UpperSouthHominyCloseoutReport_20170701

Upper South Hominy Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Buncombe County, NC
DMS Project No. 92632
USACE Action ID# SAW-2011-00076
DWR 401 # 11-0118
Design -Bid -Build Project
CLOSEOUT REPORT: STREAM AND WETLAND
Proiect Setting & Classifications
Site Meeting Coordinates: 35A77817, - 82.750126
County
Buncombe
General Location
5.5 miles southwest of
Candler NC
Basin
French Broad River
Physiographic Region
Blue Rid a Mountains
Ecoregion
Southern Crystalline Ridges
and Mountains
USGS Hydro Unit
1 06010105060020
NCDWQ Sub -basin
04-03-02
Wetland Classification
Riparian Nonriverine
Thermal Regime
Cold
Trout Water
Yes
Pro ect Performers
Source Agency
NCDMS
Provider
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission
Designer
Monitorin Firm
iom Envi ental
2014 Repairs
NCW-dd Re Resources
Commission
2015 Repairs
Confluence / Wildlands
EnstinCenniz
Invasive Species Treatment
Carolina Silvics
Approved for Transfer to
Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
NCDEQ Stewardship
Pro
Q11rall Project Aetivities and Timeline
Milestone
Mouth -Year
Project Instituted
Dec2007
Restoration Plan
Dec 2010
Permitted
Apr 2011
Construction Complete
Oct 2011
Planting
Feb 2012
As-built/Baseline (Year 0)
Feb 2012
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
Nov 2012
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
Nov 2013
d
Sep 2014
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
Nov 2014
ppai
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Sep 2015
Nov 2015
Year 5 Monitoring (20 16)
Nov 2016
Invasive Species Treatment
2012 through 2017
Close Out Submission
July 2017
Page 1 of 32
Note — Momtonng Year Dates reflect mo/yr of data
completion

Watershed Planning Summary
The Upper South Hominy Creek restoration project is located within HUC 06010105060020, the
South Hominy Creek watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the
2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan. The project is also located
within the South Hominy Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The Upper South Hominy Creek
restoration project is currently the only DMS project in the TLW and LWP and encompasses 7.1
square miles of drainage area at the downstream end of the project.
The project is on the main stem and several tributaries of South Hominy Creek, which is
classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) as Class C Trout waters.
The South Hominy Creek watershed was selected for a LWP based on previous 303(d) listing of
South Hominy Creek (it has since been delisted), degradation of aquatic habitat, and
recommendations of local resource professionals. The 2006 LWP found that major stressors to
streams in the watershed are channelization, excess sedimentation from unpaved roads and
driveways, stream bank erosion and eroding uplands, localized nutrient and fecal coliform
bacteria pollution, and lack of adequate riparian vegetation.
The 2009 RBRP indicates that 79% of land within the South Hominy Creek watershed is in
forested/wedand use, with its steep slopes mostly forested. Its broad valleys are a patchwork of
agricultural (mostly hay and cattle pasture) and residential land. However, the watershed is
located just west of Asheville; thus, it is likely to experience an increase in development. The
watershed was targeted as a TLW in order protect aquatic resources from encroachment by
future development. Major goals for HUC 06010105 established in the 2009 RBRP include
focusing stream restoration efforts in the South Hominy Creek LWP area to reduce sources of
sediment and nutrients by restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, excluding
livestock, and restoring natural geomorphology. The 2009 RBRP also encourages partnerships
between land trusts and resource agencies to improve management of stormwater runoff, control
both storm water volume and pollutants, and promote low impact development techniques to
lessen impacts of new development.
The goals of the Upper South Hominy Creek project are consistent with DMS watershed
planning goals. The project improves aquatic and terrestrial habitat through agricultural BMPs,
such as livestock exclusion, and the establishment of riparian buffers. Improved riparian buffers
also intercept and mitigate storm water runoff, which improves water quality by reducing
sediment and nutrient inputs. Lastly, the project preserves and enhances several functional
stream reaches, wetlands, and habitat within the project boundaries through a perpetual
conservation easement.
Project -Setting and Background Summary
The Upper South Hominy Creek stream and wetland mitigation project was constructed in 2011
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and DMS. The project
included establishment of a permanent conservation easement, and restoration and enhancement
work on the main stem of South Hominy Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UTs) to South
Hominy Creek, in western Buncombe County. Adjacent riparian wetlands were also enhanced
and preserved as part of the project.
Historic land use in the immediate vicinity of the project site has consisted of residential homes
and low intensity agricultural operations primarily consisting of livestock grazing and hay
production. Stream channels within the project area were being accessed by livestock, or
impacted by agricultural crops, resulting in water quality issues, and disturbances to the channel
banks and wetland areas. An adjacent development in the immediate project area drainage was
built during project design and has contributed to runoff in the middle section of the project.
Additional land use practices included removal of large woody riparian vegetation and
mechanized dredging and straightening of stream channels to increase the amount of usable land.
These activities contributed to degraded and unstable stream banks along with compromised
water quality due to lack of vegetated buffers, soil erosion, and animal waste.
Construction approaches were assigned with the intent to minimize disturbance to the stream
channels and riparian buffers and focus on those reaches that would benefit most from the
appropriate level of site work. Areas with stable channel conditions and desirable
riparian vegetation were placed into preservation. Other reaches were treated with restoration
and enhancement level I and II site work to improve stream functions and terrestrial habitats that
Page 2 of 32

