13
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
6
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
34
34
52
35
35
35
37
37
37
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
5
5
51
1
11
11
4 41
41
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
11
1
3
3
3
1 1
1
51
511
511
52
521
521
57
57
57
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
7
10
17
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
7
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
7 7
7
44
44
460
44
44
108
57
57
57
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
19
7
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
11
1
1
1
1
20
20
211
20
20
201
20
20
20
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
4
4
4
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
Salix sericea
ISilky Willow
IShrub Tree
1
Stem count
13
131
14
13
13
14
14 14
44
220
220
801
222
222
350
243
243
264
size (ares)
1
1
1
15
15
15
size (ACRES)l
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
0.37
0.37
0.37
Species countl
61
61
61
61
61
61
41
4F --9I
71
71
141
71
71
14
71
71
11
Stems per ACRE 1
526
1 526 1
567
1 526 1
526 1
567 1
567
1 567 1 17811
594
1 594 1 21611
599
1 599 1 944 1
656
1 656 1 712
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
' Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT1 Reach 2, and UT113
'The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
°The 25 -year event was the largest event modeled; it does not fill the channel
'Sinuosity on UTI Reach 2 is 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 30b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
FS: Fine San tl 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1 Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'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 UTIA, UT2, UTI Reach 2, and UTIB.
' UT1 Reach 1(Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width Is more typical of a C.
°Th, Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for Illustrative purposes only
sUT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is mare typical of a C.
`UTIB is classified in existing conditions as a sand bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment anc
channellzation 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)
Fl..dprone Width (ft)
��®��®���®®��®®SS'lCl'1!•�®®�
Rankfull Mean Depth
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft) —
.
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Channel Reltwidth (ft)
®�
omo®mmom
Radius of Curvature (ft)
®mm®m®®mom��
mmmmo®o®
Meander Length (ft)
®®®m®ommmm®m
®�mmm�mm
Substrate, Red and Transport Parameters
.,..,.
®
_
=
-
--
=
-
_
:.... „
:,
Max part slae (mm) mobillaed at hankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m'
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Dralma e Area ISM)
:.
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate I%)
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
...
W
... .
..
V Ilty length (ft)
Channel Ihalweg Length
Water ...
:.
C SHOO 0062.. dia—dern—cles
FS: Fine San tl 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1 Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'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 UTIA, UT2, UTI Reach 2, and UTIB.
' UT1 Reach 1(Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width Is more typical of a C.
°Th, Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for Illustrative purposes only
sUT1 Reach 1 (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is mare typical of a C.
`UTIB is classified in existing conditions as a sand bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment anc
channellzation 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 2 - 2017
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY1
-Section 1, LIT1
MY2 MY3
Reach 1 (Riffle) =�
MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MYl
-Section
MY2
2, UT1 Reach 1 (Pool) �m
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY1
-Section 3, UT1 Reach 1 (Pool) M
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
906.1
906.1
906.1
901.9
901.9
901.9
878.3
878.3
878.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.3
6.8
7.1
8.8
9.6
10.9
7.8
7.7
9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.3
50.5
51.8
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.8
2.2
1.7
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftz)
3.5
2.9
3.3
10.7
9.5 1
10.0 1
9.1 1
8.1 1
8.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
15.7
15.0
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
7.5
7.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross
MY3
-Section 4, UT1
MY2 MY3
Reach 1 (Riffle)
MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY3
-Section
MY2
5, LIT1 Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base
Cross
MY3
-Section 6, UT1 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
877.6
877.6
877.6
873.5
873.5
873.5
872.7
872.7
872.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9
7.4
7.6
10.5
11.1
10.9
8.8
8.8
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 118.3+ 118.3+
118+
96.7+
96.7+
96.7+
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.4
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft')
2.9 1
3.2
3.1
9.7 1
10.1 1
9.3
8.8 1
7.2 1
6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.2
17.1
18.7
11.4 1
12.1 1
12.7
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.1+
16.0+
15.5+
9.2+
8.7+
8.9+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---

Table lib. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
874.9 874.9
874.9
875.0 875.0 875.0
922.9 922.9 922.9
922.1 922.1
922.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.6
5.8
4.5
6.6 6.3
7.7
5.5
5.9
6.9
5.4
5.9
4.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
31.4+ 80.6+
79.1
---
---
---
37.7
55.6
54.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4 0.4
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.8 0.6
0.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft')
2.0
2.3
1.5
1 2.5 2.3
2.4
5.0
4.2
4.0
2.2
2.0
1.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratic
---I
--- 1
1 17.0 1 17.3 1
24.9
---
---
---
13.2
1 17.3
19.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Raticl
1 4.8 1 12.8+
10.3+1
1 1 1---
---
---
6.9
1 9.4
12.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross -Section
MYl
MY2
11, UT2 (Pool)l& Cross-section
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYl
MY2
12, ILIT2 (Riffle) MIJ&
MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base
Cross-section
MYl
MY2
13, ILIT2 (Pool)L.
