20110118 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414 (2)

Monitoring Year 3 Report
FINAL
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site,
South Hominy Creek, French Broad River Basin,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
EEP Project Number: 92632
Contract Number: D06082; Task Order: 08 F1305 -lb -d
Data Collected: October 2014 - November 2014
Submitted: February 2015
Prepared by
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
fenl
1.111 kll Villcllt
PROWL"

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary ................................................................................... ............................... 1
2 Project Background Information ................................................................ ............................... 4
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................... ...............................
4
2.2 Locations and Setting ....................................................................... ...............................
4
2.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach ........................ ...............................
5
2.4 Project History and Background ...................................................... ...............................
6
3 Methods and Success Criteria .................................................................... ...............................
6
3.1 Monitoring Plan View ...................................................................... ...............................
7
3.2 Stream Monitoring ........................................................................... ...............................
8
3.3 Vegetation Monitoring ..................................................................... ...............................
8
3.4 Schedule and Reporting ................................................................... ...............................
8
4 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results ............................................... ...............................
8
4.1 Stream Assessment .......................................................................... ...............................
8
4.1.1 Morphometric Criteria ............................................................... ...............................
8
4.1.2 Quantitative Measures Summary ............................................... ...............................
9
4.1.2.1 Mainstem 1 — Bianculli Reach — 797 feet ...................... ...............................
9
4.1.2.2 Mainstem 2 - Bura /Roberson Reach — 1,286 ft ............ ...............................
12
4.1.2.3 Mainstem 3 - Davis Reach — 737 ft .............................. ...............................
14
4.1.2.4 Unnamed Tributary 1 — Bianculli Reach — 277 ft ........ ...............................
16
4.1.2.5 Unnamed Tributary 2 — Bianculli and Roberson Reaches — 890 ft ............
16
4.1.2.6 Unnamed Tributary 3 — Davis Reach — 1,742 ft .......... ...............................
17
4.1.3 Fixed Station Channel and Riparian Area Photographs .......... ...............................
20
4.1.4 Bankfull Event Documentation and Verification .................... ...............................
20
4.1.5 Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ........................... ...............................
21
4.1.6 Stream Problem Areas ............................................................. ...............................
24
4.1.7 Stream Problem Area Photographs .......................................... ...............................
25
4.1.8 Summary of Morphological Results ........................................ ...............................
25
4.2 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation ....................................... ...............................
26
4.2.1 Wetland Areas Fixed Station Photographs .............................. ...............................
27
4.3 Vegetation Assessment .................................................................. ...............................
28
4.3.1 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs ................................. ...............................
31
4.3.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary ............................ ...............................
31
4.3.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View ...................................... ...............................
31
4.3.4 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs .................................. ...............................
31
4.3.5 Summary of Vegetation Assessment Results .......................... ...............................
31
5 Farm Management Plan ........................................................................... ...............................
32
6 Post Construction Project Activities ........................................................ ...............................
33
7 Acknowledgements .................................................................................... .............................33
8 References .................................................................................................. .............................34
9 Appendices .................................................................. .............................35
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site i
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Executive Summary
This North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) project preserved, restored,
and enhanced approximately 5,951 ft of perennial stream channel on the mainstem of South
Hominy Creek (2,820 ft) and on three unnamed tributaries (3,131 ft) that feed into South
Hominy Creek within the project area. Additionally, 1.35 acres of wetland habitat was preserved
or enhanced within the project area. The NCEEP contracted with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) under task order 08FB05 -lb -d to prepare a mitigation plan,
acquire permits, manage informal contracts, oversee construction, and monitor post - construction
channel performance and riparian vegetation. The Upper South Hominy mitigation site aims to
provide approximately 3,498 stream mitigation units and 0.61 wetland mitigation units to the
NCEEP.
The project site is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina, approximately 5.5 miles
southwest of Candler, North Carolina. The Upper South Hominy (USH) mitigation site is
located on properties owned by Joe and Molly Bianculli, Lorri Bura, James Roberson, and Julia
Davis. Combined, a 16.44 acre conservation easement was established. The conservation
easements for the four properties were conveyed to the North Carolina State Properties Office
between March and June of 2009. The USH mitigation site is located within the French Broad
River basin cataloguing unit 06010105 and within the targeted local watershed hydrological unit
06010105060020.
In 2005, the NCEEP developed a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) for the South Hominy Creek
(SHC) watershed. The objectives of the plan were to develop a set of management strategies to
restore and protect the functional integrity of the watershed, to identify and prioritize stream and
wetland project opportunities, and to address functional deficits. Specific project sites were
identified and prioritized based on a number of factors including the potential for functional
improvement, site constraints, potential stream mitigation units, location within the watershed,
and the number of landowners per site. The USH mitigation project is located within the SHC
Local Watershed Plan area. Coupled with the extensive farm and livestock Best Management
Practices, the project will help to address stream and wetland function by up- lifting aquatic
habitat, water quality, and riparian habitat identified in the LWP study.
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 historically accessed by livestock,
resulting in disturbances to the channel banks and wetland areas. 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. As such, areas with stable channel conditions and desirable
riparian vegetation were placed into preservation. Other reaches were treated with restoration
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

and enhancement level I and level II site work to improve stream functions and terrestrial
habitats that were compromised under the existing site conditions.
Restoration site work on SHC 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. All SHC restoration site work was
performed using the Priority III approach. The remaining reaches of SHC were treated with
enhancement level I and level II site work.
Tributary channels and associated riparian buffers were treated with the appropriate level of
site work to restore ecologic functions. These tributary reaches were treated with the appropriate
amount of site work to preserve, restore, and enhance channel reaches and associated riparian
buffers. The upper reaches of the Bianculli tributary north (UT1) and the Davis unnamed
tributary (UT3) were preserved. Restoration level site work on the lower portions of the
Bianculli UT and the Davis UT3 were conducted using a Priority I strategy. Priority I
Restoration strategies were applied to the lower portion of the Bianculli tributary south (UT2)
and the Roberson abandoned channel (UT2) to reconnect that portion of the channel to the
historic floodplain that was abandoned during former roadside ditch construction. The
remaining reaches of the tributary channels, including Bianculli UT2 and the middle portion of
Davis UT3, were treated with enhancement level II strategies.
Site work targeted reconnecting the SHC channel and tributary channels with historic
floodplains and creating floodplain benches at the desirable elevations to attenuate high flow
events. Periodic out of bank flows along with spring seep hydrology should promote and sustain
hydric soil characteristics and wetland vegetation types in those areas supporting jurisdictional
wetlands. Areas currently supporting jurisdictional wetlands were enhanced by excluding
livestock, removing invasive exotic vegetation, planting wetland vegetation and creating
ephemeral pools.
The MY3 survey was completed in the fall of 2014. Dimension, pattern, and profile
parameters surveyed in MY3 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 bankfall width at one riffle cross - section (XS 10). Bankfull width
at this cross - section has been below the design value in all four 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 significant pool aggradation.
However, these areas appear to have stabilized, as no significant change was captured in the
MY3 survey. 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.
Channel profile values derived from the MY3 survey reveal slight changes in channel slope
compared with MYO -MY2 channel slope values. The mainstem 1 reach channel slope increased
from 0.012 ft /ft to 0.013 ft /ft. The mainstem 2 reach slope decreased from 0.009 ft/ft to 0.008
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 2
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

ft /ft, the same channel slope value as MYO -MY I. The mainstem 3 reach remained 0.006 ft/ft
during MY03.
The MY3 morphological results for the three unnamed tributaries revealed that construction
activities followed the approaches outlined the in the mitigation plan. Although small variations
from design values were noted in dimensional parameters such as bankfull width (UT3 Upper -
XS 1 riffle) and bankfull cross - sectional area (UT3 Lower -XS2 riffle), the three unnamed
tributaries are stable and performing as designed. Moreover, the significant storm events on 28
November 2011 and 5 May 2013 have had no observed negative effects on any of the three
unnamed tributaries.
Storm events on 28 November 2011 and 5 May 2013 resulted in several problem areas
during MY1 -MY2. Field reviews and surveys conducted between October and November of
2014 noted seven problem areas observed in MY3. Mainstem 1 reach problem areas include
cross -vane structure instability (sta. 1 +50), continued erosion of the right bank (sta. 1 +45 to
2 +75), aggradation and bar formation below structures (sta. 2 +25 to 2 +50 and 4 +00 to 4 +50),
and right bank erosion (sta. 6 +25 to 6 +50). The problem areas observed on Mainstem 2,
resulting from the storm events, include aggradation and bar formation below an engineered
structure (sta. 9 +20 to 9 +50). Aggradation, erosion, and reduced structure integrity previously
noted in the lower portion of Mainstem 2 was repaired in the Summer of 2014. No problem
areas were observed on Mainstem 3 during MY3. The step -pool structures on UT -3 Upper Davis
Reach (sta. 0 +00 to 2 +00) aggraded during MY3, likely due to low flow velocity and a dense
herbaceous layer.
The MY3 visual assessment survey found the majority of the 2,820 ft of mainstem channel
banks (94 %), channel bed (96 %), and engineered stream structures (93 %) were performing
adequately. Metrics that scored low resulted from bed scour or aggradation, sections of bank
erosion, and compromised integrity of one engineered stream structure.
A total of 148 planted stems were counted during the MY3 survey. The average density of
the planted woody stems in the ten vegetation plots combined was 599 stems per acre. All ten
vegetation plots exceeded the success criteria for planted stem density during the MY3 survey.
All vegetation plots except VP 1 and VP9 were noted as having volunteer native woody species
during MY3. The volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten vegetation
monitoring plots to 252 (1020 stems per acre).
Although non - native invasive vegetation remains present at the mitigation site, it is less
prevalent when compared to pre - construction conditions. Extensive non - native vegetation
treatments were effective during the construction phase of the project, and maintenance
treatments each spring (2012, 2013, 2014) continue to suppress undesirable vegetation. Eight
dense areas of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and one dense area of bamboo
(Bambusa sp.) were observed in MY3.
Overall, the USH mitigation site includes 1,093 ft of stream preservation, 1,994 ft of stream
restoration, 522 ft of stream enhancement level I, 2,342 ft of stream enhancement level II, 1.11
acres of wetland enhancement, and 0.24 acres of wetland preservation. A total of 16.44 acres of
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 3
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

stream channel, riparian buffer, and jurisdictional wetlands are protected by a perpetual
conservation easement managed by the NCEEP. It is anticipated that this site should yield 3,498
stream mitigation units and 0.61 wetland mitigation units.
2 Project Background Information
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the USH mitigation project include:
1. Improve water quality in SHC and unnamed tributaries (UTI, UT2, and UT3);
2. Stabilize on -site streams so they transport watershed flows and sediment loads in
equilibrium;
3. Promote floodwater attenuation and all secondary functions associated with more
frequent and extensive floodwater contact times;
4. Improve in- stream habitat by improving the diversity of bed form features;
5. Protect riparian communities, habitats, and wetlands and enhance floodplain
community structure; and
6. Enable improved livestock practices which will result in reduced fecal, nutrient, and
sediment loads in surface waters.
The objectives of the USH mitigation project include:
1. Preservation of 1,093 linear feet of un- impacted stream channel and forested riparian
area by placing them in a conservation easement for perpetuity;
2. Restoration of the pattern, profile, and dimension of 1,148 linear feet of the mainstem
of SHC;
3. Restoration of channel dimension, pattern, and profile of 846 linear feet of unnamed
tributaries to SHC on the Bianculli, Bura/Roberson, and Davis properties;
4. Restoration of dimension and profile (enhancement level I) of the channel on 522
linear feet of SHC along the Davis property;
5. Limited channel work combined with livestock exclusion and invasive species control
(enhancement level II) on 2,342 linear feet along SHC and unnamed tributaries;
6. Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary;
7. Preservation or enhancement of approximately 1.35 acres of wetlands across the
project site; and
8. Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations on the
Bianculli, Roberson, and Davis properties.
2.2 Locations and Setting
The USH mitigation site is located in southwest Buncombe County, North Carolina,
approximately 5.5 miles southwest of the town of Candler, North Carolina (Figure A.1). To
access the site from Asheville, North Carolina, take I -40 west to the Enka Candler exit (Exit 44).
At the light, turn right, onto Smokey Park Highway/US- 19S/US -23S and proceed 3.0 miles.
Turn left on Pisgah Highway/NC-151S and proceed for 6.0 miles. Turn right on SRI 103/S
Hominy Road. Proceed 0.2 miles on SRI 103 /S Hominy Road then turn right on Connie Davis
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 4
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Road. Connie Davis Road is a private unpaved driveway that accesses the Bura and Davis
properties and the lower end of the project site. A narrow driveway bridge crosses SHC
approximately 0.3 miles from the start of Connie Davis Road. A large fescue pasture to the right
of the driveway and bridge, used for parking, is located at a latitude /longitude of 035° 28' 51.10"
North and 082° 44'52.45" West. Access to the upper portion of the reach will be from the
second drive to the right past Connie Davis Lane. Turn right off of SR 1103 /S Hominy Road on
to Canter Field Lane, a private drive, 0.25 mile after passing Connie Davis Road. A fescue
pasture located to the left of the private driveway and before the one lane bridge will be used for
parking. The pasture is located at a latitude /longitude of 035° 28'39.35" North and 082° 45'
01.06" West.
The USH mitigation site is located in the upper portion of the SHC watershed (Figure A.2).
Most of the first and second order headwater tributaries originate below ridgelines and peaks that
range in height from 3,000 to over 4,000 ft in elevation. The southern portion of the watershed
drains from the highest peak, Mount Pisgah, at a height of 5,721 ft. The drainage area for SHC
at the lower end of the project site is 7.1 mi2 (4,515 ac). The two tributaries on the Bianculli
property, named for the purpose of this project as tributary north (UT1) and tributary south
(UT2), each have drainage areas <0.1 mi2. The unnamed tributary on the Davis property (UT3)
has a drainage area of 0.1 mi2 (66.7 ac).
The USH mitigation site is located in the Hominy Creek watershed of the French Broad
River basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit hydrologic unit code 06010105
and 14 -digit hydrologic unit code 06010105060020. The Hominy Creek watershed is within the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 04- 03 -02. South Hominy Creek
has been assigned the Stream Index Number 6 -76 -5 by the NCDWQ.
2.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
Overall, the project site consists of approximately 5,951 ft of stream channels, as measured
from the channel thalweg on the as -built drawings. A total of 16.44 acres of aquatic and riparian
habitats are held in a perpetual conservation easement. Channel morphology was modified by
implementing multiple restoration levels and construction approaches (Table A.1). Project assets
and components are summarized in Figure A.3. Channel restoration was accomplished on 1,148
ft of SHC along with 522 ft of enhancement level I and 1,150 ft enhancement level lI mitigation.
The Bianculli tributary north (UT1) was preserved (94 ft) in the upper portion; the lower 183 ft
was restored to provide stable channel banks and connectivity with forested floodplain. The
Bianculli tributary south (UT2), including the portion of the formerly abandoned channel on the
Roberson property, was mitigated using enhancement level II (654 ft) and restoration (236 ft)
actions. The unnamed tributary on the Davis property (UT3) was preserved on the upper most
777 ft, enhanced through the middle 538 ft, and restored on the lower 427 ft. The two small
spring fed channels on the Davis property (spring seep north 144 ft; spring seep south 78 ft) was
placed into preservation.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 5
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

2.4 Project History and Background
Land use in the USH watershed consists largely of forested areas, pastureland, hay fields, and
low- density residential development (NCWRC 2010). Although land use has resulted in the
creation of impermeable surfaces within the watershed, impervious areas are primarily from low -
density residential development and roads. Low - density residential development and open space
land use comprise approximately 3.0% of the watershed, and imperviousness in the watershed is
0.14% (Yang et al 2002; Homer et al 2004). Future residential development pressures can be
expected from the current trend of influx of people to Buncombe County and western North
Carolina in general; however, dramatic changes in land use in the SHC watershed are not
anticipated in the immediate future.
On -site land uses include livestock grazing, hay production, forested areas, and low density
farm and residential developments. Grazing of livestock has occurred over many years and
access to the stream channels has not been prohibited. Narrow riparian areas and lack of
exclusionary fencing contributed to the degradation of on -site wetlands and channels banks.
The NCEEP acquired the project site from four landowners (Suzanne Loar, Patrick
Roberson, James Roberson, and Julia Davis). Following site acquisition, the Loar property was
sold to Joe and Molly Bianculli and the Patrick Roberson property sold to Lorri Bura. The
NCWRC performed the initial site assessment, designed the restoration plans, and provided
construction oversight (NCWRC 2010). Construction of the USH mitigation project took place
between 20 June and 30 November 2011. Stream and riparian impacts were addressed using
natural channel design techniques, eliminating livestock access to the riparian areas and stream
channels, and removing all foreign materials (old fencing, scrap metals, out buildings, etc.) from
within the project footprint. The as -built morphological surveys were completed in February
2012. Vegetation planting was conducted between December 2011 and February 2012; the
baseline vegetation survey was completed in February 2012. The Monitoring Year -1 (MY1)
survey was conducted during October and November 2012. A diversion channel was
constructed in October of 2012 to carry storm water runoff to SHC further upstream of the
Connie Davis Road bridge; whereas, prior to the project, storm runoff entered SHC adjacent to
the upstream right bank bridge abutment. The MY2 survey was completed in November 2013.
The MY3 survey was completed in October 2014. Project reporting history and contact
information are presented in Tables A.2 and A.3. Project attributes for SHC, UT1, UT2, and
UT3 are presented in Table A.4.
3 Methods and Success Criteria
MY3 conditions for the USH mitigation site were determined during October - November
2014. Established representative cross - sectional dimensions and longitudinal profile data were
collected using standard stream channel survey techniques (Harrelson et al. 1994; NCSRI 2003).
The geomorphology of the stream was classified using the Rosgen (1994, 1996) stream
classification system. Project site MY3 morphological data were analyzed using Carleson
survey software for AutoCAD and converted to Bentley Microstation Version 8.0. Plan view
drawings were prepared using ESRI ArcGIS software with overlays of site features on the most
current CGIA Orthoimagery. Stream data was processed and overlain on previous monitoring
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 6
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

data using Microsoft Excel with graphing of cross - sectional data and profile data printed from
Excel. Bed material composition and mobility was assessed by doing a reach -wide and riffle
cross - section pebble counts. Vegetation surveys and data reduction were completed following
established Carolina Vegetation Survey protocols (Lee et al. 2006). Additional project
monitoring components were performed following the guidance of the NCEEP procedural
Guidance and Content Requirements document ( NCEEP 2012). References to the left and right
channel banks in this document are oriented when viewing the channel in the downstream
direction.
Monitoring protocols and performance criteria follow what is outlined in the NCEEP site
specific mitigation plan for the USH mitigation site and the USACE Stream Mitigation
Guidelines ( USACE 2003). Site monitoring will consist of data collection, analysis, and
reporting on channel stability and survival of riparian vegetation and will be conducted on an
annual basis for a minimum of 5 years post construction.
3.1 Monitoring Plan View
Survey data and plan view sheets provide a means to compare current project site conditions
to the design specifications and the baseline condition following construction. Plan view sheets
not only provide a detailed representation of the current condition of the project sites channel
geomorphology, stability, and riparian vegetation but also illustrate the location of all fixed point
survey locations for the mitigation site (Figure D.1).
All 14 established cross - sections on SHC, UT2, and UT3 were resurveyed in MY3. Ten
established cross - sections were resurveyed on SHC, six riffles and four pools. Riffle (XS 1, XS3,
XS5, XS7, XS8, and XS 10) and pool (XS2, XS4, XS6, and XS9) cross - sections were resurveyed
to compare channel morphology and stability to the baseline condition. The single riffle cross -
section on the restored section of UT2, Roberson property, was resurveyed. Three cross - sections
(riffles: XS 1 and XS2; pool: XS3) were resurveyed on the restored portion of UT3, Davis
property.
Longitudinal profile surveys were conducted to evaluate thalweg movement and change in
channel slope. The longitudinal profiles of the entire mainstem of SHC and the restored portions
of UT2 and UT3 have been surveyed each year following construction (MYO -MY3). A
longitudinal profile survey was performed on the restored portion of UT following construction
(MYO). The longitudinal profiles of the enhancement level II (UT2) and preservation portions of
UT and UT3 have not been surveyed since pre - construction.
Vegetation monitoring plots were resurveyed at the 10 established locations along the
mainstem of SHC and the tributaries. Vegetation plots are identified on the plan view sheets and
will be used to determine survival of planted stems over the course of project monitoring.
Fixed photo stations were established at 26 locations on the stream channels and riparian
areas. Five photo stations were established in wetland areas across the project site. Fixed station
photographic points were established to provide visual comparison of channel banks, in- stream
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 7
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

structures, and riparian buffer condition over time. Fixed station locations are identified on the
plan view sheets.
In addition to all the established monitoring locations, plan view sheets illustrates site
topography, easement boundaries, and other attributes of the project to aid in the long -term
monitoring of the mitigation site (Figure D.1).
3.2 Stream Monitoring
Stream morphological surveys in MY3 included cross - sectional (dimension), pattern,
longitudinal profile, and bed material measurements. Bankfull flow events were monitored using
a simple crest gauge.
3.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Established vegetation monitoring plots within the planted conservation easement were
resurveyed in MY3 in accordance with established NCEEP /CVS protocols (Lee et al. 2006).
Vegetation plots were evaluated to ascertain the performance and density of planted woody
stems. The 10 vegetation plots were again photographed to provide a visual record of each plot
over time. Minimum success criteria, established by USACE (2003), for planted woody
vegetation must be 320 stems /acre in year -1, 280 stems /acre in year -3, and 260 stems /acre during
the year -5 monitoring period.
3.4 Schedule and Reporting
The MY3 document was prepared following NCEEP content requirements and procedural
guidelines ( NCEEP 2012). The report documents the mitigation sites pre- existing morphological
values, design values, and a quantitative summary of the post construction morphological and
vegetative project elements. The report also includes photographic documentation of the sites
past and present condition. Annual monitoring reports will build upon the data tables, graphs,
and photographs presented in this report.
Annual monitoring reports will provide a discussion of any significant deviations from the
as -built condition as well as the potential for the mitigation site to meet the success criteria for
channel stability and vegetation survival at the end of the 5 -year monitoring period. Monitoring
reports will be submitted annually to the NCEEP, preferably by March 1.
4 Project Conditions and Monitoring Results
4.1 Stream Assessment
4. 1.1 Morphometric Criteria
Channel cross - sectional dimensions, pattern, and longitudinal profile were surveyed in
October 2014 for MY3 to document morphological characteristics of the active channel (Figure
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 8
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

