20140193 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20181204

MONITORING YEAR 3
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 2018 - November 2018
Submission Date: December 4, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Mitigation Project Name Henry Fork Stream and Welland Mitigation Project County Catavba USAGE Action ID 2014-00538
DMS ID 96306 Cate Project Instituted 2JIS12014 NCDWR Permit No 2014-0193
River Basin Catawba Data Prepared 512212018
Cataloging Unit 03050102
Crad6 Release Milestone
Potential Credits Mki,ndon Masi
Potential Crafts As -Built Sunny)
Potential Cretlts(RT Approved)
Scheduled
Releases
(Stream)
Waml cool
0.807.670
4a--.-
480].667
C014
Anticipated
Release Year
(Stream)
Actual
Release Date
(Stream)
Scheduled
Releases
(Forested)
Ripedan
Rlvetlne
4,220
4,217
1Abt4nd:Classes .
Rhafan Non Non-dpadan
dvedne scheduled
Releases
(Coastal)
Coastal
Anticipated
Release Year
(Welland)
Actual
Release Date
(Wetland)
1 SU Eadablishmando
NIA
3.05)000
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
WA
NIA
2 ear 0l As -Built
30%
1,451.499
2016
6242016
30%
1.265
30%
2016
62A2m6
9 earl Monitoring)
10%
aO.767
2017
10202017
10%
0.422
10%
2017
10202017
IRTAdju..W
-9.200
10202017
1,834200
1,050.400
1.939
0.170
4 ear 2 Monitoring)
10%
460.767
2018
4252018
10%
0.422
15%
2018
4252018
5 ear 3 Monitoring)
10%
2019
10%
NCOOT-SR1922-Bddge
119 -Division 13, Burke
2014-00001 County
20%
2018
6 e 14Monitorin
5%
2020
1WA
10%
2020
7 ear S Monkorin
10%
2021
11.
156
2021
8 ear6 Menkedn
5%
1200
1 2023
10%
WA
2022
W IMnson Blvd Pork1n9
2000-1195 2009-03080 Decks
9 lyear 7 Monitodn
10%
1.036
1 2023
10%
WA
2023
Stream Bankfull Standard
10%
480.767
4252018
WA
WA
Total Credits Released to Date
Ballantyne Countl Club Golf
200530193 Course
2,884.599
0.029
2.109
'NOTE: Adjustment required due to IRT concerns on how the 2s uilt credits avers calculated
DEBITS (released crod us only)
Rados 1 15 2.5 5 1.0214
IRTAppmvetl As-BUIItAmaums(feetand acres)
9,05].000
2,626.000
3.960
0,680
`ouc
zc z
I
za
3P
Au
-
U W
Am
A6
()
IRTApprovetl As$uRt Amoums(mnuation Credits)
3.05)000
1,750.667
3.877
0.340
Percema9e Released
60%
60%
50%
50%
Released Amounts fleet l acres)
1,834300
1,575.600
1.980
0.340
Released Amounts(credits)
1,834200
1,050.400
1.939
0.170
NOOWR PemJI USACE Action l0 Protect Name
NCOOT-SR1922-Bddge
119 -Division 13, Burke
2014-00001 County
124,000
2006.1849 200641599390 Bramley
0.040
Jahnsmn Road.
2000-0162 200030479 WdeninglBellentine Road
0.112
1200
W IMnson Blvd Pork1n9
2000-1195 2009-03080 Decks
1.036
2016-01344 NCDOT TIP M398
93.000
Ballantyne Countl Club Golf
200530193 Course
0.029
2009.00940 Skverlantlkl
0.072
WIIMnson BNd Parking
2000.1195 2009-03090 Decks
0.3$2
Mldvmf Phase 11.(NM Ooun
2004-1615 2005-30123 Redevelo men0
0.352
2005-0893 2005-31804US 521 Landfill (Foxhole)
0.059
IMIMnsan Blvd Polking
20001185 2009.03090 Decks
0.068
Remaining Amounts goal l acres)
1,710.2001,482.600
0.000
0.000
m
Remaining AOums(credits)
1.710300
988.400
0.000
0.000
Contingencies (If any): None

fln 7:;k
�IignureWiOfficial Approving Credit Release Date1 -For NCDMS, no cre releasa tluring the first milestone
2 - For NCDMS projesecond credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteda
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recortlation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 -A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

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

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 4, 2018
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY3 Draft Report Comments
Henry Fork Mitigation Project
DMS Project # 96306
Contract Number 005782
RFP Number 16-005298
Catawba River Basin — CU# 03050103 Expanded Service Area
Catawba County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 3 report for the Henry Fork Mitigation Project. The following Wildlands
responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; Please be prepared to discuss proposed remedial actions on the right floodplain of
UT1 Reach 2 at the scheduled site meeting on January 16, 2019 with the IRT.
Wildlands response; Wildlands will be prepared to discuss the proposed remedial actions on the right
floodplain of UT1 Reach 2 during the scheduled meeting on January 16, 2019 with the IRT.
DMS comment; 1.2.4 Wetland Assessment: A soil temperature gage was installed in October 2016.
Data from this gage is not presented in the report. How is Wildlands planning to use this information?
Is temperature data going to be used to better define a growing season since historical growing
season data is not available for Catawba County?
Wildlands response; At this time, Wildlands has not adjusted the growing season dates for the Henry
Fork based on soil temperature data. The soil temperature data collected is being used to verify the
dates defined in the WETS table for Burke County are accurate for the Henry Fork Site. Wildlands has
updated the report in Section 1.2.4 to clarify.
DMS comment; 1.2.4 Wetland Assessment: A reference gage is mentioned when describing trends for
GWG 2, 3, and 8, but the hydrology summary data for the reference gage is not presented in the
report. Consider adding the reference gage data if comparisons are discussed in the report.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has updated Table 14 to include the reference gage data.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS comment; Q2 update included the installation of new trees in May 2018. Please update section
1.2.5 to include this information. Please include number of trees and type (bare root, gallon, etc).
Wildlands response; Wildlands has updated Section 1.2.5 to include where the trees were planted, the
number and types of trees.
DMS comment; Table 2: Please add invasive treatment dates for MY3. Invasive treatments were
discussed in both the Q1 and Q2 updates provided from Wildlands.
Wildlands response; Table 2 has been updated to note dates of invasive plant control treatments, along
with the report Section 1.2.5.
DMS comment; Cross-sections: Please turn off marker for all monitoring years except MY3 to make
graph more legible to reviewers.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has updated the cross-sections to remove markers for monitoring years
prior to MY3.
DMS comment; Groundwater Gage 5 Plot: The report indicates that Wildlands believes Gage 5 may
be malfunctioning. Please add a note to graph acknowledging that the data may be inaccurate, and
the gage will be replaced.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has updated the groundwater gage 5 plot by adding a notation that the
probe may be malfunctioning along with the probability that the data may be inaccurate and will be
replaced.
DMS comment; Stream Gage Plots: Please add number of consecutive days to each graph or add a
table similar to Table 14 to present this information.
Wildlands response; The stream gage plots have been updated to include the number of consecutive
days of flow.
DMS comment; As Wildlands has done in the past, please include a response to the comment letter
and how/where the comments were addressed. Please insert this letter directly behind the cover
page in the final deliverables. The IRT has requested that we include this letter with the final
deliverables. The response letter will need to be included with all future monitoring deliverables.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has included this response letter as part of the final report deliverable to
DMS and the IRT.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Enclosed please find three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Environmental Scientist
kgimbert@w ildlandseng.com
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