MY3 MY4 MYS
_MIEL
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
Cross -Section 14, UT2 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0 876.0
876.0
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.2
875.2
875.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.2
11.5
11.1
8.1 9.1
8.6
7.8
8.2
10.0
7.4
6.9
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
81.3+ 50.8+
50.8+
---
---
---
150+
150+
150+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7 0.6
0.7
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.4 1.4
1.5
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fe)
8.6
9.5
9.7
5.7 5.5
6.0
8.8
8.1
9.4
4.2
3.8
4.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
11.5 15.0
12.3
---
---
---
12.9
12.7
12.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
--
---
---
10.1+ 5.6+
5.9+
---
---
---
20.3+
21.8+
20.1+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
--I
--- I
---I
I I I I 1 1.10 1 1.10 1
1.10 1
1 1 1 1 1---1
---
I ---I
I I
I I 1 1.09
1 1.09 1
1.09

Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Hemv Fork-UT1 Reach 2. UT1A and UT2
Parameter
UT3 Reach 2
As-Built/Baseline
UT1A
UT2
UTI Reach 2
myl
UT1A
UT2
UTI Reach 2
MY2
UT1A
UT2
Min I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate- Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
6.6
7.4
8.1
11.1
6.3
6.9
9.1
10.9
737.0
7.5
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
96.7+
31.4+
81.3
150+
96.7+
80.6+
50.8+
150+
96.7+
79.1+
50.8+
150+
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.5
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.5
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.5
0.6
1.1
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
9.7
2.5
4.2
5.7
10.1
2.3
3.8
5.5
9.3
2.4
4.4
6.0
Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
17.0
11.5
12.9
12.1
17.3
12.7
15.0
12.7
24.9
12.3
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2+
4.8
10.1
29.0+
8.7+
31.9+
5.6+
21.8+
8.9+
10.3+
5.9+
20.1+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (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
JE
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 1
7 1 84 1
7
1
36
1 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
2.3
4.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)l
123 1 210 1
61
1
100
1 63
158
Meander Width Ratiol
11.7 1 20.0 1
9.2
1
15.2
1 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%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 1-UT1 R1
104+28 Riffle
912
7.1 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
7.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft).
r_.
15.0 width -depth ratio
51.8 W flood prone area (ft)
7.3 entrenchment ratio
`
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017 { -"
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering '
910
View Downstream (04/10/2017)
908
c
0
906
904
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) $ MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.3 x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.1 width (ft)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
7.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft).
r_.