were compromised under the existing site conditions. Restoration site work on South Hominy
Creek was assigned to the reaches where dimension, pattern, and profile modifications were
necessary to correct areas of instability including incision, eroding banks, and over -widened and
homogenous channel segments.
Two contracted repairs have been necessary since initial project construction. As -Built and Year
1 (2011 and 2012) monitoring data collected by the NCWRC indicated two problem areas
associated with bar formation, bank scour and structure instability on the main stem. A
significant flood event in November 2011 was identified as the likely cause of the problems. In
addition, major flood events in the summer of 2013 caused severe damage to a section measuring
approximately 100 linear feet along the middle section of the overall project, just upstream of a
small privately owned farm road bridge. Subsequent storm events worsened the situation. The
two repairs are summarized as follows:
1) Bridge Area repair in late summer 2014 just upstream from small private bridge along
Connie Davis Drive, Station 11+50 to 13+00; the work has successfully stabilized
areas of erosion and scour via
a. Installation of block stone revetment along left bank adjacent to bridge;
b. Regrading and boulder toe revetment along 551.f on right bank;
c. Repair of breached right arm of an existing rock J-hook vane;
d. Installation of 701.f, root wad revetment and footer logs.
2) Upper Main Stem in fall of 2015 repair to address areas of bed scour, bank erosion
and bed aggradation as well as damage to in -stream structures along Stations 0+00 to
3+00 and 5+00 to 6+50, via
a. Rock vane repair and modifications -repair, rebuild and protect existing vane
structures;
b. Boulder adjustments — strategic boulder salvaging and replacement as toe
protection and to facilitate in -stream flows;
c. Bank grading, sloping and brush mattress installation; and
d. Buffer improvements and transplanting.
Both repairs have been successful and have withstood major storm events since their installation
Finally, The Upper South Hominy project funded significant livestock best management
practices for 3 out of 4 of the landowners, including 3 wells, 6 watering tanks with all
connections and pad materials, and 6500 linear feet of exclusion fencing.
MonitorW2 Phase Problem Area discussion
The MY5 survey was completed in the fall of 2016. Dimension, pattern, and profile parameters
surveyed in MY5 suggest the restoration, enhancement level II, and enhancement level I sections
of SHC are performing as designed but with some variation] from design values. Small
deviations were found in bankfull width at one riffle cross-section (XS1O). Bankfull width at
this cross-section has been below the design value in all five monitoring surveys following
construction. However, problem areas or instability were not observed at cross-section 10.
Several areas of aggradation and degradation were observed during the MY2 survey, often
associated with the surveyed cross -sections. Cross-section 9 had reduction in mean depth,
maximum depth (1.7 ft), and cross -sectional area (14,9 ft2) due to si ficant pool a adation,
However, these areas appear to have stabilized, as no significant change was captured in the
MY3-MY5 surveys. Although many dimensional values either increased or decreased in MY2
due to the 5 May 2013 flood event, most dimensional parameters measured at the 10 mainstem
cross -sections were within the design values for SHC during MY3-MY5.
Pattern values derived from the MY5 survey reveal that the mainstem reaches of SHC are largely
within the design values for this morphological parameter.
Channel profile values derived from the MY5 survey reveal slight changes in channel slope
compared with MYO-MY4 channel slope values. The mainstem 1 reach channel slope returned
to 0,012 ft/ft, the same slope value as MY2. This is a slight increase from MYO-MY1 when the
slope was 0.011 ft/ft, but a slight decrease from MY3-MY4 when the slope was 0.013 ft/ft. The
mainstem 2 reach slope returned to 0,008 ft/ft the same value as MYO-MY1 and MY3. During
MY2 and MY4, the channel slope was 0.009 ft/ft. The mainstem 3 reach remained 0.007 ft/ft
during MY5. It was 0.006 ft/ft during MYO-MY3. Riffle slope measurements varied from the
Page 3 of 32

design values in each of the three mainstem reaches. However, the mean riffle slope for each of
the mainstem reaches approximated the design mean riffle slope. The majority of all other
profile values were within the design ranges for the features measured.
Reach -wide substrate particle size analysis revealed that the MY5 D50 value was within the very
coarse gravel category. The median particle size at each of the 6 riffle cross -sections fell within
the coarse to very coarse gravel categories during the MYS survey.
Problem Area 4, observed on Mainstem 2, sta. 9+20 to 9+50, resulted from a large amount of
bed material forming a mid -channel bar below a J-hook stream structure during the 2011 flood
event. This material was shifted to the right bank during the 2013 flood event forming an inner
berm or lateral bar. The constructed pool below the J-hook was functioning as a riffle during the
MY5 survey, although a small pool has reformed on the downstream end of the newly formed
riffle creating some high quality and diverse habitat. Additionally, approximately 130 linear feet
of right bank scour (Sta. 3+45 to 3+70 and 5+05 to 6+10, Problem Areas 11 and 12) was
observed in this reach.
The MY5 visual assessment survey found the majority of the 2,820 f3 of mainstem channel banks
(95%), channel bed (99%), and engineered stream structures (100%) were performing
adequately. Metrics that scored lower resulted from bed scour or aggradation and sections of
bank erosion.
Goals and Objectives (from 2010 Restoration Plan)
GOALS
• Improve water quality in SHC and unnamed tributaries (UT1-3);
• Stabilize on -site streams so they transport watershed flows and sediment loads in
equilibrium;
• Promote floodwater attenuation and all secondary functions associated with more
frequent and extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in -stream habitat by improving the diversity of bedform features;
• Protect riparian communities, habitats, and wetlands and enhance floodplain
community structure; and
• Enable improved livestock practices which will result in reduced fecal, nutrient,
and sediment loads to project channels.
OBJECTIVES
• Restoration of the pattern, profile, and dimension of 1,077 linear feet of the main
stem of SHC;
• Restoration of the pattern, profile, and dimension of the channel for
approximately 779 linear feet of unnamed tributaries to SHC on the Bianculli,
Roberson/Bura, and Davis properties;
• Restoration of profile and dimension (Enhancement 1) of the channel for
approximately 500 linear feet of SHC along the Davis property;
• Limited channel work combined with livestock exclusion and invasive species
control (Enhancement II) on 2,363 linear feet along SHC and unnamed tributaries;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations on
the Bianculli, Roberson, and Davis properties;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever
necessary;
• Preservation of 1,085 linear feet of relatively unimpacted forested streams by
placing them in a conservation easement for perpetuity; and
• Preservation or enhancement of approximately 1.35 acres of wetlands across the
project site.
Page 4 of 32