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 (MY) 3 assessments and site visits were completed between April and November 2018
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation
success criteria for MY3. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed.
Three of the four restored streams recorded a bankfull event or greater. Vegetation assessment
indicates that overall average stem density for the Site is 585 stems per acre and is therefore on track to
meet the MY5 requirement of 260 stems per acre. Of the nine groundwater monitoring gages installed
within the wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment zones, six met the hydrologic success for MY3. It
is anticipated that the hydrology within 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. Easement encroachment issues have been dealt with and have ceased to be
an ongoing issue. Invasive species continue to be treated and controlled.
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL

HENRY FORK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
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 & Stream Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located near the city of Hickory in Catawba County, NC, in the Catawba River Basin; eight -digit
Cataloging Unit (CU) 03050102 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102010030 (Figure 1).
Access to the Site is via Mountain View Road, approximately one mile southwest of Hickory, North
Carolina. Situated in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the
project watershed consists of agricultural, forested, and residential land uses. The drainage area for the
Site is 178 acres. (0.28 square miles).
The project streams consist of four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Henry Fork River on the site of a
former golf course, referred to herein as UT1, UT2, UT1A, and UT113. Stream restoration reaches
included UT1 (Reach 1 and 2) and UT113, together comprising 3,057 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 3 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 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY3 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 MY3 were conducted in April 2018. 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 3 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, all streams, except UT113,
had at least one bankfull events recorded during MY3. During MY2 and MY3, UT1 recorded at least one
bankfull event; 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 was low throughout the winter;
specifically, November and December 2017, each resulting in less than two inches of rainfall. The
summer also resulted in low rainfall; therefore, caused low flow or the absence of water in streams. The
stream gages indicated each stream recorded between 150-300 days of consecutive flow. Presence of
baseflow was observed in UT1, UT1A, and UT113 during each site visit, however, UT2 was observed dry
from June and thereafter. The game cameras located on UT113 and UT2 confirmed the same
observations. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
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 (IRT).
The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in September 2018. The 2018 vegetation monitoring resulted
in an average stem density of 585 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 3.5
feet. All 15 vegetation plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7 (Table 9,
Appendix 3). Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition
assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 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) was installed on the Site. The rainfall data is collected from an existing USGS
weather station (USGS 02143040 Jacob Fork at Ramsey, NC) . 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
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-3

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. A soil temperature gage was also installed on Site in
October 2016. Wildlands is using the soil temperature probe data to confirm the dates defined in the
WETS table for Burke County, NC. The WETS growing season is not available for Catawba County;
however, a growing season is defined for historic weather data collected at the Hickory Regional Airport
in Burke County, which is approximately 3 miles as the crow flies from the Site.
The growing season from Burke County, which runs from March 201h to November 11th (236 days), is
being used for hydrologic success. The final performance standard establish 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, six met the success criteria for MY3. Of the gages that met, the measured cumulative
hydroperiod ranged from 23% to 94% of the growing season. While the hydrology for GWG 2, 3, and 8
do not meet the consecutive inundation criteria, the trends follow the reference gage. The existing
GWG 5 recorded a high water level throughout the entire year, which seems questionable; therefore, a
new transducer will be substituted. Four additional groundwater gages will be installed adjacent to the
areas not meeting criteria during the winter.
Refer to the CCPV in Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage locations and Appendix 5 for groundwater
hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan
Quarterly site visits will continue to be conducted to monitor and address any areas of concern. If
necessary, future adaptive management will be implemented to improve herbaceous cover, treat and
control invasive plants, and address hydrology issues.
During MY2, a portion of UT1 Reach 1 was found to be flowing subsurface and surface repair and
plugging of this area was completed in December 2017 in order to address the issue. The repair has
remained effective throughout MY3.
Wetland hydrology has been weak in the wetland rehabilitation areas upslope of UT1 Reach 2 (GWGs 2
& 3) and at the head of UT2 (GWG 8). Wildlands is planning to implement remedial actions on the right
floodplain of UT1 Reach 2 in order to enhance hydrology in this area in December 2018. Remedial
options for UT2 are still being considered; gage data suggests that groundwater levels around GWGs 8 &
9 may still be recharging. Additional gage installations are being evaluated here and along UT1 Reach 2
in ensure adequate representation of the hydrology in these areas.
Invasive species including Kudzu (Pueraria lobate), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Creeping primrose (Ludwigia peploides), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) were present and continue to be treated along the northern edge and southern end of the
Site, including at the top of UT2 and UT113. The kudzu along the Henry Fork River was too small to map.
Invasive treatments were completed in June and August 2018. These areas were treated in accordance
with the herbicide application rates used in cut/spray techniques during MY3 and will continued to be
monitored in future years. These species are not impacting survival rates of planted stems. Infestations
shown on Figures 3.0 — 3.5 were treated along with lesser areas.
Several areas located on the lower portion of the site (lower UT1 floodplain) 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. These areas were addressed
during the spring of MY3 with an additional seeding and fertilizing application, and subsequent new
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL 1-4

growth was observed; however, the area between vegetation plot 9 and 11 are still reflecting sparse
herbaceous cover. These areas will continue to be monitored and Wildlands will implement further
remedial action if necessary. There is an approved narrow footpath through the easement for the
purpose of frisbee golf that Wildlands has allowed on a conditional basis and which continued to be
monitored to ensure that it does not violate easement terms or threaten stream assets.
The minor mowing encroachments along the eastern edge of UTI Reach 1 have been resolved.
Wildlands replanted these areas with 3 7 -gallon Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) trees and 101 -gallon
Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) trees. While there has been a general cessation in the encroachment
issues as MY3 has progressed, the site and prior problem areas will continue to be monitored for
easement enforcement.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 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 MY3 success
criteria as depicted in the CCPV. Invasive species are being treated as prescribed in the mitigation plan.
Of the nine GWGs, six met the success criteria for MY3. It is anticipated that gages will meet hydrologic
success criteria in the upcoming monitoring years as precipitation normalizes. Multiple bankfull events
were documented on UTI. UT2 and UT1A recorded one bankfull event; however, UT113 did not record
any bankfull events during MY3. 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 3 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 3 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 Army Corps of Engineers. Email 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring
Parameter.
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 3 Annual Report — FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