D.1). In addition, the locations of all constructed stream features (i.e., rock vanes, log vanes, J-
hook vanes, geolifts, wood toe, and root wads) were assessed for stability and structural integrity.
4.1.2 Quantitative Measures Summary
MY3 morphological data were obtained by resurveying established fixed survey locations on
the mainstem of SHC and the three unnamed tributaries. Morphological data from established
cross - sectional survey stations were compared with existing, reference, design, and previous
years monitoring data for riffle stream features (Tables B.1 and B.1.1). Mean morphologic and
hydraulic data presented in Tables B.1 are from riffle cross - sections 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 on the
mainstem of SHC. Mean values were not derived for the single riffle cross - sections surveyed on
UT2 and UT3 Upper and UT3 Lower (Table B.1.1). Morphological data presented in Table B.2
reflect post construction dimensions for each of the 14 individual cross - sections, including both
riffles and pools, established on the mainstem of SHC, UT2 and UT3. Channel cross - sectional
data plots were used to evaluate the channel condition and for the visual comparison of channel
stability over time (Figure B.1).
Statistical values of the pattern data for each mainstem reach (Mainstem 1 Bianculli Reach,
Mainstem 2 Bura /Roberson Reach, and Mainstem 3 Davis Reach) are presented in Table B.1.
Insufficient pattern geometry on UT2 and UT3 Upper resulted in a low sample size (N =1) of
pattern data parameters (Table B.1.1). Pattern geometry data was more robust for UT3 Lower,
and a range of values were calculated for each parameter (Table B.1.1).
Longitudinal profile data, including feature lengths, depths, slopes, and spacing, for the three
SHC mainstem reaches and the restored portions of UT2 and UT3 were evaluated. Statistical
values of each profile parameter are presented in Table B.1. Longitudinal profile data for UT2
and UT3 are presented in Table B.1.1. Longitudinal profile data plots were used to evaluate the
channel condition and for future comparison of morphological data over time (Figure B.2).
Channel bed material was surveyed by performing a reach -wide pebble count consisting of
10 pebble grabs from both riffle (6) and pool (4) features along the entire mainstem of SHC. The
reach -wide pebble count is used to assign a number to the stream type classification based on
median grain size (1350) encountered. Additionally, pebble counts were performed by collecting
100 pebbles from each of the 10 (6 riffles and 4 pools) mainstem cross - sections (Tables B.1 and
B.2). Pebble counts were not performed on UT I, UT2 or UT3 due to homogenous (silt) bed
material. Pebble count data plots are presented for visual comparison of bed material data over
the course of the monitoring surveys (Figure B.3).
4.1.2.1 Mainstem 1 — Bianculli Reach — 797 ft
The entire length of Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach of SHC within the conservation easement is
797 ft. The Bianculli reach was divided into two approach levels (restoration and enhancement
level II). The channel length of the restoration reach is 630 ft. The channel length of the
enhancement level II reach is 167 ft.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 9
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Dimension. - Channel dimensions data from three cross - sections (XS 1 riffle, XS2 pool, XS3
riffle) were collected in the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure
B.1). Channel dimensions of the two riffle cross - sections were compared with the range of
design values (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width ranged from 27.4 to 39.4 ft.
Bankf ill widths during MYO -MY3 have ranged from 26.9 to 32.7 ft. Bankfull width (29.2 ft) at
cross - section 1 in MY3 was within the range of design bankfull width. In previous monitoring
years, the bankfull width at cross - section 1 was slightly below the range of design, likely due to
the proximity of the Bianculli barn ( <15ft) to the top of the right bank of SHC, which
necessitated a reduced amount of bank shaping in this location during construction. The increase
from MY2 to MY3 can be attributed to bank adjustments from several heavy flow events.
Bankf ill width at cross - section 3 (MY3 =32.7 ft) has been within the range of design values each
monitoring year post - construction. Dimensions of each individual cross - section are presented in
Table B.2.
Design values for riffle cross - sectional area ranged from 43.8 to 75.5 ft2. Bankfull cross -
sectional area ranged from 54.8 to 62.9 ft' for the as -built channel and 42.3 to 71.4 ft2 in MY1-
MY3 (Table B.1). Riffle cross - section 1 (59.8 ft2) approximated the mean design value (61.3
ft2); whereas, riffle cross - section 3 (71.4 ft2) exceeded the maximum design value for cross -
sectional area during MY3. Increase in cross - sectional area in MY3 could be attributed to high
flow events moving sediment and scouring the stream bed and displacing much of the gravel bar
deposited in a May 2013 flood event. The reduction of substrate in this cross - section can be seen
in the 2014 cross - section 1 photo (Figure B.1).
Mean depth at bankfull for both riffle cross - sections ranged from 1.6 to 2.3 ft during MYO-
MY3 (Table B.1). Cross - section 1 mean depth (2.0 ft) remained within the design value range
for mean depth. This was a slight increase from MY2 (1.6 ft) because the gravel bar deposited
during a heavy flow event in May 2013 was washed out during heavy flow events of 2014.
Mean depth at riffle cross - section 3 (2.2 ft) was similar to the previous monitoring years and
within the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2 ft) during MY3.
Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankfull maximum depths for the two riffle cross - sections ranged from 2.6 to 3.4 ft during
MYO -MY1. These values were within the design range for riffle maximums depths. In MY2,
the values ranged from 2.5 ft to 4.2 ft, slightly above design range values. This increase at cross -
section 3 was due to bed degradation along the left channel bank resulting from the 5 May 2013
flood event. Riffle cross - section 1 maximum depth (3.2 ft) was within the range for bankfull
maximum depth values in MY3. Riffle cross - section 3 maximum depth remained the same (4.2
ft) in MY3, indicating that the riffle bankfull maximum depth has stabilized.
The width/depth ratio design values ranged from 12.0 to 18.6 (Table B.1). Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the two Mainstem 1 reach riffle cross - sections ranged
from 13.2 to 14.4. In MY1, width/depth ratio values ranged from 13.6 to 14.2 ft. During MY2,
width/depth ratios ranged from 14.1 to 17.4. During MY3, the width /depth ratios ranged from
14.2 to 15.0. Width/depth ratio values have been within the range of design values during all
monitoring surveys.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 10
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

The post - construction entrenchment ratios, a measure of vertical containment, have been
similar to the existing range of 6.6 to 13.4. Entrenchment ratios taken from measurements at the
two riffle cross - sections have ranged from 8.1 to 12.2 during MYO -MY3 (Table B.1).
Pattern.- Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal change in
pattern geometry on the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach. Channel sinuosity (1.1) is low due to a
single meander bend in this reach located at station 2 +50 to 3 +50. The MY3 values for channel
belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength are similar to the values obtained from
the pre- existing site survey and are within the range of design values (Table B.1).
Profile. -The entire length (797 ft) of the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach longitudinal profile
was surveyed during MY3 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.013 ft /ft during MY3, a slight
increase in slope from MYO -MY1 (0.011 ft /ft) and MY2 (0.012 ft /ft). Feature lengths, slopes,
depths, and spacing were calculated following the monitoring survey (Table B.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 32.4 to 62.9 ft and were within the range of design
values (15.8 to 86.9 ft). Riffle length ranged from 48.2 to 108.2 ft in MY 1. The maximum riffle
length was exceeded in one measurement buy approximately 20 ft in MY1. Riffle length ranged
from 45.5 to 85.5 ft during MY2. Riffle length ranged from 12.7 to 41.5 in MY3. Minimum
riffle length was slightly below the range of design values for one measurement in MY1. Riffle
slopes ranged from 0.011 to 0.016 ft /ft in MYO, 0.010 to 0.020 ft /ft in MY1, and 0.006 to 0.018
ft /ft in MY2. A single riffle slope measurement (0.006 ft /ft) was slightly below the design range
of values (0.007 to 0.027 ft /ft) during MY2 survey. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.0002 to 0.027 in
MY3. A single riffle slope measurement (0.0002 ft /ft) was well below the design range of values
during the MY3 survey.
Pool lengths were within the range of design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in MYO (20.7 to 34.4 ft),
MY1 (18.4 to 56.7 ft), and MY2 (26.7 to 35.4 ft). Pool lengths (21.5 to 86.3 ft) were again
within the range of design values during MY3. Pool maximum depths have ranged from 4.2 to
5.9 ft during MYO -MY3 and are within the design range of values (3.6 to 8.8 ft).
Six in- stream structures (1 rock vane, 1 log vane, and 4 J- hooks) were constructed in the
Mainstem 1 reach to provide grade control, channel stability and a heterogeneous bed form for
increased habitat. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 86.7 to 217.6 ft in MYO, 98.1 to 240.4 ft in
MY1, 58.9 to 297.0 ft in MY2, and 37.0 to 122.2 ft in MY3. One measurement (37.0 ft) was
slightly below design range of values for pool -to -pool spacing during MY3. The thalweg
alignments and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active channel for the
as -built channel are presented in Figure D.1.
Substrate Data. -Riffle substrate particle sizes at cross - section 1 and cross - section 3 revealed
that the D50 ranged from 22.1 to 28.9 mm during MYO, 40.9 to 46.7 mm in MY1, 32.0 to 56.4
mm in MY2, and 35.0 to 40.0 in MY3 (Table B.1). The D50 pebble sizes were in the coarse
gravel category (16.0 to 32.0 mm) in MYO and very coarse gravel category (32.0 to 64.0 mm) in
MY1 -MY3. The D50 for each individual cross - section, including the pool count (cross- section
2), are presented in Table B.2. Plots of the cumulative percent of particles finer than a specific
particle size for the riffle pebble counts are summarized in Figure B.3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 1 1
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

4.1.2.2 Mainstem 2 - Bura /Roberson Reach - 1,286 ft
The entire length of Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach of SHC within the conservation
easement is 1,286 ft. The Mainstem 2 reach was separated into two distinct approach levels
(restoration and enhancement level II) based on channel condition prior to construction. The
channel length of the restoration reach is 518 ft. The channel length of the enhancement level II
reach is 768 ft.
Dimension. - Channel dimensions data from four cross - sections (XS4 pool, XS5 riffle, XS6
pool, XS7 riffle) were collected in the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach and plotted for visual
evaluation (Figure B.1). Channel dimensions from the two riffle cross - sections (XS5, XS7) were
compared with the range of design values (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width
ranged from 28.1 to 37.2 ft. Bankfull widths have ranged from 29.5 to 38.3 ft each year post -
construction. Riffle cross - section 5 has approximated the mean bankfull width design value
(30.7 ft) each of the three monitoring years. Riffle cross - section 7 slightly exceeded the
maximum design value during MYO (37.5 ft) and MY (37.4 ft), was within the design range
during MY2 (37.1 ft), and exceeded the range again in MY3 (38.3 ft). Dimensions of each
individual cross - section are presented in Table B.2.
Design values for riffle cross - sectional area ranged from 43.8 to 75.5 ft2. Bankfull cross -
sectional area ranged from 62.2 to 65.2 ft2 in MYO, 61.6 to 65.4 ft2 in MY 1, 61.8 to 62.2 ft2 in
MY2, and 64.6 to 65.0 in MY3 (Table B.1). Both of the riffle cross - sections surveyed are well
within the range of design values for cross - sectional area during the MYO -MY3 surveys.
Mean depth at bankf ill for the two riffle cross - sections have ranged from 1.7 to 2.2 ft during
MYO -MY2 (Table B.1). Cross - section 5 mean depth (2.0 ft) matched the design value for mean
depth during MYO -MY2. The mean depth increased slightly (2.2 ft) in MY3. Mean depth at
cross - section 7 was within the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2) ranging from 1.7 to 1.8 ft in
MYO -MY3.
Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankf ill maximum depths for the two riffle cross - sections ranged from 2.7 to 3.3 ft during
MYO -MY3. Cross - section 5 maximum depth was 3.3 ft in MY3, a slight increase from MY2.
Cross - section 7 maximum depth has been 1.7 ft in each of the four monitoring surveys.
The width /depth ratio design values ranged from 12.0 to 18.6 (Table B.1). The width/depth
ratio for the two Mainstem 2 reach riffle cross - sections ranged from 13.4 to 22.7 during MYO-
MY3. The width /depth ratio for cross - section 7 (MYO =21.6; MY1 =21.4; MY2 =22.1;
MY3 =22.7) is moderate to high for a "C" stream type. Although the channel bed and banks are
stable at this location, a bankfull width on the high end of the design range coupled with a mean
depth on the low end of the design range resulted in the width /depth ratio at cross - section 7
higher than the maximum design value. A significant inner berm is present at cross- section 7,
influencing the width and depth values. This feature increased in size following the 5 May 2013
flood event, further influencing the channel dimension at this location.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 12
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

The post - construction entrenchment ratios, a measure of vertical containment, were similar to
the existing range of 6.6 to 13.4. Entrenchment ratios taken from measurements at riffle cross -
section 5 and cross - section 7 have ranged from 7.4 to 11.4 during MYO -MY3 (Table B.1).
Pattern. - Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal to no
change in pattern geometry to the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach; however, dimension and
profile adjustments were made to the existing channel. Sinuosity for the as -built channel was
1.1. The MYO -MY3 values for channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength
were similar to the values obtained from the pre- existing site survey (Table B.1).
Profile. -The entire length (1,286 ft) of the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach longitudinal
profile was surveyed during MY3 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.008 ft /ft duiring MY3, a
slight decrease in slope from MY2 (0.009 ft /ft), but the same value as MYO -MY1 (0.008 ft /ft).
Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated for each monitoring survey (Table
B.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 47.6 to 77.8 ft, which were within the range of the
design values (15.8 to 86.9 ft) for riffle length. The MY1 (27.1 to 82.2 ft) and MY2 riffle
lengths (44.2 to 83.3 ft), determined from multiple (N =5) riffle features, also were within the
design range. The MY3 riffle lengths ranged from 5.4 ft to 82.9 ft. One measurement (5.4 ft)
was below the range of design values for riffle length. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.007 to 0.014
ft /ft in MYO, 0.007 to 0.024 ft /ft in MY1, 0.004 to 0.019 ft /ft in MY2, and 0.0006 to 0.046 in
MY3. Several riffle slope measurements fell outside the design range of values (0.007 to 0.027
ft /ft) in MY3. The mean riffle slope (0.016 ft /ft) in MY3 remained within the design range of
values.
Pool lengths were within the design values (14.7 to 96.7 ft) during MYO -MY2, ranging from
32.8 to 87.1 ft. Pool lengths ranged from 24.1 to 121.2 ft during MY3, slightly higher than the
design values. Five in- stream structures (3 log vanes, and 2 J- hooks) were constructed in the
Mainstem 2 reach to provide grade control, channel stability, and a heterogeneous bed form for
increased habitat. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 69.1 to 469.9 ft in MYO, 65.1 to 466.6 ft in
MY1, 128.4 to 455.8 ft in MY2, and 37.6 to 150.1 in MY3. Pool -to -pool spacing exceeded the
maximum spacing for pools based on design values (44.2 to 309.4 ft) in each of the first three
monitoring years, and it fell short of the minimum spacing during MY3. The thalweg alignment
and edge of water survey points that define the location of the active channel for the as -built
survey is presented in the MY3 plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. - Statistical values for the substrate data are presented in Table B.1. Riffle
substrate particle analyses at cross - section 5 and cross - section 7 revealed that the D50 values
were 49.4 mm and 31.4 mm during MYO (Table B.2). D50 particles sizes decreased in MY1 at
cross - section 5 (16.7 mm) and cross - section 7 (18.6 mm). D50 particle sizes increased in MY2
at cross - section 5 (28.8 mm) and cross - section 7 (32.0 mm). In MY3, D50 values were 22 mm
for cross section 5 and 23 mm for cross section 7. The MY3 D50 values fall within the coarse
gravel categories. Riffle substrate data along with field observations suggests the project site
stream channel is predominately made up of a gravel and cobble matrix. Plots of the cumulative
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 13
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

percent of particles finer than a specific particle size for the riffle cross - section pebble counts are
summarized in Figure B.3.
4.1.2.3 Mainstem 3 - Davis Reach - 737 ft
The entire length of Mainstem 3 Davis reach of SHC is 737 ft. The Davis reach was
separated into two distinct approach levels (enhancement level I and enhancement level II),
based on channel condition prior to construction. The channel length of the enhancement level I
reach is 522 ft. The channel length of the enhancement level II reach is 215 ft.
Dimension. - Channel dimensions data from three cross - sections (XS8 riffle, XS9 pool,
XS 10 riffle) were collected in the Mainstem 3 Davis reach and plotted for visual evaluation
(Figure B.1). Channel dimensions from the two riffle cross - sections (XS8; XS10) were
compared with the range of design values (Table B.1). Design values for riffle bankfull width
ranged from 28.1 to 37.2 ft. Bankfull widths have ranged from 29.6 to 30.1 ft for cross - section 8
and 25.5 to 27.4 ft for cross - section 10 during the MYO -MY3 surveys. Bankfull width for cross -
section 10 was slightly under the minimum design value during each of the four monitoring
surveys. Both the right and left banks were shaped at this location and a bench was established
on the left bank. Bankfull width was measured at the front edge of the bench. Therefore,
additional width is available for flows to expand out onto the bench during bankfull or greater
flows. Channel banks at cross - section 10 were stable and performing satisfactorily during the
MYO -MY3 surveys. Dimensions of each individual cross - section are presented in Table B.2.
Design values for riffle cross - sectional area ranged from 43.8 to 75.5 ft2. Bankfull cross -
sectional area ranged from 53.4 to 65.1 ft2 for the as -built channel, 53.7 to 66.0 ft2 in MY1, 59.4
to 64.3 ft2 during MY2, and 61.2 to 62.3 ft2 during the MY3 survey (Table B.1). Both riffle
cross - sections have approximated the mean design value (61.3 ft2) for cross - sectional area during
the MYO -MY3 surveys.
Mean depth at bankfull for the two riffle cross - sections ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 ft for the as-
built channel and was the same during MY 1. Mean depth at bankfull values ranged from 2.2 to
2.3 ft in MY2. During MY3, mean depth at bankfull values ranged from 2.1 to 2.2 ft (Table
B.1), within the design mean depth range (1.5 to 2.2 ft).
Riffle bankfull maximum depth design values ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 ft (Table B.1).
Bankf ill maximum depths for both two riffle cross - sections were 3.1 ft during MYO. Cross -
section 8 was again 3.1 ft in MY1 -MY2 and 3.0 ft in MY3. Cross - section 10 was 3.0 ft in MY
and increased to 3.4 ft during the MY2 and MY3 surveys, slightly exceeding the maximum depth
design value. Degradation (0.4 ft) along the right bank occurred during the 5 May 2013 flood
event. This is apparent in the visual comparison of cross - section 10 plots (Figure B.1). During
MY3, the bankfull maximum depth fell slightly to 3.0 ft for cross section 8 and remained 3.4 ft
for cross section 10, indicating no further degradation during MY3.
The width/depth ratio design values ranged from 12.0 to 18.6 ft (Table B.1). Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the two Mainstem 3 reach riffle cross - sections ranged
from 12.1 to 13.9 ft. Width /depth ratios ranged from 12.4 to 13.8 ft in MY1, 11.5 to 13.9 during
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 14
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