Success Criteria (from 2010 Restoration Planl
Success Criterion
Measured Parameter
Criteria Met
Streams
• Stream channels stable
14 permanent cross -sections (9 riffle and
Yes —Site streams are
• Majority of stream
5 pool); riffle pebble counts; profiling of
stable and the majority of
measurements remain
2800 I.f main stem and 6001.f.1JTs; and
stream measurements are
within range of design
numerous permanent photo points
within the range of design
values
values
Yes - Success criteria were
Vegetation
• Minimum of 260
10 vegetation plots measured using the
met in year 5 with an
stems/acre in year 5.
Y
CVS Level H protocol
average of 522 planted
stems/acre (excluding
livestakes
Yes — Success criteria were
Hydrology
met throughout the
• Documentation of two
Crest gauge and photo documentation of
monitoring period with a
bankfull channel events
bankfull events
total of 4 documented
bankfull events occurring
in 4 monitoring ears.
Wetland Hydrology
NA
5 permanent photo points
NA
Page 5 of 32

Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Components
`o
c
`o
ti
D
0
'a0+ c
f=
c_
O
G
m R
C= N
@p ,�
p
O O=
c0
N
C
O C
11.0 O
m
Project Segment or Stream
�° d
«
m m
N
.12
Reach ID
w ¢
a
Q
Bianculli South Hominy Cr.
600
R
P3
630
0+00 to 6+30
1
630
Bianculli South Hominy Cr.
169
Ell
167
6+30 to 7+97
2.5
67
Bianculli Trib North (UT1)
100
P
94
0+00 to 0+94
5
19
Bianculli Trib North (UT1)
138
R
P1
183
1+00 to 2+83
1
183
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
44
R
P1
45
6+54 to 6+99
1
45
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
654
Ell
654
0+00 to 6+54
2.5
262
Bura/Roberson South
477
R
P3
518
1+00to2+25;7+25to10+00;
1
518
Hominy Cr
11+68 to 12+86
Bura/Roberson South
775
Ell
768
0+00 to 1+00; 2+25 to 7+25;
2.5
291*
Hominy Cr
10+00to 11+68
Roberson Abandoned Ch UT2
170
R
Pi
191
0+00 to 1+91
1
191
Davis South Hominy Cr
500
El
522
0+00 to 5+22
1.5
1 348
Davis South Hominy Cr
227
Ell
215
5+22 to 7+37
2.5
86
Davis UT3 upper
775
P
777
1 0+00 to 7+77
5
155
Davis UT3 middle
538
Ell
538
7+77 to 13+15
2.5
215
Davis UT3 lower
426
R
P1
427
13+15 to 17+42
1
427
Davis Springs (north)
144
P
144
0+00 to 1+44
5
29
Davis Spring (south)
72
P
78
0+00 to 0+78
5
16
Stream Totals
5,809
5,951
3,497.4
Approach
Conservation
WETLANDC — Davis Spring
0.01
Pres.
0.01
easement, livestock
5
0.002
(South)
exclusion
Surface hydrology
improvement, invasive
WETLAND D— Roberson
0.69
Enh.
0.69
vegetation treatment,
2
0.34
South Hominy Cr
planting and livestock
exclusion
WETLAND E — Roberson
0.02
Pres.
0.02
Conservation easement
5
0.004
Abandoned Ch UT2
Conservation
WETLANDS G/H/I/J/K—
0.20
Pres.
0.20
easement, invasive
5
0.04
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
vegetation treatment
Surface hydrology
WETLAND L— Bianculli Trib
0.44
Enh.
0.44
improvement, invasive
2
0.22
North (UT3)
vegetation treatment
Wetland Totals
1.34
1.34
1
0.59
*Note — 80 linear feet entered at half credit to account for a 20 foot wide power line easement at an
angular crossing
Restoration Level
Streams
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1994
—
-
Enhancement (Level 1)
S22
Enhancement (Level il)
2342
Enhancement
--
1.11
Preservation
1093
0.23
Asset Category
Overall Credits
Stream
3481.4
Riparian Riverine Wetland
0.590
Page 6 of 32

e
h•
eye
A
AILL--------
0
V
A
cn
aiF
ay
iF
SA
o
m
a
v
w❑
o
g
yy�
g
e
m�3p
m�X
@
z
m Z0
m
o
z
m"'Z
m
E5
s�
!