15.0 width -depth ratio
51.8 W flood prone area (ft)
7.3 entrenchment ratio
`
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017 { -"
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering '
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 2-UT1 Rl
105+36 Pool
905
903
c
0
v 901
w
899
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
11.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 3-UT1 R1
113+46 Pool
880
879
878
c
0
v
877
876
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
�MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
10.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/07/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 4-UT1 R1
113+64 Riffle
880
879
878
c
0
v -
877
876
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) 4 MY2(04/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.7
width -depth ratio
118.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/07/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 5 -UTI R2
121+63 Riffle
9.3
877
10.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
96.7
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
875
c
0
v 873
w
871
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) $ MY2(04/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
9.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
96.7
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/07/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 6-UT1 R2
122+09 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
876
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
874
c
0
v 872
w
870
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 7-UT1A
182+00 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
877
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
4.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
876
c
0
v 875
w
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
1.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.5
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
4.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/07/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 8-UT1A
182+16 Riffle
877
876
c
0
v 875
w
874 7y
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) s MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.7
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
24.9
width -depth ratio
79.1
W flood prone area (ft)
10.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/07/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 9-UT1B
151+92 Pool
930
6.9
929
0.6
928
927
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.2
926
0.6
0 925
11.6
v 924
w
923
922
921
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.9
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 10-UT1B
152+05 Riffle
1.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.3
width (ft)
0.2
mean depth (ft)
0.3
max depth (ft)
4.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2
929
927
19.6
width -depth ratio
54.1
W flood prone area (ft)
12.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
0 925
.2
v
w
923
921
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MYl (10/2016) s MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.3
width (ft)
0.2
mean depth (ft)
0.3
max depth (ft)
4.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.6
width -depth ratio
54.1
W flood prone area (ft)
12.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 11-UT2
206+86 Pool
878
877
876
c
875
v
w
874
873
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
�MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.1
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
11.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 12-UT2
207+26 Riffle
878
877
876
c
0
_v
875
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2016) tMY1(10/2016) 4 MY2(04/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.6
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
9.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
50.8
W flood prone area (ft)
5.9
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 13-UT2
212+15 Pool
878
877
876
c
875
v
w
874
873
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
�MYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) $ MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/07/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 14-UT2
212+58 Riffle
877
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.9
876
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
20.1
entrenchment ratio
c
0
low bank height ratio
v 875
w
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2016) s MY1 (10/2016) 4 MY2 (04/2017) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
20.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream (04/10/2017)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1111, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
0 4--
0.01
UT1111, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WM5/2016 MYI-10/2016 MY2-06/2017
1000 10000
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
Di5 =
1.24
D50 =
20.7
Da4 =
Class
Percent
241.4
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
27
31
31
31
Very fine
0.062
0.125
C
31
Fine
0.125
0.250
m
�
`m
60
31
Medium
0.25
0.50
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
31
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
9
13
13
44
Very Fine
®®®®®®®®
2.0
2.8
20
44
®®®®®®®®®
Ver Fine
x;,aae �e eco®o Y
2.8
4.0
10
44
;.;.;.• s..a..aw •o•..o•.,o;.o;
.o•.o•.o•.o�.$s.�'„•„•oro; me
0
A 1111
ooetiotiyh otih Oh 1 ti ti$
b 5� 0 titi ti� ��d 'ti Py 6A �O yyb y�0 �y0 3oti yyti y�ny tip ��0
Fine
5.6
8.0
•-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 • MY2-06/2017
44
Medium
o, �sss e•os's,
��• a�s`:o;°:o;°:o;':o:. Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
44
47
9;SS N; Njojoy
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
1
4
4
51
ess';<%:<%;eezez®se Coarse
22.6
32
4
5
9
9
60
;0000, . •s..�..w.ys•.,o•.,o;.
;�;•�;oQgg��$����gpgoogQ. Very Coarse
32
45
2
3
63
Very Coarse
45
64
5
[_1_�3
2
7
7
70
Small
64
90
5
3
8
8
78
Small
90
128
8
8
8
86
Large
128
180
4
4
4
90
Large
180
256
6
6
6 1
96
iiiii Small
256
362
1
1
1
97
HUMI
Small
362
512
97
111111 Medium
512
1024
97
.