03050101100 11
Hilton-
. civic
• - 'ParA
..
0., in GkP 2
Pyr{ �I �eEkf i
0305010090028-1F - J 5
L r x`--Hickory
J I Regio.. J' • `� —FZ Lenoir -Rhyne ■
9 Airport J°t cv • ` College 9th A" NE.♦
2 _ P a G,' , - Hickar 030501 t�14001
t' xj .•l
i �rrrrrLVVView l�•` ♦ 2nd Ave SW ►.r+�1
lvl�ot? Rd
I
1207 ft
,03050102030010
Ni lolebrn40
Gao I .valley
f • ' • i r I tie.y'131117 `+ Hill
03050 ' 02010030
is
it
.y f +<+
03050102010020
ra
• +�
t tte CherrchJ?d •
P. L7 ntaM . ■ .0
a
r-.•
0 of
WIL.DL.ANDS
CNGINEFRING
Catawba County, NC

t7
Alto - -
• s
3
•
•
� • w
♦
•
rti __•
• a-. so
:loll: Conservation Easement
Henry Fork River
0 Planted Buffer
® Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
Wetland Enhancement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Reach Breaks
A
_ L f
Iwo -- •.
r � ,
�•••rrr••.r
1
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
0 150 300 Feet Henry fork Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS qL I I DMS Project No. 96306
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.963O6
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
MITIGATION•
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RER RE
Totals 4,807.667 N/A 3.880 0.341 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Restoration Level
Proposed
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non -Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
Restoration
3,057
Existing Footage/
Restoration (R) orCredits
N/A
N/A
ReachlD
Stationing/
N/A
Approach
Restoration Footage/Acreage* Mitigation Ratio
N/A
Wetland Re -Establishment
Location*
Acreage
g
Restoration Equivalent RE
q ( )
N/A
(SMU/WMU)*
STREAMS
UT1 Reach 1 Upper
100+00 to 103+02
N/A
P1
Restoration
302
1:1
302.000
N/A
N/A
1,392
Preservation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UT1 Reach 1 Lower
103+02 to 114+71
P1
Restoration
1,169
1:1
1,169.000
UTI Reach 2
114+71 to 126+99
1,499
P1/P2
Restoration
1,228
1:1
1,228.000
UT1A
180+00 to 186+57
353
P1
Enhancement
657
1.5:1
438.000
UT1B
150+00 to 153+58
478
P1
Restoration
358
1:1
358.000
UT2
200+00 to 219+69
1,915
P1
Enhancement
1,969
1.5:1
1,312.667
WETLANDS
Planting,
Wetland 1
Floodplain near UT1
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
2.48
1:1
2.480
Reach 2
improvement
Planting,
Wetland 2
Floodplain near UT2
N/A
hydrologic
Re-establishment
1.23
1:1
1.230
improvement
Planting,
Wetland A
Floodplain between
0.18
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.18
1.5:1
0.120
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Planting,
Wetland B
Floodplain between
0.01
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.013
1.5:1
0.009
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Planting,
Wetland C
Floodplain between
0.003
hydrologic
Rehabilitation
0.003
1.5:1
0.002
UTI Reach 2 and UT1A
improvement
Wetland G
Floodplain near UT1A
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.009
Wetland
East hillslope near
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.028
UT1A
Wetland
East hillslope near
0.08
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.039
UT1A
Wetland
East hillslope near UT1
0.04
Planting
Enhancement
0.04
2:1
0.018
Reach 2
Wetland
East hillslope near UT1
0.06
Planting
Enhancement
0.06
2:1
0.028
Reach 2
Wetland
East hillslope near UT1
0.13
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.065
Reach 2
Wetland N
Floodplain towards
0.08
Planting
Enhancement
0.08
2:1
0.042
river from UT2
Wetland P
Floodplain u2pslope of
0.02
Planting
Enhancement
0.02
2:1
0.012
UT
Wetland 0Floodplain
u2pslope of
0.07
Planting
Enhancement
0.07
2:1
0.035
UT
Floodplain in footprint
Significant
Wetland R
of Pond 3 near head of
0.06
improvement to
Rehabilitation
0.06
1.5:1
0.039
UT1 Reach 2
wetland functions
Wetland S
UTI Reach 1 Valley
0.16
Planting
Enhancement
0.13
2:1
0.066
(Pond 1)
EN&
COMPONENT
SUMMATION
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
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 3 - 2018
Activity or Report Data
Delivery
Mitigation Plan August 2015
September 2015
Final Design - Construction Plans October 2015
October 2015
Construction November 2015 - March 2016
March 2016
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area March 2016
March 2016
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments' March 2016
March 2016
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2016
March 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
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 UT1 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 April 2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey September 2018
Year 3 Invasive Species Treatment June & August 2018
Year 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 3 - 2018
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 3 - 2018
PROJECT• •
Project Name I Henry Fork Mitigation Site
CountyCatawba County
Project Area (acres) 48.06
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 Area 5%
CGIA Land Use Classification 39%- Herbaceous/Pasture, 36%- Forested, 25%- Developed, >1%- Watel
REACH SUMMARY INFORMATION
Parameters UTI Reach 1
UT1 Reach 2 UT1A UT1B UT2
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration 1,497
1,232 658 358 1,969
Drainage Area (acres) 106
129 23 31 49
NCDWR Stream Identification Score 39.5
32.5 27.25 31.25 27
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Morphological Desription (stream type) P P
I
P
I
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration III IV/V
IV/V
III
IV/V
Underlying Mapped Soils Codorus loam, Dan River loam, Hatboro Loam, Poplar Forest gravelly sandy loam 2-6% slopes, and Woolwine-Fairview complex
Drainage Class --- ---
Soil Hydric Status --- --- I ---
Slope 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 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration 0%
REGULATORY• • •
Regulation Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404 Yes
PCN prepared
USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27
Waters of the United States - Section 401 Yes
PCN prepared
and 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 (CAMA) No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes*
No impact application was prepared for local
review. No post -project activities required.
Floodplain development permit
issued by Catawba County.
Essential Fisheries Habitat No
N/A
N/A
'The project site reaches do not have regulated Floodplain mapping, but are located within the Henry Fork floodplain.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

0 Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (KEY)
0 250 500 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W1 L D L A N D s ' I DMS Project No. 96306
"`,INI' ` '"' Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

������ Conservation Easement'.' F
® AW
Wetland Rehabilitation Z� F ;_ ___ Y--:1 PW_
kr -
® Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
Planted Buffer`'}R.
Stream Restoration �� - t' - • .
Stream Enhancement
Cross -Section (XS)
----- Bankfull Line
Reach Break i
♦ Photo Point" �ti `. '3?�r.•.
Stream Gage (SG) r •_
+ Barotroll Gage -
rf' �
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY3
Criteria Met_
a
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY3 7 - !
r 21
0 Criteria Met f
Areas of Concern - MY3F/71z v
Bare ground '
F7--] Invasive Plant Population
' r '
a � �/� r r 3 � �,•Y f.�
r
23
- 24
8
3
�1
25
'
ELL
W 0 75
WILDLANDS
i
6{
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1)
150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
J DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

WN
Conservation Easement
Wetland Rehabilitation
® Wetland Re-establishment
® Wetland Enhancement
Henry Fork River
0 Planted Buffer
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
Cross -Section (XS)
----- Bankfull Line
Reach Break
♦ Photo Point
+ Stream Gage (SG)
♦ Reference Gage
+ Barotroll Gages
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY3
Criteria Met
♦ Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Plot - MY3
0 Criteria Met
Areas of Concern - MY3
r//a Bare ground
® Invasive Plant Population
21
7
F131
26
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
W I L T] L 11 N IJ 5 ' I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

t i 9
A�
P
+
+s6' ��'�•� �
fir; .�
�.
4_.
26
7/�
411
a�
•� L
- 18
X 13
10
a
11 AP,
27
F �
-Conservation Easement Stream Restoration Reach Break Groundwater Gage (GWG)-MY3
�. Wetland Rehabilitation Stream Enhancement ♦ Photo Point � Criteria Met
Wetland Re-establishment Cross -Section (XS) + Stream Gage (SG) ♦ Criteria Not Met
Wetland Enhancement ----- Bankfull Line ♦ Reference Gage Vegetation Plots -MY3
Henry Fork River EL +
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
wI L n L n N IJ 5 ' I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC
Barotroll Gages
0 Criteria Met
Planted Buffer
Areas of Concern -MY3
Bare ground
Invasive Plant Population
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
wI L n L n N IJ 5 ' I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