ii�;M
■"Ow
10
Ln
76
0
cn
5r
35
6 m
co
IF
CD
b
m
5t
p C
9
X
ca 0 m
.
M
m
XMO
0
i (A
rn
it
t z
m
R Q.
PF
CA
0
x

m �
o
ic
2A0 m m.igN
m"'p ` m O-<
--A '� S Z 2
m v
�m0
jm0
Sg
nm
I�
m

i -
[] Protect Easement Boundan
Q Protect Watershed Boundary
Water-,1..1J
Drainage Aaea — 7-1 mi.-2.
Protect Location
�h, w
/
PT�Q AM
T1*•+r> l,� )'- I • Cam' �. � �i'v'.• � �� - � 'UY l '� ,
0 0,25 0.5 r w ntatn
Miles' _ Z
Project Watershed Boundan' lfiap MOP Insert
ry Lipper South Hommy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 1•umber: 92632
Bmicombe County, North Carolina
'CillC'Ti'
Page 8 of 50

Figure A.4 Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Soils Map, NCEEP Project Number 92632.
t
a
3aaa00 341aoo 341100 341200 311300 341400 341500 341000
ss 21r r 1011Vas 2ST 3
RiftvL -
$ A ` _ _ ra�� •�s /,dot
8 Lr'C�
} «
�r
S •�, 1 �{4V�t-"e• +fit; �t - ' '_ ,
Map
�<uca Namc Svmbol ,1 a '♦ .
8 Braddock clavIloam llkl)2 +, �d♦� g
Dillard loam DrB +
Hard-Cnwcceomplc\ 1?v1)2
Hoatd-Caw cccomple% 1:n1)
Evard-Cow cc complex L1 h -
lotla laem IoA +"
8 Keddien sand% loam RJA
Staticl loam SIB
Tate loam Tac
Tate loam I all
1
Tate loam 'fklJ . • }r a
8 Unison loan) Unc } !
e i 1
y R �
IL
Of
35' 2& 30- 35 2a- 3P
340a00 341000 341100 341200 341300 341400 341 Ulm
A`p Stale 14,810ipMea On Aaw (BS'x 11-1 Sl�eM
N Melers
m 0 45 90 180 210 e
Feel
0 ISO 300 wo 900
Page 9 of 50

2
�
\
§f `
/
�.
,
.
.
_
k
|
--
I)
.
.
&
it
a
,
|
,
�
•
�|
ii ■
�
�
K k gq� 2
|§|
�
||�
If
,
,
a
._�
■
2
,
�
$
|
i
A .
�
.
.
,
Is
Ll
,
'
■
,
'
|�)
�
IC
a
'
s

ti Ekvsdm (f,,
0
0
II
1
�E 6
K
0 1
1
1
�g 1
a
ti Ek-tlm (ISL
I
I
1
z>
r
e
I
0
1
1
g�
II
5
F
e
I
1
1
e
�,
o
F.kv�tlan (111,,
'o
III
1
o
I
1
1
O
�7
R
1
tll
1
1
1
O
O
ea
II{
1
o
I
1
I
1
1
Klg
nR
Rs
1
^2
�6
6
R
I
I�
1
I
I

.ti
uo
O
W
F.kvnllm Ilf)
y
7 8
a �
S
a
} �
G
S�
� s
�
Y
f s
x �
�
e
�
a
E
e
l�mv.ewlwn 5
cno.rwwiia
cma wa1,n
9
EkvalYo M
0
a $
a g
3 �
�
p
a
a E 8
c� i
A
$
7i
7
O
t S
(:�'errafen7
A
9 �
rnL ti
O u
�I
Kg
0
I
1
I
I
n
I
I'
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
w e�nm 1nw
a e �
a
II
o
9

ewes im
C
c
� S
i
i
S
i
�
i
_
� S
i
��
S
4ge
�
°;a
i
�
g
I
a
i fi
r
y $
a
E _
a
"a
e...r.. pn
'C �' � � K
a
i
8
�
i
5 � a
�
e
4
#�
a�
I
�p �
I
i
er.... nn
o x
�wrregin.x
y�
7 S
��
6
K
8
IIi�
f
6
a
'�
N
ai
T
� �
y
f
�
[
6

II
SIIIIII�IAIII�I�II�II�A�I
11
�Alllll�l�ll���l��ls��sl
�IS�SI��I�IIIAIIS�All�l91
IIIIII�uII�Alll�ll�lll
I11
II
IF
1111111111111111111111111
Ilnllllllllll��l�lllll�
1
SIIISIqI�I�IIII�II�IA�A�
IF
1111111111111111111111111
SI
IIIIIIlISII11�11111�191
II
��I�IIIIIIIIII��II�IISI�I
1
II�III�AIIII.
��11��
1
IIISIISI11019115��111111���1
SIISISIIII�IISI!
NI�l111�11
IIIIII�II��IAIIIIIISI111S101
111111111111111
�
11111111
w 111
�IIgSII�ISIIIIII111�A�111
IIA�IIIISI�IISI��1�111191
I�I��III�I�SII��AA��1���01
II�II��IISI�IIIII'll�ll���91
II
�II�IIIIlIIIlI�Ilslslll9l
IIIIIIIIII�IIIIII�IIIIII�11