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
3
3
3
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
0 4--
0.01
UT1111, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WM5/2016 MYI-10/2016 MY2-06/2017
1000 10000
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
1.24
D50 =
20.7
Da4 =
117.2
D95 =
241.4
D100 =1
2048.0
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
E
�? 40
w 30
a 20
10
0 4--
0.01
UT1111, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
t WM5/2016 MYI-10/2016 MY2-06/2017
1000 10000
UT1111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
C
70
m
�
`m
60
a
N
50
u
40
is
3
30
a
20
10
C
0
A 1111
ooetiotiyh otih Oh 1 ti ti$
b 5� 0 titi ti� ��d 'ti Py 6A �O yyb y�0 �y0 3oti yyti y�ny tip ��0
Particle Class Size (mm)
•-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 • MY2-06/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1111, Cross Section 1
UT1R1. Cross Section 1
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
69.16
D50 =
Class
Percent
190.9
D95 =
279.2
Count
512.0
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
2
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
50
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
u 40
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
8
Fine
Medium
a, c:co 'ae;eo
5.6
8.0
8.0
11.0
8
8
scc�sssce Medium
11.0
16.0
a 20
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
12
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
16
aero®®oa»co
56 W ,y1 ,y6 0 3ti by oA -O ,ti'b y20 o 6b- 1�' .1Q p '0
titi' ti ti ti 3 5 yo ,yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
scceo; o;Cs,,ssce
s.�.w,o;000;,o;s•&w. Very Coarse
rY
32
45
2
4
20
s..c.c.000s;s.s..a.o
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-05/2016 � MYl-10/2016 -41--MY2-W/2017
Very Coarse
45
64
5
10
30
Small
64
90
11
22
52
Small
90
128
8
16
68
Large
128
180
7
14
82
Large
180
256
6
12
94
111111 Small
256
362
2
4
98
Small
Illllil ti
362
512
1
2
100
.........
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 100
1 100
UT1R1. Cross Section 1
Cross Section
Channel materials (mm)
D36 =
32.00
D35 =
69.16
D50 =
87.3
D84 =
190.9
D95 =
279.2
D100 =
512.0
UT1R1. Cross Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1111, Cross Section 1
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90 Silt/claySan'd'avel
bbl
r
90
80
a ro
80
70
60
60
50
a
E
50
m
40
u 40
V
6
30
30
a 20
-
10
10
0
dti by by Oy 1 'L ,ti'b b
00 oti o•
56 W ,y1 ,y6 0 3ti by oA -O ,ti'b y20 o 6b- 1�' .1Q p '0
titi' ti ti ti 3 5 yo ,yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
MYl-10/2016 0 MY2 N/2017
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-05/2016 � MYl-10/2016 -41--MY2-W/2017
UT1111, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
d
a
50
m
40
V
6
30
20
-
10
0
dti by by Oy 1 'L ,ti'b b
00 oti o•
56 W ,y1 ,y6 0 3ti by oA -O ,ti'b y20 o 6b- 1�' .1Q p '0
titi' ti ti ti 3 5 yo ,yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
MYl-10/2016 0 MY2 N/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1R1, Cross Section 4
UT1111. Cross Section 4
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
52.11
D50 =
Class
Percent
174.0
D95 =
234.4
Count
362.0
a
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
2
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
a ro
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
iu
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
4
12
®® ®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
2
14
®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
3
30
sa ce •o •o •o;ssa c;
<alalawo;°:o;':o;°:o•'s'aa�a�w Fine
4.0
5.6
M
M
IE
�? 40
14
%asao,o,o•o•aasa
acacsg ;: oe go�.s�s�a,�
Fine
5.6
8.0
20
14
Medium
scc �sssce
Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
1
2
14
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
20
Coarse
aero®®oa»cc
22.6
32
2
4
24
scce.o; o;;s„ssce
Very Coarse
s..c.c.000s; s.sao ry
32
45
3
6
30
Very Coarse
45
64
6
12
42
Small
64
90
3
6
48
Small
90
128
9
18
66
Lar a
128
180
10
20
86
Large
180
256
6
12
98
Small
256
362
1
2
100
""""""`'•'• Small
362
512
100
111111 Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
UT1111. Cross Section 4
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.00
D35 =
52.11
D50 =
93.6
D84 =
174.0
D95 =
234.4
D100 =
362.0
UT1111. Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1113, Cross Section 4
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90 Siltpay
a
avel
90
bl
80
r
80
70
a ro
60
70
iu
a
a 60
H
50
f0
40
50
3
30
M
M
IE
�? 40
20
w 30
10
a 20
1--- 144
10
0
6' .t) .t, 1p 1 'L ,tial b
00 oti o•
56 11 y1 y6 �o ,5'L b5 rab �O ,t'b 160 y6 6'L ,y'L .1Q p NCO
titi' ti ti ti 3 5 yo yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
0 MYI-10/2016 • MY2-04/2017
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-05/2016 �MYI-10/2016 -41--MY2-W/2017
UT1113, Cross Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
60
iu
a
H
50
f0
40
U
m
3
30
M
M
20
10
0
6' .t) .t, 1p 1 'L ,tial b
00 oti o•
56 11 y1 y6 �o ,5'L b5 rab �O ,t'b 160 y6 6'L ,y'L .1Q p NCO
titi' ti ti ti 3 5 yo yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016
0 MYI-10/2016 • MY2-04/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1B, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
11.00
D50 =
30.8
D�4 =
Class
Percent
163.3
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
14
20
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
Fine
0.125
0.250
70
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
a ro
0 70
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
7
10
10
30
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
3
30
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
h,
30
•o�s;'•,s'a�'a`w`o•'•o•'•o•'•o: Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
32
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
33
0 . .