03
■nnn■nnnn■nnn27
♦ i[
•
♦
♦
♦
♦ +r
1
♦ 4-
i
♦ - 1
t
♦ I h
♦ tet- __ _
i ♦
♦ t
♦
♦
8
♦
♦
♦
r ♦
♦
7
♦
i ♦
•
♦� 6
"'0
vl�
r Conservation Easement ;• s_
Wetland Rehabilitation ••
® Wetland Re-establishment ••••'•••, f
••••
® Wetland Enhancement +5 I •••••.••••
Henry Fork River 2 �••••••••••••••••• •
Planted Buffer �♦ " `' ©� • ••••••■•••••••••••••
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement
• 2 1`
• kt+F
— Cross -Section (XS)
1
----- Bankfull Line - �, {�q '� -•
Reach Break % 4
♦ Photo Point ; �•' •••.••••• ,
+ Stream Gage (SG) ' .`�', •••••••••'•• •:::::::r .::::::::::::
+ Barotroll Gages �: •
Groundwater Gage (GWG) - MY3 �.•
Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met ;. 29
Vegetation Plots - MY3 3
0 Criteria Met
Areas of Concern -MY3
Bare ground
Invasive Plant Population •••••••
;_ ..a h• • . i_ &..._ ..
Y.Y
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4)
0 75 150 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
wI L n L n N IJ 5 ' I i I i I DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

K
tea.
%* St t• u
6
r z.`Ea•:
0
-z
- 5
• j +
40
WILDLANI�S '
. •: C. i NI , 1 11.,
T
LnnL
Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Reach Break
Vegetation Plots-MY3
Wetland Rehabilitation
Stream Enhancement
♦
Photo Point
0 Criteria Met
Wetland Re-establishment
Cross -Section (XS)
+
Stream Gage (SG)
Groundwater Gages (GWG) - MY3
Wetland Enhancement
----- Bankfull Line
♦
Reference Gage
Criteria Met
Henry Fork River
+
Barotroll Gages
♦ Criteria Not Met
Planted Buffer
Areas of Concern - MY3
V/, Bare ground
Invasive Plant Population
66
25� 41r__ �•
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5)
0 100 200 Feet Henry Fork Mitigation Site
I z DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Catawba County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2015
UT3 Reach 1 (1.497 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
39 39
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
33 33
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
33 33
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
33 33
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
33 33
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
81
81
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
70
70
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
81
81
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
81
81
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
46
46
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UTI Reach 2 (1.232 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
Performing as
Intended
Number'ith
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
15 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
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
0
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 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1A (658 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
Performing as
Intended
Number'ith
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
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
6
6
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed shallows since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1B (358 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
Performing as
Intended
Number'ith
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
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
24
24
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
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 3 - 2018
UT2 (1.969 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
Performing as
Intended
Number'ith
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 3S
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
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
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 : Bank -full 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 3 - 2018
Planted Acreage 15
Easement Acreage 48
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
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
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
none
0
0
0.0%
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
2
1.9
12.9%
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
2
1.9
12.9%
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
1 2
1 1.9
1 12.9%
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
4
1.2
2.5%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0.0%

Stream Photographs

ss
� 1 kt t 5 a( - ✓ b - # 1c a � � ��I,� v �a � r x r� i
TV�F � „, q �f t � �lkU3s ■ 4�,- � ' � Y. _ 1 � �b� a,��' S _ a ,
• • • • • / • • ' •11 11 MEMO • yy ty
RR `y�r!'l`•vk J�v'r w j 1F g3tV
�'YuR 1Rr� a f
j Ai
¢� y
71
Photo • • • I • • ' • downstream UT1B (91412018)
a
lvt
v �

ww
�.� '�;,�ar'

Photo Point 6 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 6 — view downstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1
Photo Point 7 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 7 — view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 8 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 8 — view downstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018)

Photo Point 9 — view upstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 9 — view downstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1
Photo Point 10 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 10 —view downstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 11— view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 11—view downstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018)

Photo Point 12 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 12 —view downstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 13 — view upstream UT1 R1 Lower (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 13 —view downstream UTI R1 Lower (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 14 —view upstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 14 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018)

J
Photo Point 15 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 15 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018) 1
Photo Point 16 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 16 — view downstream UTI R2 (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 17 —view upstream UT1 R2 (9/6/2018) 1 Photo Point 17 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/6/2018)

Photo Point 18 — view upstream UT1A (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 18 — view downstream UT1A (9/4/2018) 1
Photo Point 19 — view upstream UT1A (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 19 — view downstream UT1A (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 20 — view upstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1Photo Point 20 — view downstream UT2 (9/4/2018)

Photo Point 21— view upstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 21— view downstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1
Photo Point 22 — view upstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 22 — view downstream UT2 (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 23 — view upstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1Photo Point 23 — view downstream UT2 (9/4/2018)

Photo Point 24 — view upstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 24 — view downstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1
Photo Point 25 — view upstream UT2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 25 — view downstream UT2 (9/4/2018)
Photo Point 26 — view upstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018) 1 Photo Point 26 — view downstream UT1 R2 (9/4/2018)

Photo Point 29 — UT1 R1 Upper floodplain overview (9/4/2018)