MY2, and 12.2 to 14.1 in MY3. Though the width/depth ratio at cross - section 10 had decreased
below the range of design values during the MY2, MY3 survey measurements indicate that the
values are back within normal range.
The post - construction entrenchment ratios, a measure of vertical containment, were improved
compared to the existing range of 6.6 to 13.4. Entrenchment ratios taken from measurements at
the two riffle cross - sections have ranged from 9.7 to 21.6 during MYO -MY3 (Table B.1).
Pattern.- Utilizing a Priority III approach during construction resulted in minimal to no
change in pattern geometry to the Mainstem 3 Davis reach. In large part, only dimension and
profile adjustments were made within the existing channel. Sinuosity for the as -built channel
was 1.1. The MYO -MY3 values for channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander
wavelength were similar to the values obtained from the pre- existing site survey (Table B.1).
Profile. -The entire length (737 ft) of the Mainstem 3 Davis reach longitudinal profile was
surveyed during MYO -MY3 (Figure B.2). Channel slope was 0.006 ft /ft. Feature lengths,
slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated following each monitoring survey (Table B.1).
The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 22.0 to 60.8 ft and were within the range of the design
values (15.8 to 86.9 ft). The MY1 riffle lengths ranged from 30.4 to 58.5 ft, and the MY2 riffle
lengths ranged from 29.1 to 60.5 ft. MY3 riffle lengths ranged from 9.0 to 56.9 ft. One
measurement (9.0 ft) was slightly below the range of design values. Riffle slopes ranged from
0.008 to 0.020 ft /ft in MYO, 0.010 to 0.019 ft /ft in MY1, 0.004 to 0.015 ft/ft in MY2, and 0.006
to 0.034 ft /ft during MY3 surveys.
Pool lengths were within the design values range (14.7 to 96.7 ft) in each of the previous
three monitoring years (MYO =17.6 to 38.5 ft; MY1 =17.1 to 55.6 ft; MY2 =17.5 to 43.0 ft). Pool
length values ranged from 3 0. 1 to 111.6 ft during the MY3, with one measurement (111.6 ft)
being slightly above the range of design values. Four in- stream structures (3 j -hook log vanes, 1
rock cross vane) were constructed in the Mainstem 3 reach to provide grade control, channel
stability, and a heterogeneous bed form for increased habitat. Pool -to -pool spacing was within
the design value range (44.2 to 309.4 ft) in MYO (65.6 to 258.1 ft) and MY1 (64.2 to 225.1 ft).
MY2 pool -to -pool spacing values ranged from 42.2 to 229.7 ft, and MY3 values ranged from
3 9. 0 to 112.0 ft, revealing that a single measurement during each year was slightly below the
design values range. The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the
location of the active channel for the as -built survey is presented in the MY3 plan view sheets
(Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. - Statistical values for the substrate data are presented in Table B.1. Riffle
substrate particle analyses at cross - section 8 and cross - section 10 revealed that the D50 values
were 47.7 mm and 33.5 mm during MYO. The MY1 D50 value for cross - section 8 was 37.9 mm
and 25.0 mm for cross - section 10. The D50 value in MY2 was 29.2 mm at cross - section Band
16.0 mm cross - section 10. In MY3, D50 values were 24 mm at cross section 8 and 14 mm at
cross section 10 (Table B.2). The MY3 D50 values are within the coarse gravel category at cross
section 8 and the medium gravel at cross section 10. Riffle substrate data along with field
observations suggests the project site stream channel is predominately made up of a gravel and
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 15
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

cobble matrix. Plots of the cumulative percent of particles finer than a specific particle size for
the riffle pebble counts are summarized in Figure B.3.
4.1.2.4 Unnamed Tributary 1 – Bianculli Reach – 277 ft
The upper most portion of UT1 was mitigated using a preservation (94 ft) approach. The
lower portion of UT was restored (183 ft) during construction using a Priority I approach. The
lower two- thirds of UT had been ditched by previous property owners in an attempt to quickly
drain two small spring areas and the adjacent wooded wetland. The existing channel was
severely entrenched and was approximately 3 ft below the floodplain and forest floor. A new
channel was constructed to reconnect the channel to the floodplain and wooded wetland. An
ephemeral pool was constructed at the outflow of UT1, further enhancing the quality of the
adjacent wetlands. The existing ditched channel was filled with compacted material during
construction. The banks of the new channel are very low ( <12 in.) over much of the reach to
allow for the desired connectivity with the floodplain and associated wetlands. Due to its short
length and relatively little flow, a cross - sectional survey was not performed. Minimal pattern
was added to the new channel when constructed. The entire length of the new channel was
surveyed following construction. Pattern and profile data for UT are presented in the plan view
drawing sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. —Bed material in UT was not collected during the MYO -MY3 surveys.
From observation, it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.1.2.5 Unnamed Tributary 2 – Bianculli and Roberson Reaches – 890 ft
Unnamed Tributary 2 originates on the Bianculli property. The first 654 ft was treated as
enhancement level II mitigation; the last 45 ft of UT2 on the Bianculli property was restored.
The portion of UT2 on the Roberson property had been rerouted to divert the flow to a roadside
ditch and the original channel abandoned to expand agricultural practices. In order to restore
flow back to UT2 and adjacent wetlands, flow was piped under Canterfield Lane during
construction. Channel alignment was similar to what it was prior to flow diversion. A new
channel (191 ft) with grade control structures and bankfull benches was constructed to carry the
re- established flow.
Dimension. —A single riffle cross - section (XS1) was surveyed on the restored portion of UT2
and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure B.1). Therefore, a range of dimensional values are not
presented for UT2 (Table B.1.1). Channel dimensions for UT2 cross- section 1 are also presented
in Table B.2. Bankfull widths have ranged from 21.9 to 22.6 ft during the MYO -MY3 surveys.
Bankf ill cross - sectional area was 14.2 ft2 in MYO, 13.9 ft2 in MY 1, 13.7 ft2 in MY2, and 14.4 ft2
during MY3. Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross - section was 0.6 ft in each of the first
four monitoring surveys, MYO -MY3. Bankfull maximum depth (1.4 ft ) for the riffle cross -
section has been the same in MYO -MY3. Following construction, the width/depth ratio for
cross - section 1 was 35.8, dropped slightly in MY1 to 34.9, was 34.8 in MY2, and was 35.6
during MY3. The entrenchment ratio was found to be 12.5 in MYO, 12.8 in MY 1, 12.9 in MY2,
and 12.5 during MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 16
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Pattern. —Due to short length of the restored channel, insufficient pattern data precluded
presentation of a range of pattern data values. Moreover, a Priority III approach during
construction resulted in minimal no change in pattern geometry. The MYO -MY3 values for
channel belt width, radius of curvature, and meander wavelength are presented in Table B.1.1.
Profile. —Only the portion (191 ft) of the restored UT2 channel longitudinal profile was
surveyed during the four monitoring surveys, MYO -MY3 (Figure B.2). The MY3 longitudinal
profile survey did not include the short (45 ft) section of channel on the adjoining Bianculli
property and does not include the section of channel piped under Canter Field Lane. Two rock
sills were constructed to provide grade control and channel stability near the confluence of UT2
and SHC.
Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated following the longitudinal
survey (Table B.1.1). The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 12.3 to 31.8 ft. The MY1 riffle
lengths varied slightly ranging from 13.8 to 21.9 ft. The MY2 riffle lengths ranged from 22.3 to
29.5 ft. The MY3 riffle lengths varied ranging from 3.5 to 56.6 ft. Riffle slopes ranged from
0.009 to 0.012 ft /ft in MYO, 0.007 to 0.016 ft/ft in MY1, 0.012 to 0.018 ft /ft in MY2, and 0.010
to 0.075 during MY3. Pool lengths ranged from 10.7 to 23.1 ft in MYO, 17.1 to 23.1 ft in MY1,
12.3 to 15.4 ft in MY2, and 6.6 to 29.0 ft during MY3. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 50.6 to
69.2 ft in each of the first three monitoring surveys, MYO -MY2. Pool -to -pool spacing varied in
MY3, ranging from 11.2 to 63.7 ft. Channel slope ranged from 0.015 to 0.019 ft/ft in each of the
four monitoring surveys. The thalweg alignment and edge of water survey points that define the
location of the active channel during the as -built survey is presented in the MY3 plan view sheets
(Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. —Bed material was not collected from UT2 during the MYO -MY3 surveys.
From observation, it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.1.2.6 Unnamed Tributary 3 – Davis Reach – 1,742 ft
The UT3 channel on the Davis property was approached several different ways during
project planning and implementation based on existing condition and need. The upstream most
portion of UT3 is bordered by a mature forest and has stable channel features; therefore, it was
treated as a preservation (777 ft) reach. The middle portion of UT3 was infested with non - native
invasive vegetation and the banks were littered with old farm equipment. The middle portion
was treated as enhancement II (538 ft) during construction by removing the invasive vegetation
and all foreign materials, excluding livestock from the riparian zone, and performing some
targeted bank shaping along the right and left channel banks. The bottom portion of UT3, from
the wet -ford to the confluence with SHC, was restored during construction using a priority II and
priority I restoration approach. Because of the two different restoration approaches and the
significant changes in channel slope, the bottom portion of UT3 was divided into the upper (201
ft) and the lower (226 ft) restoration sections. Presented below are the dimension, pattern, and
longitudinal profile data for both the upper and lower reaches of the UT3 restoration section.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 17
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Unnamed Tributary 3 - Davis Reach - Upper Restoration 201 ft
Dimension. -A single riffle cross - section (XS I) was surveyed on the UT3 Upper restoration
section and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure B.1). Therefore, a range of dimensional values
are not presented for UT3 Upper. Channel dimensions for UT3 Upper cross - section 1 are
presented in Table B.2. Comparison of UT3 Upper dimensional values to the design values are
presented in Table B.1.1. Bankfull width during MYO was 12.9 ft, 13.0 ft in MY1, 12.9 ft in
MY2, and 14.4 ft during MY3. Values from each of the four surveys slightly exceed the design
bankfull width of 12.0 ft. Bankfull cross - sectional area was 10.3 ft 2 in MYO, 10.6 ft 2 in MY1,
9.9 ft2 in MY2, and 8.9 ft2 during MY3. Values have exceeded the maximum design value for
cross - sectional area (7.5 ft2) in each of the four monitoring years. The slight reduction of the
bankfull cross - sectional area during MY3 can be explained by the aggradation that occurred due
to low velocity flows and dense herbaceous layer in the upper UT -3 reach. Mean depth at
bankfull for the riffle cross - section was 0.8 ft during MYO -MY2, slightly exceeding the design
values range for mean riffle depth (0.4 to 0.6 ft). In MY3, the mean depth reduced to 0.6 ft,
placing it within the range of design values. Bankfull maximum depth for the riffle cross - section
was 1.3 ft in MYO -MY2 and 1.1 ft during MY3. Bankfull maximum depth values ranged from
1.0 to 1.4 ft in the design plan. Following construction, the width/depth ratio for cross - section 1
was 16.1 and 16.5 in MY 1. The width/depth ratio (16.7) was slightly higher in MY2, but was
still within the design range of 16.0 to 20.0. During MY3, the width /depth ratio was 23.0,
slightly above design range.
Pattern. -A range of pattern geometry values are lacking on the UT3 Upper restoration
section due in large part to channel type (Ba). This section of UT3 was restored by designing
step -pool channel features and employing a priority II approach. Therefore, very little meander
is present in this section. The MYO -MY3 values for channel belt width, radius of curvature, and
meander wavelength are presented in Table B.1.1.
Profile. -The entire length (201 ft) of the UT3 Upper restored channel longitudinal profile
was surveyed in MY3 (Figure B.2). The total profile length includes the section of UT3 from the
wet -ford downstream to just below the confluence of Spring Seep South and Wetland C, station
0 +00 to 2 +01. A series of nine rock step -pool features were constructed to provide grade control
and channel stability. Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated following
each monitoring survey (Table B.1.1). The MYO riffle lengths ranged from 13.7 to 26.4 ft, 13.3
to 25.1 ft in MY1, 17.7 to 26.5 ft in MY2, and 11.7 to 60.5 ft in MY3. Riffle slopes ranged from
0.054 to 0.102 ft /ft in MYO, 0.054 to 0.106 ft /ft in MY1, 0.058 to 0.092 ft /ft in MY2, and 0.053
to 0.095 ft /ft during MY3. The design slopes ranged from 0.095 to 0.120 ft /ft for UT3 Upper.
Pool lengths ranged from 2.9 to 5.1 ft for the as -built channel, 2.2 to 5.0 ft in MY1, 2.4 to 4.5 ft
in MY2, and 6.0 to 7.4 ft during MY3. Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 21.2 to 24.2 ft in MYO,
20.0 to 27.1 ft in MY1, 18.6 to 48.3 ft in MY2, and 18.0 to 66.4 ft during MY3. Several pool -to-
pool spacing measurements have been slightly below the design values (22.8 to 23.0 ft) each of
the three monitoring years. Additionally, a couple of pool -to -pool measurements exceeded
design values in MY2 and MY3. However, this was an artifact of measurement stations and not
indication that pool spacing has change significantly on UT3 Upper. Channel slope ranged from
0.082 to 0.086 ft /ft in each of the four monitoring years. The thalweg alignment and edge of
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 18
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

water survey points that define the location of the active channel for the as -built survey is
presented in the MY3 plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. -Bed material in UT3 Upper was not collected during the MYO -MY3
surveys. From observation native material consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials. Gravel
and cobble material was added to the channel following construction to increase roughness and
provide benthic organism habitat. An increase of very fine particle size material has been
observed over the past four monitoring surveys.
Unnamed Tributary 3 - Davis Reach - Lower Restoration 226 ft
Dimension. -Two cross - sections, XS2 -riffle and XS3 -pool, were surveyed on the UT3
Lower restoration section and plotted for visual evaluation (Figure B.1). Dimensional
parameters, for cross - sections 2 and 3, representing the condition of the priority I channel
restoration of UT3 Lower are presented in Table B.2. Dimensional parameters for the riffle
cross - section (XS2) were compared with the design values (Table B.1.1). Bankfull widths have
ranged from 9.9 to 10.2 ft during MYO -MY3. Bankfull width measurements have been within
the design range (8.0 to 12.0 ft) each monitoring year. Bankfull cross - sectional area was 7.6 ft2
in MYO, 7.4 ft2 in MY 1, 7.3 ft2 in MY2, and 6.7 ft2 during MY3. Cross - sectional area values
have been slightly below the minimum design value of 8.6 ft2, likely due to aggradation that has
occurred throughout the reach since construction. Mean depth at bankfull for the riffle cross -
section was 0.8 ft in MYO -MYI and dropped slightly during MY2 -MY3 to 0.7 ft. The design
range for mean riffle depth was 0.5 to 0.7 ft. Bankf ill maximum depth for the riffle cross -
section was 1.4 ft during MYO -MYI, dropped slightly in MY2 to 1.3 ft, and dropped again in
MY3 to 1.2 ft. Maximum depth values ranged from 0.9 to 2.2 ft in the design plan. Following
construction, the width/depth ratio for the UT3 Lower riffle cross - section was 12.8 and fell
below the design range of 16.0 to 17.1. The width/depth ratio was 13.2 in MY 1, 14.4 in MY2,
and 14.5 during MY3.
Pattern. -The lower most portion of UT3 was restored by constructing a priority I
meandering channel with three distinct bends over the course of 226 ft. Therefore, a range of
pattern geometry values were determined for UT3 Lower. The MYO -MY3 range of values for
channel belt widths, radius of curvatures, and meander wavelengths are presented in Table B.1.1.
Profile. -The entire length (226 ft) of the UT3 Lower restored channel longitudinal profile
was surveyed during MY3 (Figure B.2). A "C" type channel was constructed with a series of
four riffles and three pool features. Feature lengths, slopes, depths, and spacing were calculated
following the MYO -MY3 surveys (Table B.1.1). The design range for riffle length values was
10.0 to 18.0 ft. The MYO -MY3 riffle lengths have exceeded the design values all years post -
construction, ranging from 6.9 to 51.2 ft. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.013 to 0.065 ft /ft in MYO,
0.007 to 0.057 ft /ft in MYI, 0.012 to 0.058 ft in MY2, and 0.012 to 0.128 during MY3. The
design slopes ranged from 0.018 to 0.056 ft /ft for UT3 Lower. Riffle slope measurements have
been below and above the design range of values in each of the four monitoring years; however,
mean riffle slope (MYO =0.039 ft /ft; MYI =0.027 ft /ft; MY2 =0.039 ft /ft; MY3 =0.048 ft /ft) has
been within the design range all four years post construction.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 19
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Pool lengths ranged from 16.0 to 19.7 ft for the as -built channel, 17.8 to 27.4 ft in MY1, 12.1
to 22.4 ft in MY2, and 5.4 to 23.0 ft during MY3. All pool lengths have been within the design
range of values (13.4 to 32.3 ft) except for a single pool length measurements in MY2 (12.1 ft)
and MY3 (5.4 ft). Pool -to -pool spacing ranged from 17.8 to 69.8 ft in MYO -MY3, exceeding the
maximum design value (33.1 ft) for pool -to -pool spacing in each of the 4 -years post
construction. Channel slope was 0.031 ft /ft in MY3. The thalweg alignment and edge of water
survey points that define the location of the active channel for the as -built survey is presented in
the MY3 plan view sheets (Figure D.1).
Substrate Data. —Bed material in UT3 Lower was not collected during the MYO -MY3
surveys. From observation it consists of clay, silt, and fine sand materials.
4.1.3 Fixed Station Channel and Riparian Area Photographs
Fixed station photographs document pre- and post - construction conditions and provide a time
series view of the USH mitigation site stream channel features and riparian areas (Figure B.4). A
total of 26 photo stations were established during the as -built survey. These same 26 stations
were photographed again in MY3.
4.1.4 Bankfull Event Documentation and Verification
One bankfull event (28 November 2011) was documented between the end of construction
and completion of the as -built survey (Table B.3). A wrack line above the bankfull elevation
was observed and photographed for verification on December 5, 2011 (Figure B.5). To monitor
additional bankfull events, a simple crest gauge was installed on the right bank (sta. 7 +75)
downstream of cross - section 6 and adjacent to a large root wad feature. Although several storm
events occurred in 2012 (MY1), visual observations and crest gage readings were negative for
bankfull events.
A second bankfull event was observed and documented on May 6, 2013 (Table B.3). This
was a major storm event that produced 3.5 inches of rain in a 24 -hour period at the Asheville
Regional Airport. Over a 6 -day period, more than 5 inches of precipitation was recorded.
Property owners in the SHC watershed reported collecting more than 7 inches of rain in personal
gages over the same period of time. The median daily discharge for the French Broad River at
Asheville is 2,000 cfs. On May 6, 2013, the discharge for the French Broad River at Asheville
was 23,200 cfs, more than ten times the median daily flow. The French Broad River crested at
9.98 ft, 2 feet above flood stage. A 3.3 ft high stream gage plate, station 8 +00 on the Mainstem 1
reach, was over - topped during the May 6, 2013 flood event. The simple crest gage at station
7 +75 on the Mainstem 2 reach revealed that SHC crested at 5.0 ft, two feet above the bankfull
elevation (Figure B.5). Bankfull flow was estimated to be 250 -350 cfs based on regional curves
during project design. Using base flow data correlated with the stream gage plate, a bankfull
flow of 295 cfs is estimated at the project site. A flow cresting at 5.0 ft would have an estimated
discharge of 490 cfs.
A third bankfull event occurred on October 14, 2014 with wrack observed on October 28, 2014
within the floodplain (Table B.3). A storm produced 2.41 inches of rain in a 24 -hour period at
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 20
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

the Asheville Regional Airport. In addition, 1.53 inches of rain fell in the 11 -day period
preceeding the larger 2.41 -inch event, and crest gage readings were indicative of a recent
bankfull event.
4.1.5 Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Monitoring Year -O. —A visual assessment of the project reach was performed to inspect the
morphological stability of the channel and to serve as a basis for comparison with future channel
stability monitoring. Based on the visual assessment of channel features, stream structures, and
channel banks following the flood event on 28 November 2011 (MYO) several areas of
instability were apparent. The most instability was observed in the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach
(sta. 1 +50 to 3 +00) and was associated with the large meander bend. Above the meander bend, a
structure had failed and 50 ft of the right bank had sloughed into the channel. Below the
structure, a large amount of bed material had aggraded and formed a mid - channel bar.
A second area of instability was observed in the Mainstem 2 Bura /Roberson reach (sta. 9 +25
to 9 +75). A large amount of bed material aggraded at this location and formed a mid - channel
bar. However, the observed areas of instability make up only a small percentage of the overall
stable condition of the SHC mainstem. No areas of instability were observed on Mainstem 3
Davis reach or the three unnamed tributaries.
Monitoring Yearl.A visual assessment was performed over the entire project site several
times during the calendar year 2012, including visits following storm events and to perform the
MY1 monitoring survey. Based on the visual stream stability assessment of channel features,
stream structures, and channel banks, there were no new areas of instability. Metrics generated
from the MY1 visual stream stability assessment are reported in Table B.4. The MY1 "scores"
from the visual stream stability assessment largely reflect the damage that occurred during the 28
November 2011 flood event. In fact, 2012 (MY1) was positive in terms of project site
rehabilitation following the 2011 storm with many areas self - adjusting. Channel banks were
better protected with the continued growth of planted vegetation, and the stream channel stability
also showed signs of improvement. However, specific structures, channel bank segments, and
channel features will require modification for the project site to reach its full potential.
Visual assessment of Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach during MY1 revealed that problem areas
that occurred during the 2011 storm event were still contributing to a lack in desired form and
function of channel morphology. A significant (> 50 %) reduction in pool depth and habitat in
the large meander bend at station 2 +25 to 3 +00 persists due to the large amount of bed material
that was deposited at this location during the storm event of 2011. Bank scour and erosion
continue to plague the right bank between station 1 +75 to 2 +25 and station 6 +25 to 6 +75. The
second structure (sta. 1 +50) in this reach was compromised with several sill and arm rocks
dislodged. These observed channel stability problems are reflected in the stream visual stability
morphology assessment (Table B.4).
Visual assessment of Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach during MY1 revealed that aggraded
areas below structure 1 (sta. 1 +00), structure 4 (sta. 9 +25), and structure 5 (sta. 12+75) remained.
Although the structures are stable and fully intact, the large amount of deposition in the pools
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 21
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

below each of these structures has significantly reduced available pool habitat and altered
thalweg alignment. In addition, pool depth, length and available rootwad habitat cover have
been reduced (Table B.4).
Visual assessment of Mainstem 3 Davis reach during MY1 revealed the least amount of
impact from the 2011 storm event (Table B.4). Aggraded areas below structure 1 (sta. +25),
structure 2 (sta. 2 +75), and structure 4 (sta. 7 +00) still exist, significantly reducing available pool
habitat and to a lesser extent altering thalweg alignment. Channel bed and channel bank
observations suggest morphological function across the majority of Mainstem 3 reach is being
attained.
Monitoring Year -2.A visual assessment was performed over the entire project site several
times during the calendar year 2013, including visits following storm events and to perform the
MY2 monitoring survey. Based on the visual stream stability assessment of the channel bed,
channel banks, and engineered stream structures, several new areas of instability were noted
following the 5 May 2013 flood event. The MY2 "scores" from the visual stream stability
assessment largely reflect the damage that occurred during the May 2013 flood event. Again in
2013, as with the 2011 flood event, most of the instability was observed in the Mainstem 1
Bianculli reach. However, a significant area of instability in the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson
reach resulted from the 2013 flood. Metrics generated from the MY2 visual stream stability
assessment are reported in Table B.4.
Visual assessment of Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach during MY2 revealed that problem areas
that occurred during the 2011 storm event were still contributing to a lack in desired form and
function of channel morphology. In addition to the previous problem areas associated with the
large meander bend and second stream structure, new problem areas were observed with the first
and sixth stream structures, lateral bar formation, and channel bank scour. The 2013 flood event
dislodged several top rocks on the left arm of the cross -vane at the top of the project reach (sta.
0 +50). The same was the case for the sixth stream structure (sta. 5 +75) where several top rocks
on the arm of the J -hook were dislodged. Scour and erosion were noted downstream on the sixth
structure on the right bank (sta. 6 +25 to 6 +50). A lateral bar formed along the right bank from
sta. 4 +00 to 4 +50, altering the channel dimensions of the riffle and cross - section 1. A second
lateral bar was noted in the vicinity of cross - section 3, sta. 7 +00 to 7 +25. Overall, the MY2
visual stability assessment identified numerous deficiencies with the channel bed, banks and
engineered structures, negatively influencing the stability rating of the Mainstem 1 reach (Table
B.4).
Visual assessment of Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach during MY2 revealed that previously
aggraded pool habitat below structure 1 (sta. 1 +00) and structure 4 (sta. 9 +25) still were apparent
but some improvement had occurred. The aggraded material below structure 4 was repositioned
during the May 2013 flood event from the center of the channel to the right bank forming a
lateral bar or inner berm feature. The portion of channel directly below structure 4 has
transitioned to a riffle feature (sta. 9 +00 to 9 +50). A significant area of instability occurred
during the May 2013 flood event at the lower end of the Mainstem 2 reach (sta. 12 +25 to
12 +85). The right bank below the root wads and toe wood features suffered severe scour and
erosion during the May 2013 flood event. The flood event eroded >50 ft of the right channel
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 22
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