I I
Ooh' It) O.t) Ip 1 ti ,yW
b h6 0 y1 ye �,ti6 ,�1" by 6b �O yt92 y�0 ryy0 �6ti ytiti yO,tb �0�0 "CO
�? 40
Particle Class Size (mm)
®®®® ®®® Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
35
w 30
i
-L8�
,;,ass, a`aass,
�o••>' a` `��°%�°%�°%•. Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
38
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
3
4
4
42
Coarse
22.6
32
2
7
9
9
51
:,;;;>?a1c?;xa•,°;x;°;o;';o;;,;. Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
6
6
57
<' Very Coarse
45
64
8
4
12
12
69
Small
64
90
10
3
13
13
82
Small
90
128
7
1
8
8
90
Large
128
180
6
1
7
7
97
Large
180
256
2
Particle Class Size (mm)
2
2
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024 1
100
Large/Very Large/VeryLarge
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
11.00
D50 =
30.8
D�4 =
98.3
D95 =
163.3
D100 =
362.0
UT113. Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Silticlay
Sand
ave,
We
80
r
gp
70
60
a ro
0 70
a
50
60
40
u
m
3
30
3 50
20
h,
10
J,
E
.
-. �..WJ.IdAibl &.a - -
0 . .
I I
Ooh' It) O.t) Ip 1 ti ,yW
b h6 0 y1 ye �,ti6 ,�1" by 6b �O yt92 y�0 ryy0 �6ti ytiti yO,tb �0�0 "CO
�? 40
Particle Class Size (mm)
177
NH�
MYl-10/2016 • MY2-04/2017
w 30
i
-L8�
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0--MYM5/2016 –MY3-10/2016 —0—MY2-04/2017
UT1B, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
a
50
16
40
u
m
3
30
20
h,
10
J,
.
-. �..WJ.IdAibl &.a - -
0 . .
I I
Ooh' It) O.t) Ip 1 ti ,yW
b h6 0 y1 ye �,ti6 ,�1" by 6b �O yt92 y�0 ryy0 �6ti ytiti yO,tb �0�0 "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO 05/2016
MYl-10/2016 • MY2-04/2017

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT1B, Cross Section 10
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
30
a 20
10
UT113. Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -05/2016 � MY -10/2016 -41-- MY2-W/2017
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
46.34
D50 =
Class
Percent
151.8
D95 =
224.3
Count
362.0
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
d
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
6
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
c) ®®®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
?a�a`w`;.',;.',;.'o;'•.s'a�a`w Fine
4.0
5.6
8
%acacsg •oe go�.s�s�a,�
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
s?;xeeCe® a?a�c?e®
scc �sssce
Medium
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
1
2
2
4
10
14
Coarse
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22.6
32
3
3
6
6
20
26
aero®®oa»cc
10
scceo; o;;s,,ssce
;slw`w`,`,;,o,,o,;,o•,�;p¢¢`o Very Coarse
32
45
4
8
34
Very Coarse
45
64
6
12
46
Small
64
90
9
18
64
Small
90
128
7
14
78
Large
128
180
6
12
90
Large
180
256
4
8
98
....................................