Vegetation Photographs

F�
r�Y �' �i �.e�•
kViv
f
Ft
y�ry
err
S,
f
T
�
e
�
y�ry
err
S,
f
T
�
e
�
S,
f

4k 'T R& `
i , s
°
r
l
� t
3 .
y y( Y
j

Vegetation Plot 13 - (9/6/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 14 - (9/5/2018) 1
Vegetation Plot 15 - (9/5/2018)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Plot MYS Success
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 3 - 2018
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
11/1/2018
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 HENRY FORK MY3.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02143 Henry Fork\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3-2018\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.
PROJ ECT SU M MARY -------------------------------------
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 3 - 2018
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
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
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
Pnol-S 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
5
3
3
3
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
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
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
21
3
3
13
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
ITree
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
Rhus aromatica
Sumac
IShrub
2
5
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
ITree
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
IShrub Tree
Stem count
14
14
16
16
16
21
15
15
17
16
16
16
12
12
35
14
14
24
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
6
4
4
5
5
5
7
4
4
4
5
5
6
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
567
567
647
647
647
850
607
607
688
647
647
647
1 486
1 486
1 14161
567
1 567
1 971
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 3 - 2018
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
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0010
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0011
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
4
1
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
4
4
5
3
3
3
1
1
8
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
2
2
5
2
2
82
3
3
103
2
2
13
2
2
2
5
5
5
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
10
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus aromatica
Isumac
IShrub
Salix nigra
JBlackWillow
ITree
Salixsericea
ISilky Willow
IShrub Tree
Stem count
14
14
17
14
1 14
1 96
15
15
131
16
16
28
16
16
17
15
15
25
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
6
1 6
1 7
5
1 5
7
6
6
6
6
6
7
5
5
7
Stems per ACRE
1 567
567
688
1 567
1 567
13885
607
1 607
1 5301
647
1 647
11133
1 647
1 647
1 688
1 607
1 607
1012
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 3 - 2018
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018) 1 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
96306-WEI-0013
PnoLS P -all T
96306-WEI-0014
Pnol-S P -all T
96306-WEI-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
M (9/2018)
PnoLS P -all T
M (7/2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (9/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (3/2016)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
15
16
19
20
12
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
1
12
12
17
12
12
100
12
12
22
13
13
13
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
7
8
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
34
34
45
34
34
52
35
35
35
37
37
37
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Shrub Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
49
49
49
51
51
51
52
52
52
57
57
57
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
3
3
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
30
31
10
17
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
30
30
2
7
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
2
5
5
10
7
7
7
43
43
271
44
44
460
44
44
108
57
57
57
Populus deltoides
Cottonwood
Tree
10
19
7
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
20
20
20
20
21
20
20
20
20
20
20
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
4
4
4
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
Rhus aromatics
Isumac
IShrub
8
Salix nigra
IBlack Willow
ITree
1
Salix sericea
ISilky Willow
IShrub Tree
1
Stem count
13
13
14
13
13
18
14
14
92
217
217
567
220
220
803
222
222
350
243
243264
size (ares)
1
1
1
15
15
15
15
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
Species count
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
8
7
7
1 15
7
7
14
7
7
14
7
7
11
Stems per ACRE
526
526
567
526
526
728
567
1 567
13723
585
1 585
11530
594
1 594
12166
599
1 599
944
656
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 3 - 2018
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Nat 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.
2 Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UT1 Reach 2, and UT1B.
'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 defined
'Does at include last 150'to tie-in to Henry Fork.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring year 3 - 2018
F6: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UTI Reach 2, and UT1B.
a UTI Reach I (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width Is more typical of a C.
°The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
5UT1 Reach 1(Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is more typical of a C.
°UT3B is classified in existing conditions as a and bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment and
channelizatlon 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.
Reference Cros, Section Number
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Mean Depth
Max Depth
,; 6-nkfuill
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (W)
®�
omo®mmom
Radius of Curvature (ft)
®mm®m®®mom��
mmmmo®v®
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Length fft)
��®mmmmmmm®m
®�mmm�mm
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Red and Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) b/fi2
Max part si,e (mm) mobill,ed at hankfull
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate N
m9■
Bankfull Vel city (fps)
Q-NFF reg ession (2 -yr)
extrapolation
-
..Q-USGS
=
®;Channel
Thalweg Length fft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
F6: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Min and max values may appear backwards for ratios. When this is the case, ratio values have been left in the column associated with a particular cross section.
'Due to the highly manipulated condition of the streams resulting in ditched streams with little profile diversity, no profile or pattern data was assessed on UT1A, UT2, UTI Reach 2, and UT1B.
a UTI Reach I (Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width Is more typical of a C.
°The Rosgen classification system is for natural streams and project streams have been heavily manipulated. These classifications are for illustrative purposes only.
5UT1 Reach 1(Lower) is a hybrid reach that goes through what is presently a pond and then drops rapidly down what is presently a
dam embankment and drop to master stream Floodplain. Through the pond, slopes and floodprone width is more typical of a C.
°UT3B is classified in existing conditions as a and bed stream. This is thought to be reflective of manipulation (impoundment and
channelizatlon 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 3 - 2018
Dimension and Substrate' Base
MY3
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY3
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)' 906.1
906.1
906.1
906.1
901.9
901.9
901.9
902.0
878.3
878.3
878.3
878.2
Low Bank Elevation 906.1
906.1
906.1
906.2
901.9
901.9
901.9
901.9
878.3
878.3
878.3
878.3
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.3
6.8
7.1
7.2
8.8
9.6
10.9
17.2
7.8
7.7
9.6
11.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 51.3
50.5
51.8
52.2
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.2
1.0
0.9
1 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.2
1.8
1.8
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 3.5
2.9
3.3
3.5
10.7
9.5
10.0
10.7
9.1
8.1
8.8
9.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.4
15.7
15.0
14.7
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 7.0
7.5
7.3
7.3
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
Cross-Section
1.0
1.1
4, UT1 Reach
---
1
---
Cross
---
---
5, UTI Reach
---
2
---
Cross
---
---
6, LIT1 Reach 2
Dimension and Substrate' Base
MY3
MY2
MY3 MY4
(Riffle)
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
-Section
MY2
MY3 MY4
(Riffle)
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
-Section
MY2
(Pool)
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)' 877.6
877.6
877.6
877.5
873.5
873.5
873.5
873.4
872.7
872.7
872.7
872.8
Low Bank Elevation 877.6
877.6
877.6
877.6
873.5
873.5
873.5
873.5
872.7
872.7
872.7
873.5
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.9
7.4
7.6
7.2
10.5
11.1
10.9
10.9
8.8
8.8
9.2
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft) 118.3+ 118.3+
118+
63.7+
96.7+
96.7+
96.7+
76+
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.4 1
1.3
1 1.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 2.9
3.2
3.1
2.9
9.7
10.1
9.3
9.7
8.8
7.2
6.8
8.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.2
17.1
18.7
17.9
11.4
12.1
12.7
12.2
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 17.1+
16.0+
15.5+
8.9+
9.2+
8.7+
8.9+
7.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
---
---
---
---
'Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Dimension and Substrate'
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4
MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY3
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ftj' 874.9 874.9 874.9 874.9
875.0 875.0 875.0 874.9
922.9 922.9 922.9 923.1
922.1 922.1 922.1 922.2
Low Bank Elevation
874.9 874.9 874.9 875.3
875.0 875.0 875.0 874.9
922.9 922.9 922.9 923.2
922.1 922.1 922.1 922.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.6
5.8
4.5
7.4
6.6 6.3 7.7 7.8
5.5
5.9
6.9
7.5
5.4
5.9
4.3
6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
31.4+ 80.6+ 79.1+ 89.2+
---
---
---
---
37.7
55.6
54.1
56.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftp)
2.0
2.3
1.5
2.0
2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5
5.0
4.2
4.0
5.0
2.2
2.0
1.0
2.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
---
17.0 17.3 24.9 23.9
---
---
---
---
13.2
17.3
19.6
17.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratic
---
---
---
---
4.8 12.8+ 10.3+ 11.5+
---
---
---
---
6.9
9.4
12.5
9.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratic
---
---
---
---
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate'
Base
Cross -Section
MY3
MY2
11, UT2 (P..Q_M=J&
MY3 MY4
Cross -Section 12, UT2 (Riffle)
MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
Cross -Section
MYl
MY2
13, LIT2 (Pool)IMMMhMpiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�
MY3 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
cross-section
MY2
14, UT2 (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)'
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.0 876.0 876.0 876.0
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.2
875.2
875.2
875.2
Low Bank Elevation
876.0
876.0
876.0
876.2
876.0 876.0 876.0 876.1
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.1
875.2
875.2
875.2
875.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.2
11.5
11.1
11.0
8.1 9.1 8.6 8.2
7.8
8.2
10.0
12.0
7.4
6.9
7.5
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
81.3+ 50.8+ 50.8+ 50.5+
---
---
---
---
150+
150+
150+
58.9+
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (fe)
8.6
9.5
9.7
8.6
5.7 5.5 6.0 5.7
8.8
8.1
9.4
8.8
4.2
3.8
4.4
4.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratic
---
---
---
---
11.5 15.0 12.3 11.8
---
--
--
--
12.9
12.7
12.6
18.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
10.1+ 5.6+ 5.9+ 6.1+
---
--
---
--
20.3+
21.8+
20.1+
6.7+
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
1.10 1.10 1.10 1.1
---
---
---
---
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.1
'Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation and channel cross-section dimensions are calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIR7 and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 12a. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Henry Fork-UT1 Reach 2, UT1A and UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
UT1 Reach 2
UT1A
UT2
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
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
10.9
7.8
8.2
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
96.7+
31.4+
81.3
150+
96.7+
80.6+
50.8+
150+
96.7+
79.1+
50.8+
150+
76+
89.2+
50.5+
58.9+
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
0.9
0.3
0.5
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
1.5
0.8
1.1
1.4
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
9.7
2.5
4.2
5.7
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
12.2
23.9
11.8
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio
9.2+
4.8
10.1
29.0+
8.7+
31.9+
5.6+ 1
21.8+
8.9+
10.3+
5.9+
20.1+
7.0+
11.5+
6.1+
6.7+
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
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
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7 84
7
36
8
59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25 58
9
25
13
24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.4 5.5
1.4
3.8
2.3
4.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
123 210
61
100
63
158
Meander Width Ratio
11.7 20.0
9.2
15.2
11.2
28.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
C6
C6
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,232
658
1,969
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.6
1.7
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0023
0.0063
0.0018
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0037
0.0060
0.0015
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G %/C%/B°/a/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Fro, I "I Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring - Stream Reach Data Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Parameter
UT1 Reach 1
UT113
UT1 Reach 1
UT113
UT1 Reach 1
UT113
UT1 Reach 1
UT1B UT1 Reach 1 UT1B UT1 Reach 1 UT113
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I
Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9
7.3
5.4
6.8 7.4
5.9
7.1 7.6
4.3
7.2
6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
51.3
118.3+
37.7
50.5 118.3+
55.6
51.8 118.0+
54.1
52.2
63.7
56.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.4
0.3
0.4 0.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.75
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.7 0.8
0.3
0.7
1.0
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.9
3.5
2.2
2.9 3.2
2.0
3.1 3.3
1.0
2.0
3.5
2.2
Width/Depth Ratio
15.8
13.2
15.7 17.1
17.3
15.0 18.7
19.6
14.7
17.9
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
1
17.1+
6.9
7.5+ 16.0+
9.4
7.3+ 15.5+
12.5
7.3
8.9
9.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.8
D50 (mm)
17.1
11.0
33.6
40.2
20.7
69
19
68.5
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
8.0
47.3
11.3
41.2
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
0.0142
0.0987
0.0259 0.0978
Pool Length (ft)
4.3
33.4
5.6
20.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.9
2.8
0.5
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
10
60
7
43
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
26
4
19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8
31
8
32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.2
4.5
1.5
5.9An
JAMM
Meander Wave Length (ft)
56
104
48
90
_
Meander Width Ratio
8
15
9
17
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4a
B4a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,497
358
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0369
0.0598
1111110-
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0241
0.0612
0.0602
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%