bank, and the integrity of the fifth stream structure was comprised (sta. 12 +75). Additionally, a
lateral bar formed along the left bank at this location (sta. 12 +25 to 12 +75). The MY2 visual
stability ratings for bank and engineered structures categories reflect the damage caused to the
Mainstem 2 reach during the 2013 flood event (Table B.4).
Visual assessment of Mainstem 3 Davis reach during MY2 revealed the least amount of
impact from the 2013 storm event (Table B.4). Aggradation in the pool features directly below
structure 1, structure 2, and structure 4 has completely filled in the constructed pool habitat and
the three stream structures are functioning as riffles. Much of the aggradation occurred during
the November 2011 storm event and no improvement to pool depth or length was observed
following the May 2013 flood event. Channel dimension for cross - section 9 (pool) have been
significantly altered with 100% loss of available pool habitat below structure 2. Additionally, a
short section of bank scour was observed along the right bank (sta. 0 +00 to 0 +20) directly below
the Connie Davis bridge.
Monitoring Year -3.A visual assessment was performed over the entire project site several
times during the calendar year 2014, including visits to perform the MY3 monitoring survey. No
new areas of stream instability were observed in MY3.
Visual assessments of the Mainstem 1 Bianculli reach during MY3 indicate that several large
boulders in the right -bank arm of the second downstream structure (Sta. 1 +50), have dislodged
and fallen into the stream (Problem Area 1). Although the downstream arms have failed, the
structure continues to maintain grade and is providing excellent stream habitat. In addition, right
bank scour /sloughing (Problem Area 2) has increased slightly encompassing approximately 110
linear feet of bank between Sta. 1 +45 to 2 +75. Approximately 30 feet of additional right bank
scour was observed between sta. 6 +25 and 6 +50. Significant aggradation of several pools within
the reach has occurred, namely between sta. 2 +25 to 2 +50 and 4 +00 to 4 +50 (Problem areas 3
and 8).
Visual assessment of the Mainstem 2 Bura reach during MY3 indicated little change from
previous observations during MYO -MY02, and the cross -vane at Sta. 0 +50 (Former Problem
Area 5) is stable and no longer considered a problem. High storm flows created heavy
aggradation (Problem Area 4) in the downstream pool of structure number 4 (sta. 9 +20 to 9 +50).
A riffle has formed in the pool of the structure, however, a small pool is forming just
downstream creating high quality habitat. Stream repairs to a large structure and both banks
were completed at Sta. 12 +75 (Former Problem Area 7) and the area is currently stable and well -
vegetated. In addition, sediment bars deposited during the 2013 flood event remain stable.
Visual assessment of the downstream Mainstem 3 Davis reach during MY3 indicate that banks at
Sta. 0 +00 to 0 +20 (Former Problem Area 9) are stable and though they will continue to be
monitored closely, are no longer considered a problem. The aggradation that occurred during a
November 2011 in the pools below structures 1, 2, and 4 remained unchanged during MY3. The
structures are functioning as high - quality riffle habitat and do not appear to be causing problems.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 23
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Visual assessments of the unnamed tributaries onsite indicate that the step structures on the UT -3
Upper Davis Reach (sta. 0 +00 to 2 +00) have aggraded (Problem Area 10) due to low flow
velocity and a dense herbaceous layer. Otherwise, Site tributaries are functioning as designed.
4.1.6 Stream Problem Areas
Several problem areas with regards to bank stability, channel morphology, and structure
integrity were observed during the MYO -MY3 surveys. Problem areas observed along the SHC
mainstem channel, resulting from the 28 November 2011 and 5 May 2013 storm events, are
noted on the MY2 plan view sheets (Figure D.1) and Fig 2a -2c. The problem, likely cause, and
location of each observed stream problem area is presented in Table B.S. Issues within the
stream channel include aggradation and bar formation, bank scour, and structure integrity.
Additionally, these problem areas were further detailed in the stream feature visual stability
assessment section above and the stream feature visual stability assessment table.
Mainstem 1 Bianculli problem areas previously documented during MY1 -MY2 were
assessed during the stream survey, and continue to be mostly apparent in this reach. The second
downstream structure (sta. 1 +50) is compromised due to previous storm flows (Problem Area 1).
Several large boulders in right -bank arm dislodged and fell into the stream; although the
downstream arms failed the structure continues to maintain grade and is providing excellent
stream habitat. Structure 3 located at Sta. 2 +25 has been covered with cobble and gravel sized
material, filling the pool downstream (sta. 2 +25 to 2 +50) and forming a large bar along the left
bank (Problem Area 3). Approximately 110 feet of right bank, located between Sta. 1 +45 to
2 +75, is scoured/sloughing (Problem Area 2). Additionally, approximately 30 feet of the right
bank between sta. 6 +25 to 6 +50 is scoured and eroded (Problem Area 6). Problem Area 8
includes a pool that was aggraded and filled with cobble during a high flow event.
Problem areas in the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson reach include aggradation and bar
formation. Problem Area 4 (sta. 9 +20 to 9 +50) includes aggradation in the downstream pool of
an engineered structure during high storm flows. A riffle has formed in the pool of the structure,
however, a small pool is forming just downstream providing high quality habitat. The 5 May
2013 flood event contributed to significant scour, bar formation, and loss of function of an
engineered structure at the lower end of the reach (sta. 12 +25 to 12 +75) (Former Problem Area
7). This area was repaired during the Summer of 2014 and is no longer considered a problem.
The Mainstem 3 Davis reach has endured 2 major flood events since construction, but little
channel instability was observed during MY3. Aggradation of pool features below engineered
structures 1, 2, and 4 was first observed following a November 2011 storm event. Aggradation
in these three areas altered the as -built dimensions of each pool, decreasing pool depth and
length. This aggradation remained unchanged during MY3. The structures are functioning as
high - quality riffle habitat and do not appear to be causing problems. Additionally, previously
documented Problem Area 9 (sta. 0 +00 to 0 +20) is stable with good vegetation root depth and
density along the bank, and is no longer considered a problem.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 24
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Of the three unnamed tributaries onsite, only one small portion in the UT -3 Upper Davis
Reach had issues during MY3. Due to the low flow velocity and a dense herbaceous layer, the
step pool structures (sta. 0 +00 to 2 +00) have aggraded (Problem Area 10).
4.1.7 Stream Problem Area Photographs
Channel bank, stream bed, and engineered structure integrity problem areas observed during
the MYO -MY3 surveys were photographed for documentation of the extent of damage and
departure from as -built condition. Problem area photographs are included in Appendix B of this
report (Figure B.6).
4.1.8 Summary of Morphological Results
The MY3 survey was completed in the fall of 2014. Dimension, pattern, and profile
parameters surveyed in MY3 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 bankfall width at one riffle cross - section (XS 10). Bankfull width
at this cross - section has been below the design value in all four 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 significant pool aggradation.
However, these areas appear to have stabilized, as no significant change was captured in the
MY3 survey. 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 duiring MY3.
Pattern values derived from the MY3 survey reveal that the mainstem reaches of SHC are
largely within the design values for this the morphological parameter.
Channel profile values derived from the MY3 survey reveal slight changes in channel slope
compared with MYO -MY2 channel slope values. The mainstem 1 reach increased in channel
slope from 0.012 ft/ft to 0.013 ft /ft. The mainstem 2 reach decreased in slope from 0.009 ft/ft to
0.008 ft /ft. The mainstem 3 reach slope remained at 0.006 ft /ft. Riffle slope measurements
varied from the 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 MY3 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 MY3 survey, with the exception of
cross - section 10, which was borderline medium to coarse gravel (14.0 mm).
Problem areas resulting from the storm events on 28 November 2011 and 5 May 2013. A
compromised rock vane structure, some right bank erosion, and aggradation and bar formation
below a j -hook structure was observed in the Mainstem 1 reach sta. 1 +45 to 2 +50, resulting from
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 25
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

the 2011 flood event. Additional Mainstem 1 reach problem areas include continued erosion of
the right bank (sta. 6 +25 to 6 +50) as well as aggradation and bar formation (sta. 4 +00 to 4 +50),
resulting from the 2013 flood event.
The problem area 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
MY3 survey, although a small pool was reforming on the downstream end of the newly formed
riffle creating some high quality and diverse habitat.
No Problem areas were observed on the Mainstem 3 reach during the MY3 survey.
However, aggradation of bed material directly below three of the four engineered structures has
reduced constructed pool habitat. Aggradation in these three areas altered the as -built
dimensions of each pool, decreasing pool depth and length. This aggradation remained
unchanged during MY3. The structures are functioning as high - quality riffle habitat and do not
appear to be causing problems.
The MY3 visual assessment survey found the majority of the 2,820 ft of mainstem channel
banks (94 %), channel bed (91 %), and engineered stream structures (73 %) were performing
adequately. Metrics that scored low resulted from bed scour or aggradation, sections of bank
erosion, and compromised integrity of engineered stream structures.
Monitoring year -3 morphological results for the three unnamed tributaries revealed that
construction activities followed the approaches outlined the in the USH mitigation plan.
Although small variations from design values were noted in dimensional parameters such as
bankfull width (UT3 Upper -XS 1 riffle) and bankfull cross - sectional area (UT3 Lower -XS2
riffle), the three unnamed tributaries were stable and performing as designed. Moreover, the
significant storm event on 28 November 2011 and 5 May 2013 did not have any observed
negative effects on any of the three unnamed tributaries.
4.2 Wetland Enhancement and Preservation
C1earWater Environmental Consultants Inc. identified nine wetlands totaling approximately
1.35 acres in the project area during an October 2009 field investigation of jurisdictional
wetlands (Figure B.7).
Wetland C. —(Part of Davis Spring Seep South) is approximately 0.01 acres and is adjacent
to Davis UT3. There is a hand built rock spring box at the head of this feature. Wetland C was
treated as a preservation area during construction and the removal of non - native invasive plants
and livestock access were the two management activities directed at this area.
Wetland D. —is the largest wetland on site totaling approximately 0.69 acres. Wetland D is
adjacent to SHC and was heavily impacted by cattle before construction. Despite previous
impacts from cattle access, Wetland D has the highest diversity of wetland plant species found
within the study area. In addition to excluding livestock from Wetland D, the area was enhanced
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 26
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

by removing a 4 -inch pipe that was installed by the landowner to divert spring flows to SHC and
away from the wetland area. This resulted in replenishing spring water back into the wetland.
Wetland D was further enhanced by creating three ephemeral pools to increase wetland plant and
amphibian habitat.
Wetland E. —is approximately 0.02 acres and is adjacent to SHC and Roberson UT2. This
wetland was greatly impacted by cattle. A large pile of scrapped farm machinery, metal, and tree
stumps were removed from this feature. Additionally, spring flow was reconnected to the
formerly abandoned UT2 further enhancing the long -term viability of the area.
Wetland G. —is approximately 0.05 acres and is contiguous with Bianculli UT2 and adjacent
to Canter Field Lane. Enhancement to this area included the extensive treatment of non - native
invasive vegetation. Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense and multiflora rose Rosa multiflora were
the dominant non - native vegetation types present pre - construction.
Wetland H. —is approximately 0.05 acres and is located adjacent to Bianculli UT2.
Enhancement to this area included the extensive treatment of non - native invasive vegetation.
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense and multiflora rose Rosa multiflora were the dominant non-
native vegetation types present pre - construction.
Wetland I. —is approximately 0.06 acres and is located between a pasture, which is actively
mowed and grazed, and the left bank of Bianculli UT2. In addition to the removal of the non-
native vegetation, easement fencing now encompasses the delineated area removing the livestock
access and mechanized encroachment that was occurring pre - construction.
Wetlands Jand K.— combined are approximately 0.04 acres and are located adjacent to the
Bianculli southwestern property line. This area was treated for non - native invasive vegetation
and permanently protected with the establishment of the conservation easement and exclusionary
fencing.
Wetland L. —is approximately 0.44 acres and is the second largest wetland within the project
area. Wetland L is located adjacent to SHC and Bianculli UTI. It is a forested wetland with
trees and shrubs throughout. Past landowners channelized UTI in an attempt to direct flow away
from the wetland and to quickly move water to SHC. During construction, priority I restoration
of UTI established a new channel and directed the flow into an ephemeral pool that was created.
The restoration of UTI and creation of the ephemeral pool significantly enhanced the wetland
feature and amphibian habitat.
4.2.1 Wetland Areas Fixed Station Photographs
Fixed wetland station photographs document the pre -and post - construction conditions of the
jurisdictional wetland areas found on the USH mitigation site. Wetland photographs from the
MYO -MY3 surveys will serve as a comparative timeline sequence with future photographs over
the course of the monitoring surveys (Figure B.7).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 27
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

4.3 Vegetation Assessment
The USH mitigation site was revegetated with a variety of annual and perennial native seed
mixes during construction to minimize soil erosion immediately following ground disturbing
activities and to provide a diversity of herbaceous plant species within the conservation easement
(Table C.1). A large number of mature trees and shrubs, representing a variety of species, were
not disturbed during construction. Most of these trees and shrubs were located along top of the
SHC channel banks and within the established conservation easement. They were retained
because they were contributing to bank stability, providing shade to the stream, and would be a
seed source that would help contribute to the revegetation of the project area.
Native tree and shrub species, including live stakes, were installed during November and
December 2011 and January 2012. Live stakes were used to promote the long -term stability of
the channel banks, particularly in areas of potential high bank stress. A total of 5,000 livestakes
consisting of three different species were installed along SHC and the three unnamed tributaries
(Table C.1). A total of 1,492 native tree and shrub species were installed (Table C.2). Woody
stems were propagated as either bare -root whips or containerized stock. Woody stems were
dispersed across the mitigation site to enhance riparian areas that were lacking woody stems due
to past land use practices. Shrub and tree selections ranged from species tolerant (obligate
wetland) to weakly tolerant of flooding (facultative upland). Shrubs and trees were matched
with one of four planting zones based on a species wetness tolerance (Figure D.1). Planting
zones typically ranged from wet areas with saturated soils to upland areas where the soils were
better drained.
To monitor the performance of the planted woody stems, ten vegetation assessment plots
were established following woody stem installation (Figure D.1). Location, orientation, and
dimension information for each of the ten vegetation monitoring plots is located in Table C.3.
Stem counts, plant vigor, plant damage, and overall stem density was assessed for each
vegetation monitoring plot (Tables CA - C.8).
Vegetation Plot 1.— Thirteen planted stems (526 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 1 (VP 1) during the MYO survey, representing ten native woody species
originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Twelve planted stems (486
stems per acre) were recorded in MYL One dead stem, a river birch (Betula nigra), was
documented. During the MY2 survey, 11 planted stems (445 stems per acre) were recorded.
One dead stem, a dogwood (Cornus Florida), was observed. The VP1 herbaceous layer is
adequate and the planted stem density exceeds year -2 success criteria of 320 stems per acre.
Two red maple (Acer rubrum) volunteer stems were recorded in VP 1 during the MY2 vegetation
survey. Including the two volunteer stems, the total stem count was 13 (526 stems per acre) for
MY2. During the MY3 survey, 9 planted stems (364 stems per acre) were recorded. One black
cherry (Prunus serotina) stem was dead, and one bitternet hickory (Carya cordiformis) stem was
missing in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 2.—Fourteen planted stems were found in vegetation plot 2 (566 stems per
acre) in MYO, representing 11 native woody species originating from both containerized and
bare -root nursery stock. Plant vigor was good in VP2 with 14 planted stems (566 stems per acre)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 28
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

recorded during MYL The MY2 stem count documented 14 planted stems (566 stems per acre).
The MY3 stem count documented 13 planted stems (526 stems per acre). One river birch
(Betula nigra) stem was dead in MY3. Four volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
stems were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 3.—In vegetation plot 3, 19 planted stems were recorded (769 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 14 native woody species originating from both containerized and
bare -root nursery stock. Survival of the original 19 stems in VP3 was documented in MYL
Survival of planted stems remained above the minimum success criteria in VP3 during MY2
with 17 stems (688 stems per acre) recorded. Planted stem density exceeds the minimum success
criteria for vegetation performance. One tag alder Alnus serrulata volunteer stem was recorded
in VP3 during the MY2 survey. Including the single volunteer stems, the total stem count was
18 (728 stems per acre) for MY2. The MY3 stem count documented 18 planted stems (728
stems per acre). One additional white oak (Quercus alba) stem that appeared to be planted and
four volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 4.— Sixteen planted stems (648 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 4 during the MYO survey representing ten native woody species originating from
both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Sixteen stems (648 stems per acre) were
recorded again in MYL Survival of 15 planted stems (607 stems per acre) were recorded in
MY2. Including the 40 volunteer stems (38 poplar, 2 black cherry) counted in VP4, the total
stem count was 55 (2,226 stems per acre) for MY2. The MY3 stem count documented 16
planted stems (648 stems per acre). One additional sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) stem that
appeared to be planted, two volunteer oak stems (Quercus sp.), and 68 volunteer tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot S. —In vegetation plot 5, 25 planted stems were recorded (1,011 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 14 native tree and shrub species. Planted stems were both container
grown and bare -root nursery stock. A total of 24 stems were recorded in MY I. Planted stem
density (971 stems per acre) remained high even though one stem was crushed by vehicle
encroachment into the easement and VP5 during MYL A total of 21 planted stems (850 stems
per acre) were counted in the MY2 survey. Four volunteer stems (3 tag alder, 1 black cherry)
were recorded in the MY2 plot survey, increasing the total stem count to 25 (1,011 stems per
acre). The MY3 stem count documented 19 planted stems (769 stems per acre). Two dead
stems, one elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and one pignut hickory (Carya ovata), and one
missing stem, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) were documented in MY3. Four volunteer red
chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia), one volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and one
volunteer black locus (Robinia pseudoacacia) stems were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 6Fifteen planted stems (607 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 6 during the MYO survey. The 15 planted stems recorded in VP6 represent 12
native woody species originating from both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. A total of
15 planted stems (607 stems per acre) were documented in VP6 during MY I, the same number
as the previous survey. A total of 14 planted stems (567 stems per acre) were recorded in MY2.
Volunteer stems (5 poplar) increased the total stem count to 19 (768 stems per acre) in MY2.
The MY3 stem count documented 12 planted stems (486 stems per acre). One dead beautyberry
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 29
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

(Callicarpa america) stem, one missing flowering dogwood (Corpus flordia) stem, and eight
volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 7.—In vegetation plot 7, 18 planted stems were recorded (728 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 14 native tree and shrub species. Planted stems were both container
grown and bare -root nursery stock. A total of 17 stems (688 stems per acre) were documented in
MY1. Stem density (648 stems per acre) for VP7 remained well above the minimum success
criteria in MY2 with 16 planted stems recorded. The MY3 stem count documented 18 planted
stems (728 stems per acre). One flowering dogwood (Corpus flordia) stem that appeared to be
planted, two volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) stems, and two volunteer sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 8.— Twenty -seven planted stems (1,093 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 8 during the MYO survey representing 18 native woody species. Seven stems
were planted as live stakes in VP8. Live stake species consisted of silky dogwood Corpus
amomum (4 stems) and silky willow Salix sericea (3 stems). The other 20 planted stems were
from containerized and bare -root nursery stock. A total of 4 stems were missing (2) or dead (2)
in VP8 during MY1, one of which was a silky dogwood live stake. The other missing or dead
stems were planted as bare -root stock. Twenty -three planted stems (931 stems per acre) were
relocated during the MY1 vegetation plot survey. Six volunteer stems were noted in VP8 which
brought the total stem count to 29 (1,173 stems per acre) in MY1. Twenty -two planted stems
(890 stems per acre) were recorded during the MY2 survey. Six live stakes were counted and
included in the planted stem count for VP8. The MY3 stem count documented 19 planted stems
(769 stems per acre). One dead beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) stem, one missing
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), one missing bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), one
volunteer red maple (Acer rubrum) stem, one volunteer tag alder (Alnus serrulata) stem, and two
volunteer sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 9. —In vegetation plot 9, 16 planted stems were recorded (648 stems per
acre) in MYO representing 13 native tree and shrub species. Planted stems were both container
grown and bare -root nursery stock. Two stems were dead in VP9 during MY I. Stems density
(567 stems per acre) remained high in VP9 with 14 stems documented. Two more stems were
missing and presumed dead in MY2 survey, decreasing the stem count to 12 planted stems (486
stems per acre). The MY3 stem count documented 10 planted stems (405 stems per acre). One
dead beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) stem, one missing persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),
one missing black cherry (Prunus serotina), and one missing mockernut hickory (Carya alba)
were recorded in MY3.
Vegetation Plot 10.— Twenty -one planted stems (850 stems per acre) were documented in
vegetation plot 10 during the MYO survey representing 13 native woody species originating from
both containerized and bare -root nursery stock. Two stems were missing during the MY1
survey. Stem density of the 19 remaining planted stems was 769 stem per acre. Including one
volunteer stem noted in VP10, the total stem count for MY1 was 20 (809 stems per acre).
Nineteen planted stems were recorded in VP 10 during the MY2 survey. The MY3 stem count
documented 14 planted stems (567 stems per acre). One dead beautyberry (Callicarpa
americana) stem, one dead red bud (Cercis canadensis), one missing mockernut hickory (Carya
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 30
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

alba), two missing bitternut hickory (Carya ovata), and two volunteer tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) stems were recorded in MY3.
4.3.1 Vegetative Monitoring Plot Photographs
Vegetative monitoring plot photographs were taken during the MYO vegetation monitoring
survey to establish a baseline condition of each plot. Plot photographs will be compared
overtime to evaluate the plots performance throughout the monitoring period. The MYO -MY3
vegetation plot photographs reveal the positive performance of planted stem and herbaceous
layer growth following construction for all plots (Figure C.1).
4.3.2 Vegetation Problem Areas Table Summary
Areas of dense multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and
pasture fescue (Festuca spp.) along with other less ubiquitous invasive species were chemically
treated throughout the project area during the construction period. A follow up treatment of
invasive exotic vegetation occurred in the spring of 2012 (MY1), spring of 2013 (MY2), and
spring of 2014 (MY3). The 2012 treatments focused on the Mainstem 1, UT I, and UT2
conservation easement areas. The 2013 maintenance of non - native vegetation spot treated the
Mainstem 2 reach. In the spring of 2014, the entire Mainstem 3 reach and all of the UT3 reach
on the Davis property were treated.
Areas of high infestation were encountered during the initial treatment phase, particularly
adjacent to UT2 (right bank), but the majority of problem invasive areas were observed to have
only isolated non - native vegetation occurrences during the MY1 -MY3 surveys. However,
several dense patches of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were found throughout the
site during MY3. Additionally, one dense patch of bamboo (Bambusa sp.) was observed at the
upper end of the Mainstem 2 Bura/Roberson Reach. These are summarized in Table C.10
(Appendix C).
4.3.3 Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
Vegetation problem areas for MY3 are depicted on Figure D.1.
4.3.4 Vegetative Problem Areas Photographs
Vegetative problem area photographs were taken in MY3. Several dense patches of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) were observed in isolated areas of the site. Additionally, one
patch of dense bamboo (Bambusa sp.) was observed. These areas are depicted on Figure D.1.
4.3.5 Summary of Vegetation Assessment Results
A total of 184 planted stems were counted during the MYO survey. The average density of
planted woody stems recorded in the ten 100 m2 vegetation plots combined was 749 stems per
acre in MYO. Three vegetation plots (VP5 =1; VP7 =1; VP8 =7) included live stake stems. All
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 31
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