Small
256
362
1
2
100
Small
362
512
100
111111 Medium
ii€illlllliiiiii
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
MENNEEMBedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
s0
1 100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
30
a 20
10
UT113. Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -05/2016 � MY -10/2016 -41-- MY2-W/2017
Cross Section
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
17.95
D35 =
46.34
D50 =
69.0
D84 =
151.8
D95 =
224.3
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
30
a 20
10
UT113. Cross Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO -05/2016 � MY -10/2016 -41-- MY2-W/2017
UT3B, Cross Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
d
a
50
m
40
V
30
2
20
10
ooll III III
111-11RA'A'A.
0 .0
6'L .y5 by Oy 1 'L ,tib
00 oti o•
P 5� titi ye 6 .1�'L p5 �b �O .�92 y20 y6 6'L
titi' ti ti ti 3
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO -05/2016
-1-10/2016 0 MY2 N/2017

APPENDIX S. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
* N/A, no bankfull events recorded.
** U, Unknown
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
ITA rAr-71
•
�. �.
�. •
Gage
UTI Reach 2
1
N/A
N/A
Crest
2 6/8/2017 4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
2 11/10/2017 10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
UT1A
1
11/14/2016
U
Crest
2 6/8/2017 4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
2 11/10/2017 10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
UT1B
1
N/A
N/A
Crest
2 11/10/2017 10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
UT2
1
N/A
N/A
Crest
2 6/8/2017 4/24/2017
1 Crest & Stream
* N/A, no bankfull events recorded.
** U, Unknown
Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
N/A, not applicable
Growing season dates March 20- November 11
20 consecutive days to satisfy critera
GWGs 5 and 9 installed April 7, 2017.
GWG 3 was relocated January 2017.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gage
Year 1 (2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Year 6 (2021)
Year 7 (2022)
No/0 Days
Yes/23 Days
1
(0%)
(10%)
Yes/ 29 Days
No/7 Days
2
(12.3%)
(3%)
3
Yes/236 Days
No/3 Days
(100%)
(1%)
No/3 Days
Yes/25 Days
4
(1.3%)
(11%)
5
N/A
Yes/189 Days
(80%)
Yes/79 Days
Yes/89 Days
6
(33.5%)
(38%)
No/7 Days
Yes/21 Days
7
(3.0%)
(9%)
No/1 Days
No/14 Days
8
(0.4%)
(6%)
9
N/A
No/13 Days
(6%)
N/A, not applicable
Growing season dates March 20- November 11
20 consecutive days to satisfy critera
GWGs 5 and 9 installed April 7, 2017.
GWG 3 was relocated January 2017.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C -5bD Q �"' > U
�i Q Q v°Ji O 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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C -5bD Q �"' > U
�i Q Q v°Ji O Z
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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C -5bD Q �"' > U
�i Q Q v°Ji O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — 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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C -5W Q �"' > U
�i Q Q v°Ji O Z
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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
S-10
v
3 -20
v
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
2.0
to Q +-' > U
Q t4 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
-0>? C -5bD Q �"' > U
�i Q Q v°Ji O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #6 — — 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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C -5bD Q �"' > U
�i Q � Q v°Ji 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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
3 -20
L
Y
-30
-40
-50
-60
C -0 ? C -5bD Q �"' > U
�i Q � Q v°Ji O Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #8 — — 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 2 - 2017
20
10
0
-10
v
>
-20
v
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C L >1 C W Q +-' > U
Q t4 0 Z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 w
c
m
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
c 5
Y
.Q
V
a 4
3
2
1
0
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17 Nov -17
Date
On-site Rain Gage NC Cronos Station KHKY -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
1 2017 rainfall collected by on-site rainfall gage and NC Cronos Station KHKY, Hickory, INC
Z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Conover Oxford Shoal, NC
3 On-site gage download malfunctioned during October site visit.