���
11
�1��lIIIIIIUIlAI�IIAAIII
u
��lI�II�I��111�11����1l91
II
e����IIII11N1���111
SI�I
Inl
I��a�llslllsl�llAI�SII
II
�I�AIIIIIIIII�I�11111�A111
II
II.
�II���II�III�AA�SA�I�111
11,
A�I�IIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�II
�I�II
III�III�IIII��IIII
II
��IIIIIIII�MAA�Al�A91
II
Iw��I��A��l
I��lII���II
II
SIS��IIY��I�I�I�1lI�S�I
Sll�lllsulsllllll��
S!
lAA��II�
i
IAIIAIA�E�
I
Il�slls�l
�I�IA�Ie
II
iiiiAi�ii�����III�lAA01
I
11
AIAuIl�SMI��SI�IIAI01
I�Iw�1��A�11
�II�III����11�
������111
������'�������A�����A���O�
II�II�IIIIII�I�IAIA�II�I�
IIIII��I�����AAA���I���I
II�IIIIIN���������I��I�II
SI�II�I
111��91
III�II�III�A
IIIAA��III�II�I����A�AA��@I
IIRIIS�IIIAA�II���III��EA01
IIII������II�I�I�I�NI

��
�1
�I��Allsl�slllAl11111A1�1
IIS�III�IA�IIII�I�I�AI�I
I�
�AA�III�IIII���A��1�1�91
II
�II�I�IIIIIIII�I�II��101
II
EIS
1
IIA�INI�II��II�AaI
II
IIIIII��II�IIIII�III��III
II
IAI�SII�ISIII�A�sl�ll�l�l
11
II��SII�IeSIIIII��IIA�I�
�A��lII�II�1�1111111���
II
III��IIeISII1sIIlAAI�Il01
II
IAll�l��lllll�l�ll�lw�lll
IINIA��IISI�IIAA����II��A91
��IAIN�IIIII�111lII��III��I
IIISII�IIIIISI����IIlIl191
III�I��III��IIN�IIII�III�II
IIISIs�A1��II�1�e��IIIlAs91
IIIIII��IISI��Ml��SlII���II
wl�lA����A1�IIS�A��A���SBI
�IAII�IRIIeIIIIAA���111A91
II�I����I���IIIII�II��I�II

�mwn
iei�wi
o
mnn�x
�in�n
9
lIIIIIIIII
�
nm�lll
1111
�I
NNlelll
a
nnnnn
�
umnn
nnen
�n�n
��6�
IIIIlII
9
iiiiiiiii
�II��IIII
9
IIIIIIIIII
���I��III
IlIIlIII
IIINIII
9
III�111
I
lAl��lll
�
�lIIIII
II�nIII�
�
����IIIII
�1�;1�1
I�IIIII�I
IIIIIS
I
I���IIII
IIIIIII�I
IIIIII
Illalll
v v
\'V

iiii
��i
II■
II
II
■II
I
Irlllll
11lII
!IYI
111111�
911A
11111���
I�ilr
IIIIIIIRI
IIp
��II�I
IIIII
IIY
IIIIII
lII��
�IIIII
Illrll
Ai
i
imn
mmi
riA,
����II
�0����
IlIIIII�
��I��
u��ll
1pll'
IIIIII
IIII�I
'���I�
IIIIII
a
��'OI
's��l
S
a
e
i
mpi
nmi
ii��
mm�
Hl�tl�l
III�I
IIII!!19
11111�11
9
�
I
III�III
IIYI!!
i
������
���
�
���e�l
III�IIII
'
���
IIIII�
p
III
III
I I
IIMIII
IIIII

9111NIIII
IIl111lI
I�IIIII
IIIA�I
I��I�A��
IIIII�lI
9
�N�INII
9�lu�u!
IIIA�A��
�IIIIII
��0�0��
9p
�IIII
IM��I��
IISlIIlI
9
II�I�I
IIIIII
II�IIA�I
I��1lIlI111�1�1
9
9
INI
II�I�
��II��
9���1
Il�IA��!
9
9
Igllll
9
���AAl�
II�I�I
MIIII
II�I�II
�I�I
oIN
amens
i��A��'
a
nn
IIRIIIII
9
9RIAA�
911�1�1
AIM
9������
I�lI��I
II�I�I
■I�
IDI�INI
II�I�I�
�I
m

Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Collectlon
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
if avallable
5 Dec 2011
28 Nov 2011
Wrack line observation
Photo 1-3
6 May 2013
5 May 2013
Wrack line observation
Photo 4-6
28 October 2014
14 October 2014 Wrack line observation
Photo 7
14 October 2015
3 October 2015 Wrack line observation
Photo 8
Photo 1 bankfull event on SHC, sta. 6+00, Nov 2011
Simple crest gage verification of
Photo 4 bankfitll event on SHC, sta. 6+00, May 2013
Page 16 of 31
13