ten vegetation plots consisted of both native bare -root whips and containerized stock. All ten
vegetation plots exceeded the success criteria for vegetation stem density during the as -built
baseline survey.
A total of 173 planted stems were counted during the MY 1 survey. The average density of
the planted woody stems in the ten vegetation plots combined was 700 stems per acre. Three
vegetation plots (VP4 =12; VP 8=6; VP10 =1) were noted as having volunteer native woody
species during MY I. The volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count for the ten
vegetation monitoring plots to 192 (777 stems per acre).
A total of 161 planted stems were counted during the MY2 survey. The average density of
the planted woody stems in all the vegetation plots combined was 652 stems per acre. Five
vegetation plots (VP1 =2; VP3 =1; VP4 =40; VP5 =4; VP6 =5) were noted as having volunteer
native woody species during MY2. The volunteer woody stems increased the total stem count
for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to 213 (862 stems per acre). The vast majority of
volunteer stems in VP4 (N =38) are tulip poplars.
A total of 141 planted stems were counted during the MY3 survey, a decrease of 7 stems
from MY02. The average density of the planted woody stems in all the vegetation plots
combined was 570 stems per acre. All vegetation plots, except VP 1 and VP9, were noted as
having volunteer native woody species during MY3. The volunteer woody stems increased the
total stem count for the ten vegetation monitoring plots to 252 (1020 stems per acre).
Overall, the vegetation condition assessment, in terms of both planted native vegetation and
existing non - native invasive vegetation, within the conservation easement was favorable in
MY1 -MY3 (Table C.11). Several high density areas of Japanese honeysuckle (approximately
1.08 acres total) were observed and are depicted on Figure D.1 (Appendix D). Additionally, one
small patch of dense bamboo (Bambusa sp.) was observed onsite (approximately 0.07 acres).
These areas will continued to be monitored closely and updated during subsequent visits to the
site. Planted vegetation across the project site, including both channel banks and the riparian
buffers, is vigorous and abundant. Chinese privet, a low to moderate invasive species of
concern, was significantly reduced following chemical treatments during project construction
(2011) and with follow -up treatments in the early spring of 2012, 2013, and 2014. Scattered
stems of Chinese privet remain in the easement but are minimal and below mapping thresholds.
5 Farm Management Plan
The USH mitigation project included livestock best management practices (BMPs) such as
livestock exclusionary fencing and developed watering facilities on the Bianculli, Roberson, and
Davis properties. The NCEEP funded all livestock BMPs in full through a task order contract
with the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The Buncombe County Soil
and Water Conservation District designed and managed the installation of the BMPs through a
contract independent of the channel and riparian construction contract. Additional details on the
locations and quantities of the livestock BMPs are included in the Upper South Hominy
Mitigation Plan (NCWRC 2010).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 32
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

6 Post Construction Project Activities
Storm water run -off from the Roberson pasture and hill slope was entering the conservation
easement adjacent to Connie Davis Road following the pre- existing conveyance a roadside
depression that directed the outfall of the water to SHC on the upstream side of the Connie Davis
Road bridge abutment. During the heavy rain event in November 2011 that resulted in flooding
and damage to other parts of the project reach, landowners that rely on the bridge for access to
their home requested that the storm conveyance be moved so that it did not enter SHC creek at
the bridge. To alleviate the landowners concern of potential erosion to the bridge abutment, the
NCEEP requested that the NCWRC design and construct a conveyance channel upstream of the
bridge. In the spring of 2012, a topographical survey of the area and a design plan for a
floodplain interceptor was submitted to NCEEP for approval. Construction was completed in
October 2012, just prior the MY1 survey. The constructed storm flow conveyance channel now
outfalls to SHC at station 12 +75 (Figure D.1).
Following the flood event on May 5, 2013, several site visits were made by both NCWRC
staff and NCEEP staff. During a joint visit with NCEEP to discuss channel bank repairs on the
lower end of the Mainstem 2 reach just upstream of the Connie Davis Road bridge, questions
were directed towards two large diameter trees growing adjacent to the right bank bridge
abutment and conservation easement. A large maple was leaning at more than a 45° angle and
its root mass was undercut by at least 5 ft (horizontal) along the right bank. A large cherry with
many dead limbs was obviously declining in health.
Recent damage to the right bank, upstream of the two trees, occurred in large part because a
leaning cherry tree toppled during the May 5, 2013 flood event. That section of bank had
withstood several high water events and was not destabilized until the leaning cherry tree fell.
The bank erosion that resulted was fair warning of what could happen if either the maple or
cherry fell.
Reducing risk to the bridge crossing and minimizing potential damage to the right bank by
removing the two trees was considered integral to project success. The NCWRC obtained
permission from the landowner, James Roberson, and contracted with a certified arborist to
remove both two trees. The trees were taken down in sections using a chainsaw and crane on
April 28, 2014. All tree material and debris were removed from the area.
7 Acknowledgements
K. Jernigan and P. Perkinson of Axiom Environmental, Inc. collected and analyzed the field
data reported in this monitoring document. K. Jernigan prepared the plan view drawings for the
project report. C. Faquin, G. Lewis, K. Jernigan, and P. Perkinson prepared the monitoring
document. Special thanks to the NCEEP staff who improved this document with their thorough
review and thoughtful suggestions.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 33
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

8 References
AutoCad. 2012. Version 2012.0.0. Copyright 2012, AutoDesk, Inc., San Rafael, California.
Harrelson, C. C., J. P. Potyondy, and C. L. Rawlins. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. General Technical Report RM -245, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 national
land cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing Vo1.70, No.7, July 2004, pp 829 -840. Available:
http: / /www.mrlc.goy/publications.php (May 2010).
Lee, M. T., R. K. Peet, R. D. Steven, T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS_EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Available: www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm
(October 2006).
NCEEP (North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program). 2012. Version 1.5. Procedural
Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Documents. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/fd-forms-templates.
NCSRI (North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute). 2003. Stream restoration: a natural
channel design handbook. North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina
Sea Grant, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Available:
www.bae.ncsu.edu /programs /extension/wqg /sri /. (May 2010).
NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2010. Mitigation Plan (FINAL)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site, South Hominy Creek, French Broad River Basin,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. Watershed Enhancement Group. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers), Wilmington District, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Wilmington, North
Carolina.
Yang, L, C. Huang, C. Homer, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2002. An approach for mapping large -
area impervious surfaces: Synergistic use of Landsat 7 ETM+ and high spatial resolution
imagery. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing, 29: 2, 230 -240.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 34
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Appendix A.
General Tables and Figures
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 35
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table A.1 Restoration Levels, Mitigation Approaches and Component Summations, Upper
South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Components
Project Segment or
Stream Reach ID
0
y wad
a
a
yboc
a
d
0
W
9 a
o^�
SAO;°
Bianculli South Hominy Cr.
600
R
P3
630
0 +00 to 6 +30
1:1
630
Bianculli South Hominy Cr.
169
Ell
P3
167
6 +30 to 7 +97
2.5:1
67
Bianculli Trib North (UT 1)
100
P
94
0 +00 to 0 +94
5:1
19
Bianculli Trib North (UT 1)
138
R
P1
183
1 +00 to 2 +83
1:1
183
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
44
R
PI
45
6 +54 to 6 +99
1:1
45
Bianculli Trib South (UT2)
654
EII
SS
654
0 +00 to 6 +54
2.5:1
262
Bura /Roberson South
Hominy Cr
477
R
P3
518
1 +00 to 2 +25; 7 +25 to 10 +00; 11 +68 to
12 +86
1:1
518
Bura /Roberson South
Hominy Cr
775
EII
P3
768
0 +00 to 1 +00; 2 +25 to 7 +25; 10 +00 to
11 +68
2.5:1
307
Roberson Abandoned Ch UT2
170
R
PI
191
0 +00 to 1 +91
1:1
191
Davis South Hominy Cr
500
EI
P3
522
0 +00 to 5 +22
1.5:1
348
Davis South Hominy Cr
227
EII
P3
215
5 +22 to 7 +37
2.5:1
86
Davis UT3 upper
775
P
777
0 +00 to 7 +77
5:1
155
Davis UT3 middle
538
EII
SS
538
7 +77 to 13 +15
2.5:1
215
Davis UT3 lower
426
R
PI
427
13 +15 to 17 +42
1:1
427
Davis Springs (north)
144
P
144
0 +00 to 1 +44
5:1
29
Davis Spring (south)
72
P
78
0 +00 to 0 +78
5:1
16
Totals
5,809
5,951
3,498
Component Summations
Mitigation Level
(ratio)
ratio
Stream
Len 1
Length (If)
Steam
Mitigation
Units
Riparian Wetland Acre
p (Acre)
Wetland Mitigation
Units
ltiverine
Non- ltiverine
Restoration (1:1)
1,994
1,994
Enhancement 1(2:1)
522
348
1.11
0.56
Enhancement II (2.5:1)
2,342
937
Creation
Preservation (5:1)
1,093
219
0.24
0.05
HQ Preservation
Totals
5,951
3,498
1.35
0.61
R = Restoration
P 1 =Priority 1
aSource: USACE (2003)
bSource: Rosgen (2006)
P = Preservation C = Creation
P2 = Priority 2 P3 = Priority 3
EI = Enhancement I
S = Stabilization
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 36
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
EII = Enhancement II
SS = Stream Bank Stabilization

Table A.2 Project Activity and Reporting History, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Ac ivity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Deliver
Conservation easement acquired (by NCEEP)
11 June 2009
11 June 2009
Mitigation Plan
23 January 2009
30 November 2010
Final Design - 90%
28 February 2010
30 November 2010
Construction
29 June 2011
31 October 2011
Temporary S &E seed mix applied to entire project area
29 June 2011
31 October 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
29 June 2011
31 October 2011
As -built physical survey
16 December 2011
1 February 2012
Containerized and bare root plantings installed over entire project area
9 November 2011
20 February 2012
As -built vegetation survey
2 February 2012
22 February 2012
Invasive Species Treatment
--
Spring 2012
Mitigation Plan/As -built (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
22 February 2012
28 February 2013
Year 1 Monitoring
16 November 2012
30 September 2013
Invasive Species Treatment
--
Spring 2013
Year 2 Monitoring
30 November 2013
30 May 2014
Invasive Species Treatment
--
Spring 2014
Structure Repair
--
Summer 2014
Year 3 Monitoring
30 November 2014
17 February 2015
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation Monitoring POC
218 Snow Avenue
Year 5+ Monitoring
Raleigh, NC 27603 (919- 215 -1693)
Table A.3 Project Contacts, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Homin
Mitigation Site Project Contacts
Project Owner
Contact Information
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Harry Tsomides
5 Ravenscroft Dr.
Asheville, NC 28801
Designer(s):
Firm Information /Address:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Jeff Ferguson
1751 Varsity Drive
Shannon Deaton
NCSU Centennial Campus
Raleigh, NC 27695
Construction Contractor:
Firm Information /Address:
Suttles Trucking and Grading, Inc.
Suttles Trucking and Grading, Inc.
10 Edwards Drive
Nebo, NC 28761 (828- 659 -2104)
Planting Contractor:
Company Information /Address:
Suttles Trucking and Grading, Inc.
Same as above
Seeding Contractor:
Company Information /Address:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Same as above
Native Seed Mix Sources
Company and Contact Phone:
Ernst Conservation Seeds, LLP
1- 800 - 873 -3321
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Company and Contact Phone:
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Dan River Prison Farm, Same as above
NC Forest Service
Carolyn Jernigan 919 - 731 -7988
Monitoring Performers (MYO -MY2):
Firm Information /Address:
Stream Monitoring POC
NCWRC, same as above
Vegetation Monitoring POC
NCWRC, same as above
Monitoring Performers (MY3 -MY5):
Firm Information/Address:
Stream Monitoring POC
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Vegetation Monitoring POC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603 (919- 215 -1693)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 37
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table AA Project Attributes, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Project Attributes
Project County
Buncombe
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge Mountains
Ecoregion (Reference: USACE 2003)
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad River
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
06010105060020
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
04 -03 -02
Within Extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Yes
NCWRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Cold
Percent of project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
100%
Beaver activity Observed During Design Phase?
Yes
SHC
UT3
Davis
UT2
Bianculli /Roberson
UT1
Bianculli
Drainage Area (mil)
7.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Stream Order
4
1
1
1
Restored Length (ft)
2,820
1,742
890
277
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Watershed Type (Rural, Urban, Developing, etc.)
Developing
Developing
Developing
Developing
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.) (percent)
Residential
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Etc.
<3.0
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
0.2
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
7.2
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
89.7
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Watershed Impervious Cover (percent)
<1.0
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
NCDWQ AU/Index Number
6 -76 -5
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCDWQ Classification
C, Tr
C, Tr
C, Tr
C, Tr
303d Listed?
No
No
No
No
Upstream 303d Listed Segment?
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification Number
Buncombe Co. 20110118
Same
Same
USACE 404 Action ID Number
SAW-2011-00076
Same
Same
Total Acreage of Conservation Easement (including stream channel)
16.44
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Total (undisturbed) Vegetated Acreage Within Easement
7.5
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Total Riparian Buffer Acreage as Part of the Restoration
7.0
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
Rosgen Stream Classification of Pre - Existing
C4
G5
abandoned
G5
Rosgen Stream Classification of As -built (Design)
C4
B5 /C5
C5
E5
Valley Type
VIII
VII
VIII
VIII
Valley Slope
0.00973
0.10480
Valley Side Slope Range (e.g. 2 -3 %)
0.09 -0.24
0.07 -0.29
Valley Toe Slope Range (e.g. 2 -3 %)
0.003 -0.026
0.02 -0.19
Cowardin Classification (Reference: Cowardin 1979)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trout Waters Designation ( NCWRC)
No
No
No
No
Species of Concern, Endangered, Etc.? (Y/N)
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series (dominant)
Depth (in)
Clay ( %)
K
T
Iotla Loam
Included in total
Included in total
Included in total
80
15.5
0.15
5
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 38
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure A.1 Vicinitv Man, Unner South Hominv Mitigation Site.
Legend ��
[] Project �4atershed Boundary
Project Hydrologic Unit
County Boundary
— Wanes
Iiitmtate 91
US H1glnV'ay 1v
NC Hsghway _
BUNCOMBE CO. r --T
70
M
16610 �" J
�P Project Site
9
1
I3AYWOOD CO t r • — -- —
t `r IIEhTDERS0N CO.
r
AMA
r
27
From A-shevdIet- NC tread —t on -sa Tike ex� � xJ to =eu h ou Lr'S 19 VS 23 woler Park Ei�a s :c•= _ u, :�_- Iti-�. 1 ku to Y =C
151 Bi:pan F-gh -o-w and trarel .sv 6 C nn:® beirte °rt5nnr ti 3t net ra fans Creek Ra33�S. F*Mirl Rzad (SR 1103).
'ttte atbjeet 7poje ate as an encn+eatu ewt te.:Caawn :ate x the NCDENM E a z.rem Enhantetuent Ftap am (ErPr tnd t. errecmpta :ed tn' a tecat+x3
aas-4wV at= •a shut is bordered 3s• land under prr --4e awmwih* Asre - - -;mg the rte tna•g requue =v a -gig xteas nen oc matt_- the exsenxat
boum&uy and dwafm arr; by the ecetal pui L- ts nat pnmined A�cets ba- rsthaawd perscrte3 wr :ute and foal agetcv- at 6eu
deigmas ea ftwtar m:-ahbd in the dereiapakent of sirr =d -rmacA wp a tits re,tarayon vte is pu=t-@d nithin the teen: and nnmfi ssar of
r their datmad sale;- .day muw&d <_ise riararian o: act ntic ln• any pox-,= out„ide of tiro -e ;ate iau_h raacua .i roles. and actnntt*s se es p w4
co"Ainatko with EEF
,, ow"10
a MA
Upper South Hominy Nfitigation Site
EEP Project Number: 92632
Buncombe County� North Carolina
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 39
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure A.2 South Hominv Creek Watershed Boundary and Proiect Area Map.
[Projt
t Easement Boundary ff
t Watershed Boundary a — 7.1 n' on
IX-
;' •__ Twr'.r O'C ae! P .. /� 5_� r ✓ 4 1 x '� 1`
I
r
,
Mr Pts?
r I
Project 1 -! ii. 1l.. 1
'Upper South Honniny, Nhugaton Site
E • • ,- 921632
_►��!►.,l1 "fit i�*�'�y��
Btuicombe County. North Carolina
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 40
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure A.3 Project Components and Assets Map, Aerial Photography NConemap 2006, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Av,
150 c
Scale: _ �;C'
r_d��I South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As-Built) �,
EEP Project No.: 92632 Buncombe County, NC
iu COSVStCtll it Bianculli Property Reach "` "'
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 41
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure A.3 Continued
150 0 150 300 450 South Hominy Cr.-. Restoration = 518LF
Enhancement Level II = 766LF
Scale: 1" = 150' UT2: Restoration — 191LF
South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As- Built)
tF
EEP Project No,: 92632 Buncombe County, NC
;111 I 111 1] Burra/Roberson Properties Reach
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 42
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure A.3 Continued
�escorovon tF rir Enhancement Level I
100 0 too 2 00 300 Enhancement Level II = S.3BLF
Spring Seep (north) Preservation = 4 +dLF — Enhancement Level p
ScUlp t" = T310, Spring Seep (south); Preservatinr+ = NU Wstland Enhm"cemert
South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As- Built)
EEP Project No.: 92632 Buncombe County, NC
�rsrcv... Davis Property Reach
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 43
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure A.3 Continued
y
S _ 1
i
As – ®uii3 Aliligalion Approoch – South Homimr Creek LEGEND
!Davis Pronertv_1 Prisszation Easernent un
#01000. South Hominy Cr.: Enhancement Level I = 522LF __ preservation
Enhancement Level A = 21 ST
UT3: Preservotion = 777LF Restoration
Restorotion = 427LF Er+hgnCEmin *. Level I
Enhamement Level B = 53SLF
_, Spring Seep ;norW Ireservrrrron – t44LF — Evhonu4ment Level II
Spring Seep �sDJvt 'reararvol.]M- = 1BLF —� wetland Erh,tncer> en:
South Hominy Creek Mitigation Components (As- Built)
EEP Project No.: 92632 Buncombe County. NC
iC[15stCtll s Danis Property Reach
"�°"
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 44
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report – Final – February 2015