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 1-UT3 R1
104+28 Riffle
912
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
52.2
W flood prone area (ft)
7.3
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
910
Z'
r_ 908
0
v
w
906
904
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
-MYO (3/2016) MYl (10/2016) -MY2 (04/2017) +MY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
52.2
W flood prone area (ft)
7.3
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 2-UT3 R1
105+36 Pool
905
17.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
17.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
903
x
c
0
'w
w 901
899
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) —MYI (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
17.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 3-UT3 R1
113+46 Pool
880
x
11.4
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
878
0
v
w
876
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) —MYI (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 4-UT3 R1
113+64 Riffle
880
2.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
x
17.9
width -depth ratio
63.7
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
878
0
v
w
876
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) MYl (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.9
width -depth ratio
63.7
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 5-UT3 R2
121+63 Riffle
877
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
875
W flood prone area (ft)
7.0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
x
c
0
'w 873
w
871
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) MYl (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) +MY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
11.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
76.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 6-UT3 R2
122+09 Pool
876
10.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
874
x
c
0
w
w 872
870
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) —MYI (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
11.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 7-UT1A
182+00 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
000000,
hydraulic radius (ft)
876
x
c
0
v
w
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
-MYO (3/2016) -MYI (10/2016) -MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 8-UT1A
182+16 Riffle
876
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
c
0
v
w
width -depth ratio
89.2
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
—MYO(3/2016)—MY1(10/2016)— MY2 (04/2017) tMY3(04/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.9
width -depth ratio
89.2
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 9-UT1B
151+92 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
929
927
x
c
°
925
v
w000t
w
923
921
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) —MYI (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 10-UT1B
152+05 Riffle
929
927
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.1
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1
width -depth ratio
56.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
925
0
v
w
923
1.0
low bank height ratio
921
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
-MYO (3/2016) -MYI (10/2016) -MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.1
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1
width -depth ratio
56.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 11-UT2
206+86 Pool
877
11.0
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
11.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
x
0
m
875
v
w
873
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) —MYI (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.0
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
11.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 12-UT2
207+26 Riffle
878
877
876
0
v
w
875
874
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70
Width (ft)
-MYO(3/2016)-MY1(10/2016) - MY2(04/2017) tMY3(04/2018) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.8
width -depth ratio
50.5
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 13-UT2
212+15 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
877
x
0
m 875
v
w
873
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2016) —MYI (10/2016) —MY2 (04/2017) tMY3 (04/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 14-UT2
212+58 Riffle
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.6
width -depth ratio
58.9
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
entrenchment ratio
876
x
c
0
low bank height ratio
w
w
I
874
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
-MYO (3/2016) MYl (10/2016) -MY2 (04/2017) MY3 (04/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.6
width -depth ratio
58.9
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1R1, Reachwide
UT1R1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
1.32
D50 =
19.0
D84 =
Class
Percent
317.9
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
22
25
25
25
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
4
5
5
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
30
Medium
0.25
0.50
60
30
30
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
v
5
1
1
31
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
7
10
10
41
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
42
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
'L 0 b 6 W ,y'y ,yp p ,y'L Ay pb �O ,L0 y20 h6 h1' 11' ,yb X92 'CO
ti• h• �ti. ti ti ti 3 h y0 ,lp b
Particle Class Size (mm)
42
••o�s;'•s'a�a`w`%•'•o•'•o•'•o; Fine
4.0
5.6
42
Fine
5.6
8.0
42
®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®
®®®oa s ®® Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
45
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3 1
3
48
Coarse
1 16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
52
Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
9
9
61
Very Coarse
32
45
3
1
4
4
65
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
2
2
67
Small
64
90
6
2
8
8
75
Small
90
128
7
7
7
82
Large
128
180
3
3
3
85
Large
180
256
5
5
5
90
....................................
Small
256
362
8
8
8
98
Small
362
512
98
Medium
512
1024
1
1
1
99
;;;; Large/Very Large
..........'............•...........•
1024
2048
1
1
1
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
1 100
UT1R1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
1.32
D50 =
19.0
D84 =
160.7
D95 =
317.9
D100 =1
2048.0
UT1R1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
90
Silt/ClaySandravel
UT1R1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
obb
er
80
90
a ro
80
70
70
v
u
60
a
50
40
60
30
Iwo III
v
5
v
i 50
10
0
40
�'L .y5 by 5 1
p0 p'?' O• O•
'L 0 b 6 W ,y'y ,yp p ,y'L Ay pb �O ,L0 y20 h6 h1' 11' ,yb X92 'CO
ti• h• �ti. ti ti ti 3 h y0 ,lp b
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-05/2016
-MVS-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 0MY3-04/2018
i 30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MV0.05/2016 MVI -10/2016 --0-- MV2-06/2017 MV3-W/2018
UT1R1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
u
60
a
50
40
30
v
5
v
20
10
0
�'L .y5 by 5 1
p0 p'?' O• O•
'L 0 b 6 W ,y'y ,yp p ,y'L Ay pb �O ,L0 y20 h6 h1' 11' ,yb X92 'CO
ti• h• �ti. ti ti ti 3 h y0 ,lp b
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-05/2016
-MVS-10/2016 MY2-04/2017 0MY3-04/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1111, Cross -Section 1
100
90
80
70
> 60
M
E 50
u 40
c
30
as
a 20
10
UT1R1. Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,1 1 I i i i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I iI
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 MY3-10/2016 �MY2-04/2017 tMY3-04/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Di5 =
56.44
Riffle 100-
ClassL
Percent
145.5
D95 =
196.6
Count
362.0
min
max
Percentageumulative
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
d
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
y
60
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
4
.... •.•.•p,•p,•p,:.....
a s a s •J•°•J•°•J;°Q �:a a Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