a
3 °'ma��•'c�v„v333^°'R
>>
aim
n3'mo
to
3nm
R.
„a'caDY^d�No3°
5mddm°�c'cya
o4
y
am
`a:an�=i'o
dn010-
>>
N
3
�m
a
s!s°�n
l
2ro
Tx11
mdmx�A
�' °'m3mD=�m4'o
u
su
p
w
�a
F�"YRB
rpRmm
r',Ap3
�3
�p
Fug
�
p
Q
ap22on�
T
�
m
�
MNii-i
-1 l�
11
-i -1WW
titi-i-171
m9
c Qcc!
ro
m
m
T T
T ro
T T==
R R
T T
ro C
R
ro C
R
a m
ro ro
C d
R
C C
RR
ro ro
N
»
yp
4
N
1
C?
A
A
AY
wwNW
w NIn
lw+
JmmN
N
J
.
-.
W
i�
V Y
W
N
NAA
AN
w W
Nlnw
NNw
JIvNN
—.
NNJNY
Y
Nw
Ypp
LW I
w
rr
N
Mu
O
w
A
AlV
l
w
w
N
Y l°
W C l
N V
M O
N
V
N w
W
wN
w
N AA
Ul A
D
InOw
Ul p
Y W
W I!1
w
InNw
V1 W
IAN�NJ
Y l0
W O1
w
N w
Nwp
V! N
Y p
NNJNw
N
N
N M
wN
Y N
W N
W N
W
Y W
M
IWII
i
��
Q
A
D
!+N
W
AAw
NM
W
wOMUIN
V
NwO
M
JN
MN
W N
N
7
V
p
NN
EE:
V l A
A w
Y
N W
A A
Y
Ill W
w Fw+
W Q 1
N 1-
-0
N
N J
I U
w N
W N
NW
79
O
•..
Y
w
Y
Y
w
10
v
Ifl
D
ml lDN
N
W O
Y
Jmf
W V
N
Y
N
N
N MYmfA
N
N
v
W
w
ul
InA
A
Oo IPN
V
W
W Q
Lw+
V °1
W
N9]
wtllDN
N
O
W
W
W
A
lD
N V
V l
00 O
Y
J °1
W
N
w w
N
N pC
N
N Y
Y °1
A N
A N
N
O
1n
A
low
ul
V (,�
A V
wA
ooN
wwwplAN
p Y
G
M
N
JDA
OO IDw
J11l
JI+N
NJpI
DJ
NM
A
NNOO
W
W W
wmYAN
N
N
N
N
V A
w V
N
w
V M
V
N
1p °1
N
DN
Nw
A
N
N
N
wOI16N

�
7
!
§
■
§
)
2
/
/
E
{{
§
2
!
§
d
§
§
2
¥
§
k(
in
7
Q
£
2
!
§
�k
in
¢�
§
a
!
»
u
;

DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
DMS recommends that the Upper South Hominy Site be closed out as proposed to generate
3481.4 Stream Mitigation Units and 0.590 Wetland Mitigation Units. Site reaches are
conforming to design criteria established in the 2010 Restoration Plan. Site streams are stable
and the majority of stream measurements are within the range of design values. The vegetation
survey results indicated an average site density of 522 planted stems per acre (excluding
livestakes) surviving in year five. All ten vegetation plots exceeded success criteria for planted
stem density during the MY5 survey. Invasive species of concern were treated during project
construction (2011) and via follow-up treatments in the early spring of 2012, 2013, 2014, and
2015. In addition, 4 bankfull events were documented throughout the course of the monitoring
period with at one event occurring in four separate monitoring years.
Contingencies
None.

Upper South Hominy Pre and Post Construction Photographs
Bianculli Property, South HoMia Creek - (Restoration)
Photo Station 1
Mid channel bar, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, pre -construction. Cross vane, sta. 0+50, facing downstream, 14 August
2011.
30 September2008.
Channel blockage, sta.2+50,
30 September2008.
REPAIR
downstream, pre -construction,
AIR
Upper South 1-tanitty mitigation Site 20
DMS Project 92632
MY'; Rclrort - Final - January 2017

Photo Station 3
Right bank erosion, sta. 5+50, pre -construction, 30 September 2008. 1-hook, sta. 5+00, facing downstream, 5 December 201 I.
REPAIR
Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UT - ('Preservation)
Photo Station 5
UTI facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 28 July 2009.
2016.
Uppar Soath Hominy Mitigation Site21
DMS Projcel 92632
MY5 Report -- Final - January 2017
LIT facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 24 April

Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UT — (Restoration)
Photo Station 6
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 8
UT2 routed from original channel to a road ditch, pre -construction, UT2 re -connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned
sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 5 December 2011.
sta. 0+00 to 0+50, 15 September 2016.
Upper South Hootuty Mitigation Site 22
DMS Pmject 92632
M S'S Rcporl Final-- January 2017

Roberson Property, Tributary South Abandoned Channel. UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 9
Abandoned UT2 channel east of Canterfield Lane, 26 April 2010.
September 2011.
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 5
Bura Property Left Bank Roberson Property Right Bank South Hominy Creek_ - (Restoration)
Photo Station 11
Livestock access right bank, sta. 1+00 to 1+50, facing downstream.
22 January 2009.
I
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Snc 23
DMS Project 9202
M.Y5 Report - Final - January 201'/

Mid channel aggradation, sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream.
Log vane at sta. 1+50 to 2+50, facing downstream,
5 December 2011.
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Rieht Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement 11)
Photo Station 13
Typical features along channel in enhancement 11 reach,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
UInxr South 1{rnnuty N iti6mtion site 24
❑MS Project 92632
Nits Rc7xM - Fine - January 2017
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5+00,
downstream, 22 September 2011.

Photo Station 15
Bed aggradation and transverse bar, sta. 9+50 to 10+00,
September 2011.
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Photo Station 17
Driveway bridge at lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
15 Sept 2016 POST REPAIR
tipper South Hominy Mitigation Site 25
1AIS Project 92632
NIY5 Report - Huai - January 2017
Bank sloping and J-hook, sta. 9+25 to 10+00, 22
J-hook sta. 12+75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
22 September 2011.

Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement I)
Photo Station 19
In -stream structures proposed to enhance habitat features, sta. 2+00
Photo Station 20
Log vane, root wads, and bank s
downstream, 7 December 2011,
downstream, 15 Sept 2016.
Lower end of Enhancement I, sta. 3+50 to 4+50, facing downstream. Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 4+50, facing
25 July 2008. upstream, 19 October 2011.
upstream 1 ] September 2016.
Upper South Homitty Mitiption Site 26
DMS Project 9163^-
nTY5 Report - Final - January 2017

Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 Lower— (Restoration)
Photo Station 25
UM below ford, severe entrenchment and head cutting, 25
July 2008.
downstream, sta. 0+00, 15 September 2016.
Uplxr South Hominy Mitigation Site 27
DMS Proja t 92632
MY5 Report - Final - January 2017
U73 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0+00, 15 November 2011.

Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
ublic Miti ation%20Services Document%20Mana ement%20Libra Pro ertPro a %20Portfolio 92632 UpperSou
thHominyCreek PD 2010.pdf
Project Name
County
Grantor Name
Recordation Info
Property Rights
Upper South HominyBuncombe
Susanne Johanna Loar(now Joseph Bianculli
wife, Molly)
DB 4692, P 917 (2
CE's)
Conservation
Conservation
Creek
IUDver South Hon in
Buncombe
Lorri Anne Bura and husband, Richard
IShienoff
DB 4684, P1642
Conservation
Easement
Creek
LIDDer South Homin
Buncombe
James H. Roberson
DB 4671, P 1970
Conservation
Easement A
Creek
FUpper South Hominy
Buncombe
_ _Elizabeth
ulia A. Davis sold to (Brian K. England &
E. England)
DB 4657, P 316
Conservation ?
Easement
Creek _
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.

APPENDIX B: Permits and Jurisdictional Determination
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2011-00076 County: Buncombe USGS Quad: Aquadale
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Owner/Applicant: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Attn: Shannon L. Deaton
Address: 1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Telephone No.: [phone]
Authorized Agent: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Attn: Mr. Scott Loftis
Address: 20830 Great Smoky Mountain Expressway
Waynesville NC 28786 Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and location of property (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.): The project (Upper South Hominy Stream
MItigation Site) is located west of Pisgah Highway (NC 151), approximately 5.5 miles southwest of Candler, in
Buncombe County, North Carolina.
Site Coordinates: 35.4807 °N-82.7482 °W Waterway: South Hominy Creek River Basin: French Broad
Description of project area and activity: This permit authorizes stream channel excavation and relocation, the
placement of fill material, and the installation of in -stream structures (including cotr fiber rolls, log and rock
vanes, root wads, brush mattresses, vegetated geolifts, etc.) associated with a stream restoration project. Impacts
to waters of the U.S. authorized by this permit total 4,718 linear feet of stream channel and 0.002 acre of wetlands.
Applicable Law: ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Nationwide or Regional General Permit Number(s): 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached conditions
and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee
to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification is valid until the NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked. All of the existing NWPs are scheduled to be modified,
reissued, or revoked prior to March 18, 2012. 1t is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to the NWPs. We will issue a
public notice when the NWPs are reissued. Furthermore, if you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the
date that the relevant nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve (12) months from the date of the modification or
revocation of the NWP to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permince of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits. If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the
Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Todd Tugwell at telephone [phone].
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: April 5, 2011 Expiration Date of Nationwide Permit Verification: March 18, 2012
Page 1 of 3

Summary of Authorized Impacts and Reouired MitiLyation
NWP / GP #nOpenater
ac
Wetland ac
Unim ortant Steam 1
Im ortant Stream 1Permanent
Tem ora
Permanent
Tem ora
Permanent
Tem ora
Permanent
27
0
0
0.002
0
0
4718
0
Im act Totals
0
0
0.002
0
0
4,718
0
Total Loss of Waters of the
U.S. ac 0.002
Total Loss of Waters of the U.S. I 0
Required Wetland Mitigation ac 0
Required Stream Miti anon 1 0
Additional Remarks and/or Special Permit Conditions:
The following special conditions apply:
1. This Nationwide Permit verification does not imply approval of the suitability of this property for compensatory
wetland mitigation for any particular project. The use of any portion of this site as compensatory mitigation for a
particular project will be determined during our public interest review and 404 (b) (1) Guidelines analysis during
the permit review process for that project.
2. In -stream work on South Hominy Creek must be avoided from October 15 to April 15 when trout should be
spawning. Work on tributaries should be avoided during the time as well, though may be acceptable (preferably
early in the moratorium period) provided it is accomplished in the dry.
3. In -water excavation shall be conducted in dry work areas whenever practical by using sandbags or other
temporary diversion structures.
Copy Furnished: NCEEP - Mr. Guy Pearce (electronic copy)
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at
htt ://re gulato .usacesurve .com/ to complete the survey online.
Page 2 of 3

Determination of Jurisdiction
® Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described
project area. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a
change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five
years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date
of this notification.
❑ The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please
reference the jurisdictional determination issued on (Action ID: ).
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: South Hominy Creek is a tributary to the French Broad River, which is
tributary to a navigable waterway and the Atlantic Ocean.
Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations.):
Attached to this verification is an approved jurisdictional determination. If you are not in agreement with that approved
jurisdictional determination, you can make an administrative appeal under 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Todd Tugwell, Special Projects Manager
Regulatory Division Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the
NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
Date: April 5, 2011 Expiration Date of Jurisdictional Determination: April 5, 2016
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Page 3 of 3