Appendix B.
Morphological Summary Data Tables and Plots
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 45
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table B.1 Existing, Reference, Design, and As -built Stream Channel Morphology Data Summary for South Hominy Creek (SHC).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Channel Morphology Data Summary
Parameter (Riffles Only) Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
(SHC) Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
(SHC) Design
Dimension and Substrate
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
30
27.2
37.3
31.1
32.0
3.6
7
28.1
37.2
30.3
31.2
3.5
5
28.1
30.7
37.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
203.0
370.0
320.0
311.3
55.6
7
64.0
329.0
104.0
146.4
106.9
5
68.4
182.2
296
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
70
50.8
81.4
70.2
69.7
9.9
7
43.8
75.5
62.0
60.7
11.6
5
43.8
61.3
75.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.5
1.7
2.6
2.2
2.2
0.4
7
1.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
0.3
5
1.5
2.0
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
3.8
3.2
3.2
0.4
7
2.3
3.3
3.0
2.8
0.4
5
2.0
2.7
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.5
20.1
15.0
15.0
3.5
7
12.7
20.9
16.4
16.3
3.4
5
12.0
15.4
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio
6.6
13.4
9.9
9.8
2.0
7
2.3
11.2
3.4
4.7
3.6
5
2.4
5.9
8.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
2.0
1.4
1.5
0.3
7
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.3
0.4
5
1.0
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
30.0
38.7
32.8
33.8
3.3
7
30.5
38.2
31.6
32.8
3.1
5
30.5
32.8
38.15
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
I
I 1.6
2.4
2.1
2.1
0.3
7
1.4
2.1
2.0
1.8
0.3
5
1.4
1.9
2.1
D50 (nun)
F-1
17.3
39.2
24.5
26.9
56.8
8.1
26.1
7
6
15.2
64.7
62.3
240.0
46.5
88.0
42.6
120.2
20.8
81.8
4
4
15.2
53.1
42.6
154.7
62.3
EL
256.2
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
EJ
28.2
97.4
46.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
29.7
545.1
294.3
295.8
209.7
6
12.7
105.0
49.6
54.2
38.1
4
10.7
70.7
256.2
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
I
0.9
17.0
9.2
9.2
6.6
6
0.5
3.4
1.6
1.8
1.2
4
0.4
2.3
6.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
140.0
561.5
307.5
307.0
148.3
6
131.0
350.0
342.5
291.5
107.2
4
108.0
288.9
469.8
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
0.9
12.6
3.0
85.9
1.4
53.7
1.8
53.5
0.8
21.9
6
14
1.9
27.7
11.9
65.0
7.9
57.5
7.4
51.9
5.0
16.8
4
4
1.9
15.8
5.0
52.3
6.9
86.9
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.01177
0.03597
0.01733
0.01967
0.00709
14
0.01128
0.02103
0.01329
0.01472
0.00433
4
0.00737
0.01703
0.02669
Pool Length (ft)
I
16.0
84.1
42.2
42.7
19.6
11
27.1
41.0
30.9
32.5
6.2
4
14.7
55.7
96.7
Pool MatDepth (ft)
2.9
7. 7
4.4
4.5
1.3
11
3.8
5.3
4.3
4.4
0.7
4
3.6
6.2
8.8
Pool to Pool (ft)
28.4
537.8
184.4
220.9
173.1
8
41.4
307.9
77.0
125.9
123.0
4
44.2
176.8
309.4
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 46
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Table B.1 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Channel Morphology Data Summary
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
(SHC) Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
(SHC) Design
aRi % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
0
30
30
20
20
aSC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
7.6
16.1
29.7
45.4
1.3
0.0
aD16 / D35 / D50 / D84 / D95 / DlP / DisP
0.23
23.9
56.6
144.4
211.0
98.0
90.0
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/ft'
1.0 to 1.3
771to .2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
98
60
Stre am Power (transport capacity) W /mb
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (mil)
7.1
Impervious cover estimate ( %)
<1.0
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.6
4.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
250
350
322
Valley Length (ft)
2604.1
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2893.7
2893.7
Sinuosity
1.11
1.11
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.009
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.009
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
0.66
1.26
Proportion Over Wide ( %)
5
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
Low ( >2.2)
Incision Class (BHR)
Moderately Unstable (1.06 -1.3) to Highly Unstable ( >1.5)
BEHI VL% / L% /M% / H% / VH% / E %
NA
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
NA
Biological or Other
NA
a Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock, (values derived from reach -wide pebble counts). Dip = max pavement, Di'P = max sub - pavement. Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
b Methodology should be cited and described either here or in text
= Non - Applicable; NA = Not Available
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 47
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Table B.I. Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 1- Bianculli Reach - 797 feet
Parameter - (cross- sections 1 &3)
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (f
26.9
30.1
28.5
28.5
2.3
2
26.9
30.0
28.5
28.5
2.2
2
27.1
29.6
28.4
28.4
1.8
2
29.2
32.7
31.0
31.0
2.5
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
236.0
362.0
299.0
299.0
89.1
2
236.0
362.0
299.0
299.0
89.1
2
236.0
362.0
299.0
299.0
89.1
2
236.0
350.0
293.0
293.0
80.6
2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area ()
54.8
62.9
58.8
58.8
5.7
21
52.9
63.7
58.3
58.3
7.6
2
42.3
62.3
52.3
52.3
14.1
21
59.8
71.4
65.6
65.6
8.2
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (fr
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.11
0.0
21
2.0
2.1
2.01
2.0
0.11
2
1.61
2.1
1.8
1.8
0.4
2
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.1
0.11
2
Bankfull Max Depth (fr
2.6
3.2
2.9
2.9
0.4
2
2.7
3.2
2.9
2.9
0.4
2
2.5
4.2
3.3
3.3
1.2
2
3.2
4.2
3.7
3.7
0.7
2
Width/Depth Rati
13.2
14.4
13.8
13.8
0.9
2
13.6
14.2
13.9
13.9
0.4
2
14.1
17.4
15.7
15.7
2.3
2
14.2
15.0
14.6
14.6
0.6
2
Entrenchment Rati
8.8
12.0
10.4
10.4
2.3
2
8.8
12.1
10.4
10.4
2.3
2
8.7
12.2
10.5
10.5
2.5
2
8.1
10.7
9.4
9.4
1.8
2
Bank Height Rati
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.1
2
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.0
2
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
28.8
32.0
30.4
30.4
2.3
2
28.7
31.7
30.2
30.2
2.1
2
29.0
32.1
30.5
30.5
2.2
2
31.5
35.3
33.41
33.4
2.7
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.0
2
1.8
2.0
1.91
1.9
0.11
2
1.51
1.9
1.7
1.7
0.3
2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
2
D50 (mm)
22.1
28.9
25.5
25.5
4.8
2
40.9
46.7
43.8
43.8
4.1
2
32.0
56.4
44.2
44.2
17.2
2
35
40
37
37
5
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
121.0
1
124.1
1
104.51
1
104.5
1
Radius of Curvature (ft
97.0
247.0
212.0
185.3
106.1
3
61.0
178.0
95.0
107.3
52.2
4
70.3
208.7
79.7
119.6
91.2
3
70.3
208.7
79.7
119.6
91.2
3
Rc:Bankfill width (ft/ft
3.2
8.2
7.1
6.2
3.5
3
2.0
6.6
3.3
3.8
2.0
4
2.4
7.5
2.6
4.2
3.4
3
2.4
7.5
2.6
4.2
3.4
3
Meander Wavelength (ft
315.0
329.0
322.0
322.0
9.9
2
293.0
327.0
310.0
310.0
24.0
2
296.9
361.4
329.2
329.2
45.6
2
296.9
361.4
329.2
329.2
45.6
2
Meander Width Rati
4.0
1
4.1
4.6
4.4
4.4
0.3
2
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.6
0.2
3
3.4
3.8
3.6
3.6
0.2
3
Profile
c
Riffle Length (ft
32.4
62.9
60.1
52.6
12.9
5
48.2
108.2
51.9
63.5
25.2
5
44.9
85.5
53.9
59.4
17.2
5
12.7
41.5
31.6
28.5
12.0
6
Riffle Slope (ft ft
0.01581
0.01107
0.01197
0.01258
0.01525
5
0.01037
0.02020
0.01160
0.01388
0.00438
5
0.00646
0.01798
0.01572
0.01403
0.00448
5
0.00020
0.02730
0.01930
0.01690
0.01110
6
Pool Length (ft
20.7
34.4
29.1
28.5
5.0
5
18.4
56.7
26.7
33.2
15.8
5
26.7
35.4
29.4
29.7
3.4
5
21.5
86.3
54.7
54.3
21.4
10
Pool Max depth (ft
5.9
5.4
5.3
0.5
5
4.2
5.4
5.1
4.8
0.6
5
4.4
5.8
5.2
5.1
0.5
5
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft
86.7
217.6
114.3
133.2
59.6
4
98.1
240.4
104.1
136.7
69.4
4
58.9
297.0
89.1
133.5
110.5
4
37.0
122.2
61.0
73.1
30.9
10
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from
pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm)
1 35.01
1
1
1
1
1 38.51
1
1
52.2
1
1
48
D84 (mm)
1 81.61
1
1
1
1
1 94.71
1
1
104.6
96

Table 131. Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 2 - Bura/Roberson - 1,286 feet
Parameter - (cross- sections 5 &7)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mcan
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft
30.5
37.5
34.0
34.0
5.0
2
30.5
37.4
33.9
33.9
4.9
2
30.5
37.1
33.8
33.8
4.7
2
29.5
38.3
33.9
33.9
6.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
21
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
282.0
337.0
309.5
309.5
38.9
2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area O
62.2
65.2
63.7
63.7
2.1
2
61.6
65.4
63.5
63.5
2.7
2
61.8
62.2
62.0
62.0
0.3
2
64.6
65.0
64.8
64.8
0.3
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (t
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.2
2
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.91
0.2
2
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.9
0.2
2
1.7
2.2
2.0
2.0
0.4
2
Bankfull Max Depth (f
2.7
3.2
3.0
3.0
0.3
2
2.7
3.1
2.9
2.9
0.3
2
2.7
3.0
2.9
2.9
0.3
2
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
0.4
2
Width/Depth Rati
14.9
21.6
18.3
18.3
4.7
2
15.1
21.4
18.2
18.2
4.4
2
15.0
22.1
18.6
18.6
5.0
2
13.4
22.7
18.1
18.1
6.6
2
Entrenchment Rati
7.5
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5
2
7.5
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5
2
7.6
11.1
9.3
9.3
2.5
2
7.4
11.4
9.4
9.4
2.8
2
Bank Height Rati
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
31.8
38.3
35.0
35.0
4.6
2
31.6
38.2
34.9
34.9
4.7
2
31.71
37.9
34.8
34.8
4.3
2
30.9
39.1
35.0
35.0
5.81
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.2
2
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.2
2
1.6
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.2
2
1.7
2.1
1.9
1.9
0.3
2
D50 (mm)
31.4
49.4
40.4
40.4
12.7
2
16.7
18.6
17.7
17.7
1.4
2
28.9
32.0
30.4
30.4
2.2
2
22.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
1.0
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
93.0
193.0
143.0
143.0
70.7
2
83.0
172.0
90.0
115.0
49.5
3
54.6
68.2
59.0
60.6
6.9
3
54.6
68.2
59.0
60.6
6.9
3
Radius of Curvature (ft
90.0
137.0
114.0
113.7
23.5
3
61.0
131.0
83.5
89.8
29.5
4
60.1
113.7
97.3
90.4
27.5
3
60.1
113.7
97.3
90.4
27.5
3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft ft
3.0
4.6
3.8
3.8
0.8
3
2.0
4.3
2.2
2.7
1.1
4
2.4
3.4
3.1
3.0
0.5
3
2.4
3.4
3.1
3.0
0.5
3
Meander Wavelength (ft
214.0
343.0
229.0
262.0
70.5
3
164.0
233.0
200.0
199.3
28.3
4
186.6
229.3
222.0
212.6
22.8
3
186.6
229.3
222.0
212.6
22.8
3
Meander Width Rati
3.1
6.4
4.8
4.8
2.3
2
4.4
7.6
5.4
5.7
1.4
4
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
0.3
3
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
0.3
3
Profile
■
r
Riffle Length (ft
47.6
77.8
70.9
68.8
12.3
5
27.1
82.2
70.4
63.1
21.7
5
44.2
83.3
65.2
65.31
14.1
5
5.4
82.9
20.7
29.7
24.9
13
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
0.00719
0.01452
0.01287
0.01192
0.00280
5
0.00735
0.02459
0.01110
0.01293
0.00679
5
0.00414
0.01899
0.00582
0.01022
0.00739
5
0.00060
0.04570
0.01090
0.01590
0.01290
13
Pool Length (ft)
32.8
78.5
56.3
54.1
17.5
5
44.4
87.1
63.5
61.8
17.2
5
41.1
56.7
47.9
48.3
5.8
5
24.1
121.2
48.7
55.9
27.6
16
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.5
4.4
5.9
4.7
4.5
5
3.9
6.3
4.8
5.0
0.9
5
3.7
5.4
4.2
4.5
0.7
5
3.5
5.2
4.4
4.4
0.9
2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
69.1
469.9
271.8
270.7
218.4
4
65.1
466.6
283.4
274.6
213.5
4
128.4
455.8
254.2
273.1
140.6
4
37.6
150.1
63.3
75.5
37.3
16
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from
pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm)
1 35.01
1
1 1
1
1 39.51
1
1
52.21
23
D84 (mm)
1 81.61
1
1 1
1
1 94.71
1
1
104.6
81

Table B1. Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 3 - Davis Project Reach - 737 feet
Parameter - (cross- sections 8 &10)
MYO
MYI
MY2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.5
30.1
27.8
27.8
3.3
2
25.7
30.1
27.9
27.9
3.1
2
26.1
29.9
28.0
28.0
2.7
2
27.4
29.6
28.5
28.5
1.6
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
292.0
549.0
420.5
420.5
181.7
2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area O
53.4
65.1
59.2
59.2
8.2
2
53.7
66.0
59.8
59.8
8.7
2
59.4
64.3
61.9
61.9
3.5
2
61.2
62.3
61.8
61.8
0.8
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
2.1
2.2
2.11
2.1
0.01
2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.11
0.1
2
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
0.1
21
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
0.1
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.0
2
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
0.0
2
3.1
3.4
3.3
3.3
0.2
2
3.0
3.4
3.2
3.2
0.3
2
Width/Depth Rati
12.1
13.9
13.0
13.0
1.3
2
12.4
13.8
13.1
13.1
1.0
2
11.5
13.9
12.7
12.7
1.7
2
12.2
14.1
13.2
13.2
1.3
2
Entrenchment Ratic
9.7
21.6
15.6
15.6
8.4
2
9.7
21.3
15.5
15.5
8.2
2
9.8
21.0
15.4
15.4
7.9
2
9.9
20.1
15.0
15.0
7.2
2
Bank Height Ratic
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.1
2
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.1
2
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
26.6
31.3
29.0
29.0
3.3
2
26.9
31.31
29.1
29.1
3.1
2
27.6
31.4
29.5
29.5
2.6
2
29.1
31.0
30.1
30.1
1.3
2
Hydraulic Radius (ft
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.1
2
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.1
2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
0.1
2
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.1
2
D50 (mm)
33.5
47.7
40.6
40.6
10.0
2
25.0
37.9
31.4
31.4
9.1
2
16.0
29.2
22.6
22.6
9.3
2
14
24
19
19
5
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
39.0
50.0
47.0
45.3
5.7
3
38.0
56.2
44.3
46.2
9.2
3
31.8
39.0
35.4
35.4
5.1
2
31.8
39.0
35.4
35.4
5.1
2
Radius of Curvature (ft
102.0
187.0
144.5
144.5
60.1
2
73.4
166.7
120.1
120.1
66.0
2
125.4
238.7
182.1
182.1
80.1
2
125.4
238.7
182.1
182.1
80.1
2
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
3.4
6.2
4.8
4.8
2.0
2
2.4
6.5
4.5
4.5
2.9
2
3.9
6.1
5.0
5.0
1.5
2
3.9
6.1
5.0
5.0
1.5
2
Meander Wavelength (ft
188.0
382.0
268.0
279.3
97.5
3
186.8
304.0
222.4
237.7
60.1
3
192.8
202.4
197.6
197.6
6.8
2
192.8
202.4
197.6
197.6
6.8
2
Meander Width Rat
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
0.1
3
1.5
2.2
1.5
1.7
0.4
3
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.2
2
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.2
2
Profile
■
Riffle Length (ft
22.0
60.8
37.2
40.4
17.0
5
30.4
58.5
32.1
40.6
12.9
5
29.1
60.5
48.0
46.7
11.5
5
9.0
59.6
19.9
27.0
20.2
8
Riffle Slope (ft /ft
0.00856
0.02029
0.01368
0.01399
0.00501
5
0.01021
0.01909
0.01284
0.01465
0.00396
5
0.00361
0.01529
0.01067
0.01085
0.00476
5
0.00610
0.03420
0.01040
0.01370
0.00920
8
Pool Length (ft)
13.2
38.5
22.4
25.2
10.9
5
17.1
55.6
45.8
38.9
16.6
5
17.5
43.0
23.5
26.3
10.0
5
30.1
111.6
40.8
56.5
27.4
8
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.9
5.1
4.4
4.5
0.5
5
3.6
4.8
4.6
4.4
0.5
5
3.8
4.2
3.9
4.0
0.2
5
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.5
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
65.61
258.1
174.8
168.3
94.7
4
64.2
225.1
170.5
157.6
80.1
4
42.2
229.7
100.8
118.4
82.01
41
39.0
112.0
74.0
78.0
24.0
8
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from
pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm)
1 35.01
1
1
1
1
1 39.51
1
1
52.2
1
19
D84 (mm)
1 81.61
1
1
1
1
1 94.71
1
1
104.6
55

Table B.1.1 Existing, Reference, Design, and As -built Stream Channel Morphology Data Summary for Roberson UT2 and Davis UT3, Riffles Only.
Parameter (Riffles Only)
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
D50 (mm)
Pattern
Min
3.9
6.0
4.5
0.7
1.1
3.0
1.5
3.4
6.0
0.7
N/A
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site Channel Morphology Data Summary (EEP Project Number 92632)
(UT3 Davis) Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach
Basin Cr (C)
Reference Reach
North Br (Ba)`
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Mean
Mean
10.0
4.4
6.1
3.4
3
30.7
8.0
15.3
14.0
11.8
5.0
3
85.0
11.6
7.4
6.5
6.1
L5
3
57.4
4.2
1.5
1.2
1.1
0.4
3
1.87
0.5
1.8
1.4
1.4
0.4
3
2.4
0.8
13.8
3.3
6.7
6.1
3
16.4
15.4
3.1
1.6
2.1
0.9
3
2.8
1.5
3.7
3.6
3.6
0.1
3
1.0
1.0
10.4
6.7
7.7
2.4
3
32.6
N/A
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.2
3
1.76
N/A
38.5
27.0
(UT3- upper, Ba) Design
Min
Mean
Max
8.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
6.0
6.9
7.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.2
1.4
16.0
18.0
20.0
1.9
2.2
2.5
33.0
1.0
71.9
10.4
10.7
10.9
0.8
1.0
1.1
9.7
20 -30
4.7
(UT3 - lower, C) Design
Min
Mean
Max
8.0
10.0
12.0
27.7
40.0
54.0
8.6
9.2
9.9
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.6
2.2
16.0
16.6
17.1
3.5
4.0
4.5
33.0
1.0
71.9
10.6
11.1
11.6
0.9
1.0
1.1
10 -20
Channel Belt Width (ft)
6.8
39.5
23.8
24.7
14.5
7
105.0
17.0
13.8
16.8
22.3
23.6
26.8
29.7
Radius of Curvature (ft)
45.5
146.8
81.6
86.4
39.2
7
106.0
13.0
33.0
56.4
71.9
30.1
38.4
43.6
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft /ft)
5.4
17.4
9.7
10.2
4.7
7
3.5
1.6
4.1
5.6
6.0
3.0
3.8
4.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
8.5
180.3
37.6
52.8
58.1
7
350
29.0
70.0
76.9
89.7
97.6
102.1
106.8
Meander Width Ratio
0.8
4.7
1 2.8
2.9
1.7
7
3.4
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.2
2.5
1 2.7
2.9
Profile'
Riffle Length (ft)
65.0
N/A
1.8
2.0
2.2
10.0
14.0
18.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.02103
0.14200
0.09500
0.10000
0.12000
0.01861
0.03747
0.05634
Pool Length (ft)
70.0
N/A
4.0
4.4
4.8
13.4
22.8
32.3
Pool Max Depth (ft)
5.3
0.95
1.8
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.6
2.2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
90.1
68.0
22.8
23.0
1 23.2
22.3
27.7
33.1
a Only a single riffle was surveyed for the Basin Creek (6.8 mil) reference reach, 1998.
b Channel impacts and low flow precluded meaningful channel feature evaluation.
c Only a single riffle was surveyed for the North Branch reference reach, Wolf Creek Engineering, PLLC, 2008..
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 51
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Table B.I.I. Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
UT2 - Roberson Project Reach - 236 feet
Parameter - (cross- section 1)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft
22.6
1
22.0
1
21.9
1
22.6
1
Floodprone Width (ft
282.3
1
282.3
1
282.3
1
282.3
1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area O
14.2
1
13.9
1
13.7
1
14.2
]
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.6
1
0.6
1
0.61
1
0.6
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.4
t
1.4
l
1.4
1
1.4
1
Width/Depth Ratii
35.8
1
34.9
1
34.8
1
35.8
1
Entrenchment Ratic
12.5
1
12.8
1
12.9
1
12.5
1
Bank Height Rati
1.2
1
1.3
1
1.4
1
1.2
1
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
22.9
1
22.3
1
22.2
1
22.9
1
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.6
1
0.6
1
0.61
1
0.6
1
D50 (mm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
45.0
1
1 45.3
1
41.4
1
41.4
1
Radius of Curvature (ft
46.0
1
116.4
1
50.8
1
50.8
1
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
2
1
5.3
1
3.9
1
3.9
1
Meander Wavelength (ft
134.0
1
187.7
1
135.11
1
135.1
1
Meander Width Ratic
1.9
1
2.1
1
3.2
1
3.2
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
12.3
31.8
27.5
23.9
10.2
3
13.8
21.9
20.4
18.7
4.3
3
29.5
24.3
25.4
3.7
3
3.5
56.6
7.9
14.3
18.8
7
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft
0.00857
0.01177
0.01119
0.01051
0.00171
3
0.00683
0.01602
0.01594
0.01293
0.00528
3
0.01799
0.01400
0.01470
0.00300
3
0.01040
0.07500
0.02200
0.03450
0.02550
7
Pool Length (ft
10.7
23.1
21.7
18.5
6.8
3
17.1
23.1
20.1
20.1
4.2
2
r2213
15.4
13.9
13.9
2.2
2
6.6
29.0
12.3
14.6
9.1
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.8
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.3
3
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft
50.6
69.2
59.9
59.9
13.1
2
57.4
57.4
57.4
57.4
0.0
1
54.7
54.7
54.7
0.0
1
11.2
63.7
28.8
30.0
18.9
6
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from
pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm)
I
I NAI
I
I
I
I
I NAI
I
I
NA
NA
D84 (mm)
I
I NAI
I
I
I
I
I NAI
I
I
NA
I
NA

Table B.I.I. Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
UT3 Upper - Davis Project Reach - 201 feet
Parameter - (cross- section 1)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft
12.9
1
13.0
1
12.9
1
13.0
1
Floodprone Width (ft
500.0
1
500.0
1
500.0
1
500.0
1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area O
10.3
1
10.6
1
9.9
1
10.6
]
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.8
1
0.8
1
0.81
1
0.8
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.3
l
1.3
l
1.3
1
1.3
1
Width/Depth Ratii
16.1
1
16.1
1
16.7
1
16.1
1
Entrenchment Ratic
38.8
1
38.5
1
38.8
1
38.5
1
Bank Height Rati
1.0
1
1.0
l
1.0
1
1.0
1
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
13.2
1
13.4
1
13.2
1
13.4
I
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.8
1
0.8
l
0.81
1
0.8
1
D50 (mm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
47.0
1
46.0
1
27.9
1
27.9
I
Radius of Curvature (ft
133.0
1
116.4
l
122.8
1
122.8
1
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
11.1
1
9.01
1
11.0
1
11.0
I
Meander Wavelength (ft
138.0
1
187.7
I
1 187.91
1
187.9
I
Meander Width Ratic
3.9
1
3.5
1
2.5
1
2.5
I
Protile
-
-
■
Riffle Length (ft
13.7
26.4
15.9
17.8
5.0
5
13.3
25.1
15.8
17.5
4.8
5
17.7
26.5
19.2
20.3
3.6
5
11.7
60.5
39.7
35.9
21.5
5
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft
0.05368
0.10273
0.09392
0.08727
0.01924
5
0.05493
0.10620
0.08549
0.08231
0.02063
5
0.05789
0.09222
0.09022
0.08375
0.01457
5
0.05330
0.09460
0.08980
0.07830
0.01850
5
Pool Length (ft
2.9
5.1
4.6
4.3
0.9
5
2.2
5.0
2.7
3.1
1.1
5
2.4
4.5
3.9
3.7
0.9
5
6.0
7.4
6.6
6.6
0.6
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.2
5
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.7
0.2
5
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.2
0.2
5
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.2
0.2
5
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
21.2
24.2
23.1
22.9
1.2
4
20.0
27.1
23.4
23.5
3.0
4
18.6
48.3
36.7
35.1
14.8
4
18.0
66.4
52.8
47.5
21.2
4
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from
pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and poolls
D50 (mm)
I NAI
I
I
I
I
I NA
I
NAI
I
I
NA
D84 (mm)
I
I NAI
I
I
I
I
I NA
NAI
I
I
i
1 NA