p•..p,.p,..J: 9:.g..g..y
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
4
gg..g..J.
..g..g:'o%p•.o,.,J:.o:.g..g..g..
a$s�s°•o'•�0•°6•'-o•°o�s$s�'s� Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
6
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
8
's%imi?s?s?si?e Medium
g..g..J. "J 3..g..g..,y
11.0
16.0
1
2
10
g..g..y.•p�.popop:':o:.$..g..g..
16.0
22.6
2
4
14
Coarse
22.6
32
4
8
22
3:apGB%02�®93989Aop3%�
Very Coarse
32
45
2
4
26
<a`s33;<3`><•°•<':>;':>;':>;t<3;`, Very Coarse
45
64
7
14
40
Small
64
90
13
26
66
Small
90
128
6
12
78
Large
128
180
8
16
94
Large
180
2S6
2
4
98
Small
256
362
1
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
s0
100
100
100
90
80
70
> 60
M
E 50
u 40
c
30
as
a 20
10
UT1R1. Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,1 1 I i i i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I iI
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 MY3-10/2016 �MY2-04/2017 tMY3-04/2018
Cross -Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
24.65
Di5 =
56.44
D50 =
73.0
D84 =
145.5
D95 =
196.6
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
> 60
M
E 50
u 40
c
30
as
a 20
10
UT1R1. Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,1 1 I i i i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I l i i I I I I I I iI
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-05/2016 MY3-10/2016 �MY2-04/2017 tMY3-04/2018
UT1111, Cross -Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
d
N
50
u
A
40
v
30
v
c
20
10
L , LA0
L
, by Oy 1 'L ,tib
lz�
b h6 4 ,y1 y6o ,L� ,6'L 'o .A �p ,y0 �O o 'p Co. 0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-05/2016
nrivl-10/2016 0MY2-04/2017 0MY3-04/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1111, Cross -Section 4
100
90
80
^e 70
> 60
50
u 40
30
a 20
10
UT1R1. Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I 1111111
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-MYO-05/2016 MY3-10/2016 tMY2-04/201] MY3-04/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Di5 =
74.29
Riffle 100-
ClassL
Percent
221.1
D95 =
271.2
Count
362.0
min
max
Percentageumulative
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
m
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
m
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
6
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
20
10
aeegcg®®® ®ea�eg®®
=es
Medium
g..g..J. J .g..g..,y
11.0
16.0
1
2
12
;;a�a�s°'o,"•�.� a°����a�s Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
14
Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
20
A,:p4 B 003;8 8pB:0�
Very Coarse
32
45
1
2
22
Very Coarse
45
64
3
6
28
Small
64
90
8
16
44
Small
90
128
7
14
58
Large
128
180
6
12
70
Large
180
256
12
24
94
Small
256
362
3
6
100
MUMMUMMM: 1111111111 Small
362
512
100
IIIII''III€€€€€€
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
100
90
80
^e 70
> 60
50
u 40
30
a 20
10
UT1R1. Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I 1111111
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-MYO-05/2016 MY3-10/2016 tMY2-04/201] MY3-04/2018
Cross -Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
25.38
Di5 =
74.29
D50 =
104.7
D84 =
221.1
D95 =
271.2
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
^e 70
> 60
50
u 40
30
a 20
10
UT1R1. Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 ,I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I 1111111
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-MYO-05/2016 MY3-10/2016 tMY2-04/201] MY3-04/2018
UT1111, Cross -Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
C
m
60
m
a
N
50
u
40
30
M
'>
20
=es
5
10
0
ra'L .lh .ye Oh 1 'L ,y0
b 56 4 ,y1 y� 70 ,5'L p5 bb �O ,10 �O y0 r�'L y'L .yoa0 A6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
•MY3-10/2016 •MY2-04/2017 0MY3-04/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1B, Reachwide
UT1B. Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
each Summary
Particle Class
Di5 =
17.44
D50 =
39.3
D84 =
Class
Percent
157.1
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
10
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
m
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
ble
a
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
80
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
70
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-05/2016
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
8
8
21
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
22
Fine
4.0
5.6
22
„o„o„oos s sa •o;•oo;
Fine •. °ma.a.aaa.9.e.a ne
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
25
®®®®®®®® ®®®®® Medium
8.0
11.0
2
6
8
8
33
®®®a ®®®®
`yw •o••o;•o; Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
34
..o..o..o... g..g:..o•..o..o..o.,
;;°:;;':;;";'i B s s oo;•oo; Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
3
4
4
38
s®�sasa'°`sexes®�s Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
6
6
44
>,>'•'s°�``-`%,>%•>% Very Coarse
ry
32
45
2
8
10
10
54
Very Coarse
45
64
11
3
14
14
68
Small
64
90
9
1
10
10
78
Small
90
128
10
1
11
11
89
Large
128
180
10
10
10
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
10
100
Small
362
512
100
11111 Medium
512
1024
0
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-05/2016 MYS-10/2016 t MY2-04/2011 --0-- MY3-04/2018
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
UT1B. Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.27
Di5 =
17.44
D50 =
39.3
D84 =
109.1
D95 =
157.1
D100 =
256.0
UT1B. Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
100
90
90
Silticlay
80
Sand
ravel
70
m
60
v
ble
a
er
50
80
40
30
v
'S 20
v
10
,
a r
o�'Lo1,1h oyh O� 1 'L ,tib
70
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-05/2016
MYl-1Oj2016 •MY2-04/2012 •MY3-04/2018
60
3 50
E
40
30
(L 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-05/2016 MYS-10/2016 t MY2-04/2011 --0-- MY3-04/2018
UT16, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
m
60
v
a
50
40
30
v
'S 20
v
10
,
0
o�'Lo1,1h oyh O� 1 'L ,tib
b h� 0 1'Y 1�0 �,L�o ,5'L Ay 0b 00 1,1,0 100 �y0 ,�yti yy'L 1O,1b �O� �00
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-05/2016
MYl-1Oj2016 •MY2-04/2012 •MY3-04/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Henry Fork Stream Mitigation
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
100
90
80
^e 70
60
50
U' 40
30
a 20
10
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
­-Juump I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-05/2016 MV1-10/2016 ---&- MW -04/2017 tMY3-04/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
50.24
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
120.1
D95 =
196.6
Count
362.0
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
d
�
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
2
$.s:ass•°• ®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
8
ss me Medium
scc s.ssce
g..g..J. J .3.g..,J
11.0
16.0
5
8
aa�a�saa �� ame���a�s Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
10
®Coarse
22.6
32
4
8
18
9;838®�,®®®®®®®®®'•8®A$®®
seec�a"a3`
scce.J; osssee Very Coarse
s.3aw;;,J•.,J•.,J•.9;s..�.w, rY
sac.o •o •o •o; ssao
32
45
6
12
30
Very Coarse
45
64
8
16
46
Small
64
90
10
20
66
Small
90
128
11
22
88
Large
128
180
3
6
94
Large
180
256
2
4
98
Small
256
362
1
2
100
HE
i`. Small
362
512
100
HUMMUN
MHUMN Medium
512
1024
100
HUNNUMUN
' Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
100
90
80
^e 70
60
50
U' 40
30
a 20
10
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
­-Juump I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-05/2016 MV1-10/2016 ---&- MW -04/2017 tMY3-04/2018
Cross -Section
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
29.34
D35 =
50.24
D50 =
68.5
D84 =
120.1
D95 =
196.6
D100 =1
362.0
100
90
80
^e 70
60
50
U' 40
30
a 20
10
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
­-Juump I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-05/2016 MV1-10/2016 ---&- MW -04/2017 tMY3-04/2018
UT1B, Cross -Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
�
60
a
50
u
40
30
a
5
v
20
5
10
0
Lm La I
ro'L .tih by 5 1 ti 0
O• O• ti•
b 6 0 ,�1 ti6 0 .1�'ti p5 0Q �O ,ti0 �O 56 6ti titi a0 A6
h• �ti. y0,tib .ti0 OA
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
•MYI-10/2016 •MY2-04/2017 0MY3-04/2018