WILMINGTON DISTRICT
POST -CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE FORM
Action ID Number: SAW-2011-00076
County: Buncombe
Permittee: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Attn: Shannon L. Deaton
Date Permit Issued: April 5, 2011
Project Manager: Todd Tugwell
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the address of the Regulatory Field Office indicated below:
® Asheville Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
❑ Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
❑ Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
❑ Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with this permit you are subject to permit suspension,
modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

Tsomides, Harry
From:
Loftis, C. Scott
Sent:
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:24 AM
To:
Kulz, Eric: Xu, Lin; Tsomides, Harry; Ferguson, Jeff C; Barnett, Kevin
Cc:
Deaton, Shannon L.; Mcmillan, Ian; Dennison, Laurie; Strickland, Bev
Subject:
RE: Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site - Buncombe Co. (#11-0118)
Eric,
Thank you for your comments. The WRC looks forward to implementing the on -the -ground phase of the project.
Scott Loftis
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Watershed Enhancement Coordinator
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Exp.
Waynesville, NC 28786
828-452-6191 ext. 26
828-506-8950 (mobile)
Get NC Wildlife Update — news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your inbox from the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission.
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:49 AM
To: Xu, Lin
Cc: Loftis, C. Scott; Deaton, Shannon L.; Mcmillan, Ian; Dennison, Laurie; Strickland, Bev
Subject: Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site - Buncombe Co. (#11-0118)
Lin:
DWQ has reviewed the PCN and Restoration plan for the above -referenced project. The site appears to be a good
candidate for a mitigation site, and we are pleased to see the increased use of enhancement techniques over more
intensive restoration where appropriate.
The plan was well -prepared and very detailed and seemed to carefully consider site conditions and data collected to
select a mitigation approach for each reach.
The project is deemed issued.
Please note that approval of the restoration plan and issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification means that DWQ
has determined that the proposed activity will not remove or degrade significant existing uses of the surface water (15A
NCAC 2H .0506(a)). The issuance does not represent an approval of credit yield for the project.
Please give me a call if you have any questions regarding this project.
Eric

0
V
aztn
W
an
d
Z
r3ii
Om
O m.
R
7
7
O
O
01
7
7
O
S
7
i
m
m
d
c>
o
EL
C'r
Io
V
W
um
U-
O
pr 7
W
A
N
d
N
to
a
F
N
o
o
O
N
V N
N N
N I
N
N�
m
CA
o
d d
o 0
0 0
O
N O
N N
V _N
r -+
0,
Ow
1-
0
O
W 2
O_ O
W 6
d 0
�
W
O�
U3O
V V
W �
AOOA
TN
[00
D7O
W (OTi
A V
l7
z
o
3 0
�o�
ccg(n�3
0
c�
o, rn C)
WO.,
p
0 (A
m m
m
�o O
m O
y N O
O
w
n
➢
o
m
f
a
u,
w
O
Z
N
N
oW
O
3 n
O
n
j N
3
N
N
�
O
C
Z
O
m
O
�
O
O
+
N
N
O
O
pwi
A
O
(Oration
O
On
A
O
b
J
14Va
+ n
O
m
A
w
Owp
O
O
Do
O
O
V
V
V (p
O V
V W
N O
N
�
mNm
0
W
O {�pealll
rpp oa.,
0
N
W t
W
N
o
A
yj�a
m rvalron
0
0
o
0
o
O
e
0
0
O O
J lJJ
0 0
IPdfiall
w
b
A
A O
O N
N
{Ajl
loralion
�Npp
O
ipanan
reation
O
u
r
o
N
o
_
spar i
Ap r-n—I
Oo
O
O
W
N
N
m
N
p
A
N
A
O
T
(J
N
O
kparian
rvailon
No -riparian
Reatorailon
Nonriparian
Creation
Nonriparian
Enhancement
Nonriparian
Preservation
A

Appendix D. Additional Data
Uppu Suuth lfuaany hlitip,:tOW Stec 31
DNIS P,vicct 92632
Iv[Y5R�pe on—Fmd—Jmmury?Ul

o
Lsx 0
m Lsx
A X \
O _
r
N `
m �\
I
o�
m \ \
m
O
g am sm 3W=
i � \
m
jil m
� � r
z
z
r
ova
SOUTH HOMINY CREEK MITIGATION
Nom CraW.Wwom%P— a.. c.m'a..l..
a
EmymmE*wnwm Aogr.m
zna c.alwl anv., saw 1R �oS
Rom. Nc neoi
EEP PROJECT NO. 92632 BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC
EMERGENCY REPAIR PLAN
Vhd—b.d &h.w.-ka—p
2088o Gwm S—y mou EWnemvey
w.ym"I8, None cram, saiae
Ph
awra
.� ' Fu: o7G.7157218
PROPOSED
PROPOSED EMERGENCY REPAIRS
z.e+ei Ph— e2a..sEa 2a
6191
ROBERSONBURRA SECTION ISTA li-M-,2-00)
E.x: 828452.
wxx.mri.Fk,dB

v
nm
�
z�
o�
oti
rn
0
z
`m
-
1
O
0
fn
.