Table B.1.1. Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
UT3 Lower - Davis Project Reach - 226 feet
Parameter - (cross- sections 2)
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffles Only
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Min
Max
Med
Mean
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft
9.9
9.9
1
10.2
1
9.9
1
Floodprone Width (ft
232.0
232.0
1
232.0
1
232.0
1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area O
7.6
7.4
1
7.3
1
7.6
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.8
0.8
1
0.71
1
0.8
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.4
1.4
1
1.3
1
1.4
1
Width/Depth Ratii
12.8
13.2
l
14.4
1
12.8
1
Entrenchment Ratic
23.5
23.5
1
22.7
1
23.5
1
Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.0
1
Bankfull Wetted Perimeter (ft
10.3
10.4
l
10.6
1
10.3
1
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.7
0.7
1
0.71
1
0.7
1
D50 (mm)
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
23.0
42.0
27.0
30.7
10.0
3
24.1
30.2
28.0
27.4
3.1
3
22.7
28.9
22.7
24.8
3.6
3
22.7
28.9
22.7
24.8
3.6
3
Radius of Curvature (ft
20.0
39.0
30.0
29.8
8.1
4
28.8
44.3
34.9
35.7
8.0
4
31.8
40.0
37.6
36.5
4.2
3
31.8
40.0
37.6
36.5
4.2
3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
1.7
3.3
2.6
2.5
0.7
4
2.9
4.1
2.9
3.3
0.7
3
2.8
4.5
4.0
3.8
0.9
3
2.8
4.5
4.0
3.8
0.9
3
Meander Wavelength (ft
87.0
113.0
104.0
101.3
13.2
3
85.4
106.6
100.1
97.4
10.9
3
83.9
87.3
85.3
85.5
1.7
3
83.9
87.3
85.3
85.5
1.7
3
Meander Width Rati
1.9
3.5
2.3
2.6
0.8
3
2.4
3.1
2.8
2.8
0.3
3
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.5
0.2
3
2.3
2.7
2.5
2.5
0.2
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
10.8
28.7
27.3
23.5
8.6
4
8.8
28.8
23.7
21.2
8.6
4
12.5
28.1
23.0
21.7
6.7
4
6.9
51.2
11.7
20.2
16.1
7
Riffle Slope (ft ft
0.01319
0.06560
0.03791
0.03865
0.02231
4
0.00773
0.05708
0.02228
0.02734
0.02134
4
0.01173
0.05760
0.04394
0.03930
0.02067
4
0.01200
0.12830
0.04830
0.05190
0.04010
7
Pool Length (ft
16.0
19.7
19.0
18.2
1.9
3
17.8
27.4
19.6
21.6
5.1
3
12.1
22.4
15.7
16.7
5.2
5.4
23.0
11.5
13.1
6.5
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.3
1.8
1.8
1.7
0.3
31
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.8
0.3
3
1.6
2.3
1.6
1.8
0.4
3
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
1
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
47.6
63.4
55.5
55.5
11.21
21
46.7
63.3
55.0
55.0
11.7
2
47.6
53.4
50.5
50.5
4.1
2
17.8
69.8
29.3
34.8
20.3
6
Substrate (reach -wide)
Values determined from
pooled reach -wide pebble counts based on the proportions of the number of riffles and pools
D50 (mm)
I
I NAI
I
I
I
I
I NAI
I
I
NA
I
NA
D84 (mm)
I
I NAI
I
I
I
I
I NAI
I
I
NA
I
NA

Table B2.— Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross - sections).
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
------
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
—
--
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Bankfull M- r "'
'Mean
r
-----------------
Depth
------------------
Bankfuil Bank Height Ratii
Cross-sectional Area between end pins (A)

Table B2. Continued.
Upper South Hominy (EEPproject number 92632)
C— Seetio. 7 (Riftle)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Cross Section
Bankfull M- r "'
®���—
------
-
-
-
-
--
11iltIlDep. •.
®®®®--------------
—
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
Bank 11 . DepII
-----------------
r ".
------------------
r . •. .------------------
Bankfuil Bank Height Ratii
Cross-sectional Area between endpins (A)

Table B2 =Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross - sections).
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
UT2 Roberson and UT3 Upper and UT3 Lower Davis
UT2 Cross Section I Roberson (Riffle)
Cross Section
i
UT3 Cross Section I Davis
:
Davis
Bankfull Max Depth------------------
r •. .------------------
Bankfuil Bank Height Ratii
Cross-sectional Area between end pins (A)

Table B.3 Verification of Bankfull Events, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
(if available)
5 Dec 2011
28 Nov 2011
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 1 -3
6 May 2013
5 May 2013
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 4 -6
28 October 2014
14 October 2014
Wrack line observation
Figure B.5, Photo 7
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 58
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table 13.4 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment.
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 1 - Bianculli Reach — 797 feet — MYI
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
50
95
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
1
20
98
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
1
2
50
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
1
2
1
50
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
1
2
50
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1
2
50
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured /Eroding
and /or scour and erosion
2
100
87
Bank undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
2. Undercut
and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
2
100
87
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
5
6
83
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
5
6
83
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
5
6
83
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
5
6
83
F4.
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
6
7
86
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 59
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table 13.4 Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 2 - Bura /Roberson Reach —1,286 feet — MYI
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
3
75
94
units)
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser
2. Riffle Condition
substrate
6
6
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6 )
4
5
80
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
4
5
80
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
1 5
80
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4
5
80
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured /Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
5
5
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
5
5
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
5
5
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
3. Bank Protection
guidance document)
5
5
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
8
9
88.8
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 60
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table 13.4 Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 3 -Davis Reach — 737 feet — MYI
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
% Stable,
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
Performing
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
as
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
3
65
92.2
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
3
3
100
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
0
0
0
Condition
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
0
0
0
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
0
0
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
0
0
0
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
4
4
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
4
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
4
4
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
1
4
25
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 61
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table 13.4 Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 1 - Bianculli Reach — 797 feet — MY2
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
100
87
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
1
20
97
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
1
2
50
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
1
2
1
50
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
1
2
50
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1
2
50
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured /Eroding
and /or scour and erosion
2
100
87
Bank undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
2. Undercut
and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
1
25
97
Totals
3
125
84
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
6
50
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
4
6
67
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
6
67
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
4
6
67
F4.
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
5
7
71
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 62
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table 13.4 Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 2 - Bura /Roberson Reach —1,286 feet — MY2
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
75
94
units)
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser
2. Riffle Condition
substrate
6
6
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6 )
4
5
80
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
4
5
80
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
1 5
80
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4
5
80
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured /Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
1
50
96
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
1
50
96
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
1
50
96
Totals
1
50
96
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
5
80
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
4
5
80
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
5
80
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
3. Bank Protection
guidance document)
4
5
80
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
7
9
78
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 63
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table 13.4 Continued
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 3 -Davis Reach — 737 feet — MY2
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
% Stable,
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
Performing
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
as
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
3
60
92
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
0
0
0
Condition
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
0
0
0
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
0
0
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
0
0
0
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
4
4
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
4
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
4
4
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
1
4
25
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 64
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 1 - Bianculli Reach — 797 feet — MY3
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
80
90
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
1
2
50
Condition
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
1
2
50
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
1
2
50
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1
2
50
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and /or scour and erosion
2
140
82
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
2. Undercut
and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
2
140
82
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
5
6
83
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
5
6
83
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
5
6
83
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
5
6
83
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
5
7
71
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 65
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 2 - Bura/Roberson Reach —1,286 feet — MY3
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
35
97
units)
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser
2. Riffle Condition
substrate
6
6
100
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6 )
4
5
80
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
4
5
80
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
5
80
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4
5
80
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured /Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
5
80
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
5
5
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
5
5
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
3. Bank Protection
guidance document)
5
5
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
7
9
78
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 66
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Mainstem 3 -Davis Reach — 737 feet — MY3
Number
Stable,
Total
Number
Amount
% Stable,
Major
Performing
Number
of
of
Performing
Channel
Channel Sub-
as
in As-
Unstable
Unstable
as
Category
Category
Metric
Intended
built
Segments
Footage
Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly
(Riffle & Run units)
deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100
2. Degradation — Evidence of down cutting
0
0
100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle (constructed) maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth / Mean Pool Depth > 1.6)
0
0
0
Condition
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
0
0
0
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
0
0
0
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
0
0
0
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
1. Scoured/Eroding
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100
Bank undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does not include undercuts that are modest, appear
2. Undercut
sustainable and are providing habitat
0
0
100
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapsing
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100
3.
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100
Engineered
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across sill
4
4
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
4
4
100
1
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15% (see guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
3. Bank Protection
document)
4
4
100
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Pool
4. Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
4
4
100
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 67
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table B.5 Stream Problem Areas, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Stream Problem Areas
Upper South Hominy (EEP project number 92632)
Feature*
Issue
Reach / Station
Suspected Cause/Date
Problem Area 1
Engineered Rock -vane Structure
Mainstem 1 - 1 +50
flood event / 28 Nov 2011
Problem Area 2
Right Bank Instability
Mainstem 1 - 1 +45
flood event / 28 Nov 2011
to 2 +75
Problem Area 3
Aggradation/Bar Formation below J -hook
Mainstem 1 - 2 +25
flood event / 28 Nov 2011
to 2 +50
Problem Area 4
Aggradation/Bar Formation below J -hook
Mainstem 2 - 9 +20
flood event / 28 Nov 2011
to 9 +50
Problem Area 6
Right Bank Scour /Erosion
Mainstem 1 - 6 +25
flood event / 5 May 2013
to 6 +50
Problem Area 8
Aggradation/Bar Formation
Mainstem 1 - 4 +00
flood event / 5 May 2013
to 4 +50
Problem Area l0
Aggradation throughout step -pool structure
UT -3 - 0 +00 to
low flow velocity and
2 +00
dense herbaceous layer
*All Problem Area photographs can be found in Figure B.6. Previously noted Problem Areas 5, 7, and 9 are no
longer considered issues and therefore have been removed from this table.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 68
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.1 Monitoring Cross - Section Plots, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 1, Riffle
2365
2360
a
W
2355
2350
0 10 20 t} 4(} 50
Distance (feet)
— As -buih hiYO - NTYl —MY2 NIY3 Water surface Ba A-Ml — —FPA elev
Cross- section 1, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, WO.
Cross - section 1, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, WI.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 69
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 1, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 1, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 70
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
a
c�
W
2365
2360
2355
2350 4
0
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 2, Pool
10 20
— As- built MY(1 MY1 MY2
30 44 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
Nl`'3 Water surface Bankfull — —1-PA eleN
Cross- section 2, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY I.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 71
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 2, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 72
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
ry
2362
2357
2352
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 3, Riffle
l0 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
As -built MY0 MY 1 hiY? ? IY3 Water surface Bankftll — —FPA elev
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, WO. Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 73
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 3, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 74
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.1 Continued.
cs
a
u
W
2 360
2355
235U
2345
k
0
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 4, Pool
10 20 30
■BAs -built MYO MYl —MY2
40 50 50 70 80
Distance (feet)
MY3 - Water surface Bank -M] —FPA elev
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, WO.
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 75
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 4, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 76
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2355
2350
ev
a
2345
2340 4
0
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 5, Riffle
- -T —
1.0 20 30 40
Distance (feet)
As -built Ml O —MY) — —MY2 Nf1 '; Water surface Bau]dWl —FPA elev
Cross - section 5, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross- section 5, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 77
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 5, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 5, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 78
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2355
2350
a
CU
L-1
2345
2340 4
0
10 20
—As -built MYO MY 1
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 6, Pool
30 40 50 fit} 70 80 01
Distance (feet)
MY2 MY3 —Water surface BaiMIJl —FPA clev
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, W0.
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 79
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 6, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 80
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2350
2345
a
ca
2340
2335
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 7, Riffle
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
—As -built MYb —MYI —XIY2 MY3 Water surface —Bank-Ml — -FPA elev
Cross - section 7, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, W0.
Cross - section 7, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 81
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 7, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 7, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 82
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 8, Riffle
2345
2340
3333
2330 4
n
v
Distance (feet)
—Asp buiIt MYO MY 1
40 50 60
Water surface - B ank ull — —FPA elegy
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYL
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 83
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report – Final – February 2015

Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 8, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 84
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
cs
v
u
W
2345
2340
2335
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross- section 9. Pool
0 10 ?0 30 40 50 t,fl
Distance (feet)
As -built MYO —MY] - — '111'2 XIY3 —Water surface Bankfull — —FPA elev
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MYO.
r
7A,
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 85
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
-
t
7A,
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MYl.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 85
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 9, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 86
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2345
I
335
2330
Upper South Hominy Creek
Cross - section 10, Riffle
0 10 20 30 d0 ;i
Distance (feet)
As -built MYQ RdY 1 —MY2 —MY3 Water surface B=Uidl — —FPA elegy
Cross - section 10, facing downstream, 31 January 2012, MY0.
Cross - section 10, facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 87
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 10, facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 10, facing downstream, 12 November 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 88
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2356
2355
235'4
W
2353
2352
2351 4
0
UT2, Roberson
Cross- section 1, Riffle
10 20 ;i) 40 SI1
Distance [feet]
— As- builtMYQ MY1 —MY2 - lY Wrater sartace f3.tnkfull -- —FPA elzt
Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO. Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 89
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 1, UT2 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 90
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2357
2356
2355
'G
es
7
M 2354
2353
2352 +
0
UT3 Upper, Davis
Cross - section 1, Riffle
5 10 1; ?11 25 30
Distance (feet)
As- bUiItMYQ MYI Ai1`? -N.IY3 —Water surface Bankfull — —rPA ele %.
Cross - section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO. Cross - section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 91
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 1, UT3 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 92
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
234"
2346
2345
�5
2344
2343
2342
UT3 lower, Davis
Cross - section 2, Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (feet)
—As -built MYO NIY1 - MY2 — MY_; Water surface —Bank-MI — —FPA elegy
Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO. Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 93
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 2, UT3 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 94
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.I Continued.
2341
23140
2339
2338
23,7
2333& 4-
0
U13 Lower, Davis
Cross - section 3, Pool
®
5 1(1 15 20 ?S +0 315
Distance (feet)
—As -built MYO —MY] ] MY2 — MY3 — W ater sur ace B anIcfLill — — FPA elev
Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 2 February 2012, MYO. Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 24 October 2012, MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 95
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 31 October 2013, MY2.
Cross - section 3, UT3 facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014, MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 96
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.2 As -built Longitudinal Profile Data, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
2370
2365
2360
�a
m
w 2355
2350
2345
0
South Hominy Creels, Bianculli Mainstem 1, MYO -MY3
50 1001 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 900 850
Channel .Distance (ft)
+*+MYO-lbalwegg — MYIThahvep _MY2ihalwee tMY3'T4alweg -#- Y3 Water Surface 13an1di9l.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 97
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
y
v
o
�pp
pG
50 1001 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 900 850
Channel .Distance (ft)
+*+MYO-lbalwegg — MYIThahvep _MY2ihalwee tMY3'T4alweg -#- Y3 Water Surface 13an1di9l.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 97
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.2 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 98
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.2 Continued
e
0
South Hominy Creek, Davis Mainstem 3, MYO -MY3
2345
2340
2335
� A 777�
•
■
r
JG
o
j
d
U
1
l
2334 1.
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Channel Distance (ft)
mA-MI'0 balweg —MY1 nwwe!, -- M 2 Ibalweo +hfY3 nalweg - 411-NfY3 Water Suriace • Baukfull
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 99
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.2 Continued
2355
2354
2353
e
= 2352
z
w
2351
2350
2343
0
UT2 Roberson, MYO -MY3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1!Q 120 134 1.10 150 160 170 180 140 200
Channel Distance [fo
-e-MYO Thatweg -+- NIY 1 ihalweg —htIY2 Thalwes -0-M '3 71ia1weg -AMY! Waler Surface + Bank full
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 100
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
J
Mir
ti
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1!Q 120 134 1.10 150 160 170 180 140 200
Channel Distance [fo
-e-MYO Thatweg -+- NIY 1 ihalweg —htIY2 Thalwes -0-M '3 71ia1weg -AMY! Waler Surface + Bank full
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 100
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.2 Continued
2365
2360
2355
w
w 2350
2345
234o
[.'T3 Upper Davis, M'i O -MY3
0 25 50 75 100 125 15I) 175 200 225
Channel Distance {>t}
�IYO Thalweg —4—,% YI Thalwcg MfY'2 Thairveg —4—MY3 Thal ;peg —G—MY3 Water Surface BwMwl
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 101
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.2 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 102
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.3 Pebble Count Cumulative Frequency Distribution Plots, Particle Sizes by Category,
and Percent Bed Material by Category, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
6
G_
Gc,
m
E
C3
100%
90%
80°..'0
70%
60%
50%
4U °«
30%
20%
l0 °!0
0%
0.01
South Hominy Creek
Reach Wide Pebble Count
0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
-0-MYO +MY1 - MY2
140 1000 10400
-MY3
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 103
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Reach -Wide Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
0.2
2.3
7.9 16.0
18
D35 (mm)
23.9
15.6
18.8 37.4
35
D50 (mm)
56.6
35.0
38.5 52.2
48
D84 (mm)
144.4
81.6
94.7 104.6
96
D95 (mm)
211.0
140.3
119.0 154.0
152
Percent ( %) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
8.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
1
Sand
16.0
13.0
9.0 7.0
6
Gravel
30.0
58.0
61.0 56.0
62
Cobble
45.0
25.0
30.0 37.0
30
Boulder
1.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 103
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.3 Continued
ma
a
k�
e
a�
u
South Hominy Creek
Crass Section 1 Riffle Pebble Count
I00%
90 °/a
80%
7 M
600/6
5 01
40%
30%
20%
10 °!u
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
dMOMWo wdo-my t --P-MY'27 -MY3
10000
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 104
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Bianculli Cross Section 1 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
6.6
6.0
16.5 6.2
9
D35 (mm)
11.4
14.1
27.0 13.9
16
D50 (mm)
21.2
22.1
40.9 32.0
35
D84 (mm)
89.7
71.1
102.7 84.3
93
D95 (mm)
124.2
109.0
152.7 119.0
143
Percent ( %) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
2.0
0.0
0.0 4.0
0
Sand
8.0
5.0
0.0 9.0
8
Gravel
66.0
76.0
71.0 58.0
59
Cobble
23.0
19.0
29.0 29.0
32
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 104
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.3 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 105
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
South Hominy Creek
USH Bianculli Cross Section 3 Riffle Pebble Count
Cross Section 3 piffle Pebble Count
I OM-0
Category
Existing
90°6
s
MY3 MY4 MY5
80%
5.1
8.3
L 70%
,A
D35 (mm)
C
14.3
21.2 31.7
60%
D50 (mm)
21.0
28.9
r
40
a 54%
80.9
109.6
114.3 138.9
202
D95 (mm)
40%
216.7
163.9 200.3
292
U 300/6
Percent Bed Material by
Category
20%
�.
MYO
MYl MY2
'1
Silt/Clay
101%
0.0
0.0 0.0
8
Sand
11.0
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
iamMYo -r-MYI �Nm, -MY3
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 105
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Bianculli Cross Section 3 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle ( %) Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
5.1
8.3
10.4 10.8
6
D35 (mm)
11.0
14.3
21.2 31.7
27
D50 (mm)
21.0
28.9
46.7 56.4
40
D84 (mm)
80.9
109.6
114.3 138.9
202
D95 (mm)
120.2
216.7
163.9 200.3
292
Percent Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
8
Sand
11.0
2.0
0.0 12.0
4
Gravel
67.0
62.0
60.0 44.0
52
Cobble
22.0
34.0
40.0 44.0
28
Boulder
0.0
2.0
0.0 1.0
8
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 105
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.3 Continued
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 106
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 5 Riffle Pebble Count
Category
Existing
100%
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
90 °fu
11.3
7.0 0.7
0.3
80%
14.6
32.0
11.6 14.1
70%
D50 (mm)
30.0
L
d
16.7 28.9
22
D84 (mm)
�r
60%
77.0 93.5
95
D
179.6
180.0
122.6 141.0
V
50%
Y
Category
Category
Existing
Q
40%
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0 3.0
2
U
30%
6.0
1.0 21.0
23
20%
55.0
54.0
78.0 46.0
10%
Cobble
30.0
40.0
21.0 30.0
32
Boulder
1.0
0%
0.0 0.0
1
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10040
0.0
0.0 0.0
Particle Size (mm)
-A -tyro
-0-tiitvt -6-m-r- -6---NN3
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 106
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Bianculli Cross Section 5 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
6.1
11.3
7.0 0.7
0.3
D35 (mm)
14.6
32.0
11.6 14.1
13
D50 (mm)
30.0
49.4
16.7 28.9
22
D84 (mm)
106.2
119.2
77.0 93.5
95
D95 (mm)
179.6
180.0
122.6 141.0
151
Percent ( %) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0 3.0
2
Sand
15.0
6.0
1.0 21.0
23
Gravel
55.0
54.0
78.0 46.0
42
Cobble
30.0
40.0
21.0 30.0
32
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 106
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.3 Continued
100%
90%
80%
70%
a�
60%
50%
a
40%
E
U 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 7 Riffle Pebble Count
0.1 1 10 11W 1000 1(1nfJdi
Particle Size (mm)
-G.Mya #wi --O-MY'2 -Nffs
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 107
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Bianculli Cross Section 7 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
5.5
9.7
3.3 4.9
2.5
D35 (mm)
12.9
21.8
10.3 13.3
13
D50 (mm)
24.5
31.4
18.6 32.0
23
D84 (mm)
104.0
82.0
82.6 83.5
67
D95 (mm)
164.4
128.0
126.1 120.4
147
Percent ( %) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0 1.0
0
Sand
12.0
6.0
11.0 12.0
15
Gravel
64.0
69.0
63.0 62.0
68
Cobble
24.0
25.0
26.0 25.0
17
Boulder
1.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 107
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.3 Continued
a
c
a
a
a
m
1:
U
100 %,
90%
800/0
70%
60%
50416
400/6
30%
204./6
1 00/10
0%
0.01
South Hominy Creek
Cross Section 8 Riffle Pebble Count
0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm)
-.0- -.MY 1 -MY;
loo 1000
- Or-MY3
10000
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 108
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Bianculli Cross Section 8 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
1.0
12.3
3.3 1.7
8
D35 (mm)
22.6
29.3
11.7 16.3
18
D50 (mm)
35.3
47.7
37.9 29.2
24
D84 (mm)
96.3
114.4
88.0 73.3
54
D95 (nun)
245.1
172.6
166.3 112.8
78
Percent (4/0) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
0.0
1.0
0.0 3.0
0
Sand
16.0
6.0
7.0 15.0
12
Gravel
58.0
55.0
63.0 61.0
76
Cobble
22.0
37.0
30.0 21.0
12
Boulder
4.0
1.0
0.0 0.0
0
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 108
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.3 Continued
L.
d
G
w
a
E
U
100%
900/0
800%
70 %o
60%
50%
400/0
30%
20%
10%
0 °1
South Hominy Creep
Cross Section 10 Riffle Pebble Count
v
0.01 0.1 1
-.9-MYO
10 ! Of)
Particle Size (mm)
-*-MY] -MY2,
--*--MY3
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 109
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
USH Bianculli Cross Section 10 Riffle Pebble Count
Particle Size by Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MYl MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
D16 (mm)
0.6
6.9
5.3 1.5
0.7
D35 (mm)
6.9
17.5
10.9 9.0
7
D50 (mm)
17.3
33.5
25.0 16.0
14
D84 (mm)
79.4
94.0
100.0 74.0
55
D95 (mm)
118.0
169.1
135.8 127.5
99
Percent ( %) Bed Material by
Category
Category
Existing
MYO
MY1 MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Silt/Clay
10.0
2.0
0.0 2.0
3
Sand
17.0
3.0
6.0 18.0
25
Gravel
50.0
68.0
64.0 62.0
61
Cobble
24.0
27.0
30.0 18.0
10
Boulder
0.0
0.0
0.0 1.0
1
Bedrock
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 109
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Figure B.4 Photographic Stations Log, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Station 1
Mid channel bar, sta. 0 +50, facing downstream, pre - construction.
30 September 2008.
Cross vane, sta. 0 +50, facing downstream, 14 August 2011.
Cross vane, sta. 0 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Cross vane, sta. 0 +50, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
Cross vane, sta. 0 +50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 110
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 2
Channel blockage, sta.2 +50, facing downstream, pre - construction,
30 September 2008.
J -hook, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 5 September 2011.
J -hook, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
J -hook, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
J -hook, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 1 l
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 3
Right bank erosion, sta. 5 +50, pre - construction, 30 September 2008. J -hook, sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 5 December 2011.
J -hook, sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
J -hook, sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 12 November 2014.
J -hook, sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 112
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 4
Sta. 6 +50 to 8 +00, right bank facing upstream, 5 December 2011
2012.
Sta. 6 +50 to 8 +00, right bank facing upstream, 20 November
Sta. 6 +50 to 8 +00, right bank facing upstream, 29 October 2013. Sta. 6 +50 to 8 +00, right bank facing upstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 113
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UT - (Preservation)
Photo Station 5
UT1 facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 28 July 2009.
UTl facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 20 Nov 2012
UTl facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 20 Nov 2012.
MYO -2011 no photo taken.
UT1 facing downstream, adjacent to small barn, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 114
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary North, UT 1 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 6
UTl facing downstream, pre - construction 28 July 2009. UTI, above vernal pond, 5 September 2011.
UTl Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 20 November 2012. UT Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 29 October 2013.
UTl Priority I construction, above vernal pond, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 115
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure BA Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 7
UT2 facing downstream, pre - construction, 30 November 2007.
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 5 Dec 2011.
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 20 Nov 2012.
UT2, no photo taken MY03 2014
UT2 facing downstream, post invasive removal, 29 Oct 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 116
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bianculli Property, Tributary South, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 8
30 November 2007.
sta. 0 +00 to 0 +50, 5 December 2011.
UT2 re- connected under Canterfield Lane to abandoned channel,
sta. 0 +00 to 0 +50, 20 November 2012.
sta. 0 +00 to 0 +50, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
UT2 re- connected to abandoned channel, sta. 0 +00 to 0 +50,
29 October 2013.
117