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Reach
MY
Date of Occurrence
Method
UT1 Reach 2
MY1
N/A
Crest Gage
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
2/7/2018
Stream Gage
4/25/2018
5/29/2018
9/16/2018
10/11/2018
10/26/2018
UT1A
MY1
U
Crest Gage
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
10/11/2018
Stream Gage
UT1B
MY1
N/A
Crest Gage
MY2
10/8/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
UT2
MY1
N/A
Crest Gage
MY2
4/24/2017
Crest & Stream
Gage
MY3
2/7/2018
Stream Gage
5/29/2018
* N/A, no bankfull events recorded.
** U, Unknown

Table 14. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
N/A, not applicable
Growing season dates March 20 - November 11
Success criteria is 20 consecutive days
GWGs 5 and 9 were 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/18 Days
Yes/S9 Days
Yes/79 Days
Reference
(8%)
(25%)
(34%)
No/0 Days
Yes/23 Days
Yes/48 Days
1
(0%)
(10%)
(20%)
Yes/ 29 Days
No/7 Days
No/12 Days
2
(12.3%)
(3%)
(5%)
Yes/236 Days
No/3 Days
No/5 Days
3
(100%)
(1%)
(2%)
No/3 Days
Yes/25 Days
Yes/46 Days
4
(1.3%)
(11%)
(20%)
5
N/A
Yes/189 Days
Yes/102 Days
(80%)
(43%)
Yes/79 Days
Yes/89 Days
Yes/96 Days
6
(33.5%)
(38%)
(41%)
No/7 Days
Yes/21 Days
Yes/44 Days
7
(3.0%)
(9%)
(19%)
No/1 Days
No/14 Days
No/11 Days
8
(0.4%)
(6%)
(5%)
9
N/A
No/13 Days
Yes/20 Days
(6%)
(9%)
N/A, not applicable
Growing season dates March 20 - November 11
Success criteria is 20 consecutive days
GWGs 5 and 9 were installed April 7, 2017.
GWG 3 was relocated January 2017.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
L
it
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
bz Q +-' > U
—° LL 2:a a V) o z° o
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 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
L
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
i Q > Q n O Z D
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
L
d
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
CT C -5UO Q +-' > U
i Q > Q n O Z D
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 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
L
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
�i Q > Q n 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 3 - 2018
6.0
all
4.0
r-
3.0 3.0 w
c
1.0
0.0
C
0
Henry Fork Groundwater Gage #5
_
0
N
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
v
"' °�°
ao ,i
o
20
0 o
Gage may be malfunctioning and data may not be accurate.
0
M
A new probe to be replaced.
—
10
°
°
m
v
U
W
0
J.+
N
-10
A �n�A&A Ar --ANA A
>>
-20
v
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
II
-60
-
C
i
> C75 leoQ +-'
QN 0
g a
> u
z p
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #5 — — Criteria Level
6.0
all
4.0
r-
3.0 3.0 w
c
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
L
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
�i Q > Q o 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 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
L
d
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
UO Q +-' > U
�i Q > Q n 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 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
d
-20
L
d
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
00 Q +-' > U
i Q Q Ln 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 3 - 2018
20
10
0
-10
a
3 -20
w
m
�o
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C TCC > V
�i � Q 7 Q to O z
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #9 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0
c
oc
2.0
1.0
0.0

Groundwater Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland Number
20
10
0
-10
v
-20
v
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
C
> C75 W aa > u
L.L G Q C Q N 0 Z 0
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
c
3.0 m
c
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Recorded Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Henry Fork Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for UT1B - #1
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
925
4.0
238 consecutive days
3.5
924
3.0
923
2.5
c
>—-
�922
2.Ow
c
w
a
3
m
OC
1.5
921
1.0
920
0.5
919
0.0
C - T C 75 OD O_ >QJ Z3 V
LL Q S Q in O Z O
Rainfall UT1B - #1 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation • Bankfull

Recorded Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
877
876
875
a
874
v
J
873
3
872
871
870
Henry Fork Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for UT1- #2
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
C - T C 75 bb CL > V
QJ LL
Q S Q in O Z O
Rainfall UT1- #2 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Bankfull
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
t
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Recorded Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Henry Fork Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for UT1A - #3
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
878
4.0
302 consecutive days 3.5
877
3.0
876
2.5
v
c
—
�875
—
——
2.Ow
w
m
3
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — —
—
'm
oe
1.5
874
1.0
873
0.5
872
0.0
C T C75hp O_
LL Q S Q in O
> V
Z O
Rainfall UT1A-#3 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — •Bankfull

Recorded Stream Gage Plots
Henry Fork Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96306)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Henry Fork Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for UT2 - #4
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
879
4.0
151 consecutive days 3.5
878
3.0
877
2.5
" 876
a
—
2.0 w
c
3875
---
--------—
----
— --
— —
—
1.5
874
1.0
873
0.5
872
0.0
C > C bb O_
LL Q S Q in O
> V
Z O
Rainfall UT2 - #4 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Bankfull

Monthly Rainfall Data
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96306
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Henry Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
m
5
'a
V
G7
a` 4
3
2
1
0
Nov -17 Dec -17 Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18
Date
USGS 02143040 Jack Fork at Ramsey, NC -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
' 2018 rainfall collected by USGS 02143040 Jacob Fork at Ramsey, NC
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Conover Oxford Shoal, NC