Figure BA Continued
Roberson Property, Tributary South Abandoned Channel, UT2 — (Restoration)
Photo Station 9
Abandoned UT2 channel east of Canterfield Lane, 26 April 2010
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 5 September 2011.
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 20 November 2012. UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 29 October 2013.
UT2 restored portion, east of Canterfield Lane, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 118
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 10
Lower portion of UT2 abandoned channel at confluence with SHC, Lower portion of UT2 at confluence with SHC, facing upstream,
Pre - construction, facing downstream, 26 April 2010.
5 September 2011.
Lower portion of UT2 at confluence with SHC, facing downstream, Lower portion of UT2, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
20 November 2012.
Lower portion of UT2, facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 119
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
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.
Log vane sta. 1 +00 to 1 +50, facing downstream
Log vane sta. 1 +00 to 1 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012. Log vane sta. 1 +00 to 1 +50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Log vane sta. 1 +00 to 1 +50, facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 120
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 12
Mid channel aggradation, sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream.
22 January 2009.
Log vane at sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream,
5 December 2011.
Log vane sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012. Log vane sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Log vane sta. 1 +50 to 2 +50, facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 121
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 13
Typical features along channel in enhancement II reach,
downstream, 22 January 2009.
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5 +00, facing
downstream, 20 November 2012.
Sta. 5 +00, facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5 +00, facing
downstream, 22 September 2011.
Fence and invasive removal, bank sloping, sta. 5 +00, facing
downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 122
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Restoration)
Photo Station 14
Outside meander bend bank stress, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00,
20 November 2012.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7 +25 to 8+00,
12 Nov 2014.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00,
22 September 2011.
Log vane, root wad, and bank shaping, sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00,
29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 123
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 15
P
Bed aggradation and transverse bar, sta. 9 +50 to 10 +00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 10 +00, 14 June 2012.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 10 +00, 12 Nov 2014.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 10 +00, 22 September 2011.
Bank sloping and J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 10 +00, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 124
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Bura Left Bank, Roberson Right Bank, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 16
Lower portion of enhancement Il, sta. 11 +50 to 12 +00,
facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11 +50 to 12 +00,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11 +50 to 12 +00,
facing downstream, 12 Nov 2014.
facing downstream, 22 September 2011.
Bank shaping, root wads, and toe -wood, sta. 11 +50 to 12 +00,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 125
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 17
Driveway bridge at lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
sta. 12 +50, facing downstream, 22 January 2009.
J -hook sta. 12 +75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
20 November 2012.
J -hook sta. 12 +75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
J -hook sta. 12 +75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
22 September 2011.
J -hook sta. 12 +75, lower end of Bura/Roberson properties,
29 October 2013.
126

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement 1)
Photo Station 18
J -hook proposed, sta. 0 +50, facing downstream, 25 July 2008,
pre - construction.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0 +25,
20 November 2012.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0 +25,
12 Nov 2014.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0 +25,
22 September 2011.
Bank shaping, log vane, and riffle construction, sta. 0 +25,
29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 127
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement 1)
Photo Station 19
In- stream structures proposed to enhance habitat features, sta. 2 +00 Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2 +25 to 3 +50, facing
3 +50, facing downstream, 25 July 2008. downstream, 7 December 2011.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2 +25 to 3 +50, facing
downstream, 20 November 2012.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2 +25 to 3 +50, facing
downstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Log vane, root wads, and bank shaping, sta. 2 +25 to 3 +50, facing
downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 128
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Photo Station 20
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.
downstream 20 November 2012.
upstream 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
upstream, 19 October 2011.
downstream 29 October 2013.
129

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 21
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6 +75,
4 October 2011.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6 +75,
29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6 +75,
20 November 2012.
Cross vane, riffle construction, and bank shaping, sta. 6 +75,
12 Nov 2014.
130

Figure BA Continued
Photo Station 22
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7 +37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 15 November 2011.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7 +37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 20 November 2012.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7 +37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 29 October 2013.
Left bank of Davis property, sta. 7 +37, lower project boundary,
facing upstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 131
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure BA Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 — (Preservation)
Photo Station 23
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
25 July 2008.
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
20 November 2012.
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
20 November 2012.
WO -2011 no photo taken.
Upper portion of UT3 preservation, facing downstream,
29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 132
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 — (Enhancement II)
Photo Station 24
UT3 above ford, channel incision, facing downstream, 25 July 2008
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 9 November 2011.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 20 November 2012.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 12 Nov 2014.
UT3 above ford, invasive removal, cattle exclusion, and bank
shaping, facing upstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 133
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.4 Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 Upper — (Restoration)
Photo Station 25
'r
UT3 below ford, severe entrenchment and head cutting, 25 July 2008. UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0 +00, 15 November 2011.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0 +00, 14 June 2012.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0 +00, 12 Nov 2014.
UT3 below ford, Priority I channel restoration, facing
downstream, sta. 0 +00, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 134
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure BA Continued
Davis Property, Unnamed Tributary, UT3 Lower — (Restoration)
Photo Station 26
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 15 November 2011.
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 20 November 2012.
UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing UT3 lower at confluence with SHC, Priority I restoration, facing
upstream, 29 October 2013. upstream, 12 Nov 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 135
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.5 Bankfull Verification Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Photo 1 bankfull event on SHC, Bianculli property, sta. 6 +00,
Photo 4 bankfull event on SHC, Bianculli property, sta. 6 +00
Photo 2 bankfull event on SHC, Roberson property, sta. 8 +00
28 November 2011.
Photo 5 bankfull event on SHC, Roberson property, sta. 8 +00
06 May 2013
Simple crest gage verification of the 5 May 2013 bankfull event.
Stream gage plate, sta. 8 +00, Mainstem 1 reach
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 136
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.5 Continued
Photo 3 bankfull event on SHC, Davis property, sta. 0 +50
28 November 2011.
Photo 7 bankfull event on SHC, right bank Robertson property,
approximately sta.12 +00 facing downstream on 28 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
Photo 6 bankfull event on SHC, Davis property, sta. 0 +50
06 May 2013.
137

Figure B.6 Stream Problem Area Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 1
Rock vane after construction, sta. 1 +50, facing upstream,
5 September 2011.
Rock vane, sta. 1 +50, facing upstream, 20 November 2012.
Rock vane, sta 1 +50 facing downstream 28, October 2014
Rock vane after flood damage, sta. 1 +50, facing upstream,
14 June 2012.
Rock vane, sta. 1 +50, facing upstream, 29 October 2013
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 138
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
Rock vane, sta 1 +50 facing upstream, 28, October 2014

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 2
Right channel bank in stable condition, sta. 2 +00, facing
upstream, 5 September 2011.
Right channel bank instability after flood, sta. 1 +75 to2 +25,
facing upstream, 14 June 2012.
Right channel bank instability after flood damage, sta. 1 +75 to
2 +25, facing upstream, 5 December 2011.
Right channel bank instability, sta. 1 +75 to2+25,
facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 139
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 2
Right channel bank condition after 5 May 2013 flood,
sta. 1 +75 to 2 +25 facing upstream, 18 July 2013.
Right channel bank condition after 5 May 2013 flood,
sta. 1 +75 to 2 +25, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Right channel bank condition
sta. 1 +75 to 2 +25 facing upstream, 20 October 2014.
Right channel bank condition
sta. 1+45 to 2 +75, facing upstream, 28 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 140
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 3
J -hook and meander post construction, sta. 2 +50, facing
downstream, 5 September 2011.
Aggradation and bar formation in meander below J -hook after
flood event, sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 5 December 2011.
Aggradation and bar formation in meander below J -hook,
sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 20 November 2012.
Aggradation and thalweg movement following 5 May 2013 flood,
sta. 2 +50, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site ] 41
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 3
Aggradation below 7 -hook sta 2 +50 facing
Downstream 28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
142

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 4
J -hook vane after construction, sta. 9 +25, facing upstream,
5 September 2011.
Inner berm formation below J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 9 +50, following
5 May 2013 flood event, facing upstream, 18 July 2013.
No photo taken during W03 2014
Aggradation and bar formation below J -hook, sta. 9 +25 to 9 +50,
after flood event, facing upstream, 5 December 2011.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 143
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 5
Cross vane after construction, facing upstream, sta. 0 +50 Cross vane after 5 May 2013 flood event, facing upstream,
14 Aug 2011. sta. 0 +50, 18 July 2013.
No longer considered a problem during MY3 (2014) field surveys
28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 144
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 6
J -hook vane after construction, sta. 5 +75, facing downstream,
14 August 2011.
J -hook arm collapse during 5 May 2013 flood event, sta. 5 +75,
facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Right bank scour and erosion, sta. 6 +25, facing downstream,
occurred during the 5 May 2013 flood event, 29 October 2013.
Right bank scour and erosion, sta 6 +25 to 6 +50 facing upstream,
28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 145
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 7
J -hook, sta. 12 +75, after construction, facing upstream, 22 Sept 2011. J -hook after 28 Nov 2011 flood event, aggradation in pool below
J -hook, 5 December 2011.
J -hook after 5 May 2013 flood event, aggradation above J -hook Right bank scour and erosion during 5 May 2013 flood event,
and scour pool below, 29 October 2013. facing upstream, sta. 12 +50, 18 July 2013.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 146
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bura Property Left Bank, Roberson Property Right Bank, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 7
PA -7 station 12 +75 facing upstream was repaired and is no longer
considered a problem 28 October 2014
PA -7 station 12 +75 facing downstream was repaired and is no longer
considered a problem 28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 147
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Bianculli Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 8
Aggradation below J -hook, sta. 4 +00 to 4 +50, following
5 May 2013 flood event, facing downstream, 29 October 2013.
Aggradation below J -hook, sta 4 +00 to 4 +50, facing upstream,
28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 148
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.6 Continued
Davis Property, South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 9
Right bank scour during 5 May 2013 flood event,
sta. 0 +00 to 0 +20, facing downstream, 18 July 2013.
PA -09 was no longer considered a problem during MY3 (2014)
surveys, 28 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
149

Figure B.6 Continued
Davis Property, UT -3 to South Hominy Creek
Problem Area 10
Aggradation due to low flow velocity and dense herbaceous
vegetation, sta. 0 +00 to 2 +00 UT -3 Upper Davis Reach,
facing upstream, 28 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
150

Figure B.7 Wetland Delineations Map and Wetland Station Pictures. Map Prepared by
Confluence Engineering, PC and C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. Pre - construction
Wetland Photos Courtesy of C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
,11t ?)111 /r
r
1
M
Legend
S:rea m
Parr*.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015
o
c�sdi , 1
w
a Ise 3CO 60C ni�F'e
. r -a►ann ears C-7
151

Figure B.7 Continued
Bianculli Property, Wetland L (Wetland Station 1)
Wetland L, pre - construction, 2009.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
5 December 2011.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
20 November 2012.
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
27 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 152
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
Wetland L constructed ephemeral pool, facing upstream,
29 October 2013.

Figure B.7 Continued
Roberson Property, Wetland E and UT2 (Wetland Station 2)
Wetland E, UT2 facing upstream, pre- construction, 2009.
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
5 September 2011.
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
14 June 2012.
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
27 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 153
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 201
Wetland E reconnected with spring flow from UT2,
29 October 2013.

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland D, facing downstream, pre - construction, 2009.
September
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream, 22
2011.
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream, Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
20 November 2012 29 October 2013.
Enhancement to Wetland D, facing downstream,
27 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 154
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure B.7 Continued
Roberson Property, Wetland D (Wetland Station 4)
Wetland D, area of livestock access, facing upstream, 2009.
September 2011.
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D, 22
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
20 November 2012.
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
27 October 2014.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Sitc 155
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 201
Enhancement to lower portion of Wetland D,
29 October 2013.

Figure B.7 Continued
Wetland Station 5
Lower portion of Wetland D, livestock impacts, facing upstream,
2009.
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
22 September 2011.
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
20 November 2012.
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
27 October 2014
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 156
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015
Lower portion of Wetland D, at SHC confluence,
29 October 2013.

Appendix C.
Vegetation Data, CVS Output Tables, and Vegetation Plot Photographs
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 157
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.1 Annual Seed Mix, Perennial Native Seed Mix, and Live Stake Species Used to
Stabilize and Revegetate the Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Type Common Name
Scientific Name
Rate
Zone a Number
Annual seed Browntop millet
Panicum ramosum
10 lb /ac
1,2,3
Buckwheat
Eriogonum spp.
15 lb /ac
1,2
Winter rye
Lolium spp.
30 lb /ac
1,2
Winter wheat
Triticum spp.
15 lb /ac
1,2
Perennial native seed
Arrowleaf tearthumb
Big bluestem
Blackeyed Susan
Blue vervain
Deer tongue
Eastern bur reed
Green bulrush
Grey headed cone flower
Hop sedge
Indian wood oats
Indiangrass
Lanceleaf coreopsis
Little bluestem
Many leaved bulrush
Nodding bur - marigold
Oxeye sunflower
Partridge pea
Pennsylvania smartweed
Purple cone flower
River oats
Showy evening primrose
Showy tickseed sunflower
Smooth panic grass
Soft rush
Softstem bulrush
Switch grass
Virginia wild rye
Polygonum sagittatum
Andropogon gerardii
Rudbeckia hirta
Verbena hastata
Panicum clandestinum
Sparganium americanum
Scirpus atrovirens
Ratibida pinnata
Carex lupulina
Chasmanthium latifolium
Sorghastrum nutans
Coreopsis lanceolata
Schizachyrium scoparium
Scirpus polyphyllus
Bidens cernua
Heliopsis helianthoides
Chamaecrista fasciculata
Polygonum pensylvanicum
Echinacea purpurea
Chasmanthium latifolium
Oenothera speciosa
Bidens aristosa
Panicum dichotomiflorum
Juncus effusus
Panicum virgatum
Elymus virginicus
Combined Total 15 lb /ac
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,3
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,3
1,2
1,2
Live stakes Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 1,3 250
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 1,3 3,250
Silky willow Salix sericea 1,3 1,500
Total 1,3 5,000
a Planting zone refer to stream bank & floodplain areas (1), transition & upland areas (2), or wetland areas (3).
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 158
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report - Final - February 2015

Table C.2 Shrub and Tree Species Installed at the Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Plant Source Was Either Bare Root (B) or Containerized (C) Nursery Stock.
Type Common Name
Scientific Name
Wetness
Indicator
Zone,
Number
Installed
Plant
Source b'c
Shrubs and small trees American beauty berry
Callicarpa americans
FACU
2
20
C
Arrowwood viburnum
Viburnum dentatum
FAC
2
30
C
Button bush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
OBL
1,2,3
30
C
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
FACW
1,2,3
25
C
Possum haw
Ilex decidua
FACW
2
30
C
Red chokeberry
Aroma arbutifolia
FACW
2
20
C
Totals 6
Betula nigra
FACW
2
155
C,B
Medium trees Black cherry
Prunus serotina
FACU
2
100
B
Black willow
Salix nigra
OBL
1,2,3
50
C
Carolina ash
Fraxinus caroliniana
OBL
2
15
C
Dogwood
Cornus florida
FACU
2
200
B
Eastern redbud
Cercis canadensis
FACU
2
100
B
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
FAC
2
23
C
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
FACU
2
25,100
C,B
River birch
Betula nigra
FACW
2
20,200
C,B
Southern crabapple
Malus angustifolia
FACU
2
100
B
Totals 9
Quercus shumardii
FACW
2
933
C,B
Large trees Black gum
Nyssa sylvatica
FAC
2
100
B
Bitternut hickory
Carya cordiformis
FAC
2
100
B
Cherrybark oak
Quercus pagoda
FAC
2
100
B
Chestnut oak
Quercus prinus
FAQU
2
100
B
Mockernut hickory
Carya alba
FACU
2
100
B
Northern red oak
Quercus rubra
FACU
2
30, 100
C,B
Pin oak
Quercus palustris
FACW
2
100
B
Scarlet oak
Quercus coccinea
FACU
2
2,200
C, B
Shagbark hickory
Carya ovata
FACU
2
100
B
Shumard's oak
Quercus shumardii
FACW
2
10,100
C,B
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
FACW
2
200
B
White oak
Quercus alba
FACU
2
30, 100
C,B
Yellow buckeye
Aesculus flava
FAC
2
20
C
Totals 13
1,492
a Planting zone refer to stream bank & floodplain areas (1), transition & upland areas (2), or wetland areas (3).
b Bare root whips ranged from 1 to 2 feet in height; hickory species were less averaging 6 inches in height.
e Container sizes ranged from 5 to 7 gallon; the majority of the plants were in 5 gallon containers.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 159
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Location, Orientation, and Dimension, Upper South
Hominy Mitigation Site.
Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photographs
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Stream
Location
Bearing (Degrees from North)
Plot Dimensions (m)
UT2
Plot 1 left bank sta. 2 +00
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 2 right bank sta. 7 +50
Plot origin (x,y) 1600
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 3 left bank sta. 7 +25
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 4 right bank sta. 0 +50
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 5 left bank sta. 9 +50
Plot origin (x,y) 1250
lox 10
SHC
Plot 6 right bank sta. 10+50
Plot origin (x,y) 1200
5 X 20
SHC
Plot 7 right bank sta. 0 +75
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 8 left bank sta. 2 +50
Plot origin (x,y) 1500
10 X 10
SHC
Plot 9 right bank sta. 5 +75
Plot origin (x,y) 1400
5 X 20
UT3 Lower
Plot 10 left bank sta. 1 +00
Plot origin (x,y) 1300
10 X 10
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 160
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table CA Vegetation Metadata, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO -MY3 Vegetation Metadata
Uppe r South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Report Prepared By
Phillip Perkinson
Date Prepared
11/3/2014 15:37
Database Name
USH MY2 cvs- eep- entrytoo1- v2.3.1.mdb
Database Location
S: \CVS database \2014
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.
Count of living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code/Number
92632
Project Name
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site
Description
NCEEP Mitigation Site, Buncombe County, N.C.
Length (ft)
5,804
Stream -to -Edge Width (ft)
30
Area (m2 /acres)
33,586 m2 / 8.3 acres
Required Plots (calculated)
9
Sampled Plots
10
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 161
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.5 Vegetation Vigor by Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Vigor b Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP
project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
2
Betula nigra
River birch
6
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
1
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
1
14
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
Quercus alba
White oak
7
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
1
7
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
6
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
9
Salix nigra
Black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
4
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
2
2
Total Species
31
27
157
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 162
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.5 Continued
MY1 Vegetation Vigor b Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
5
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
2
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
2
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
4
4
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
3
6
2
2
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
7
8
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
1
4
2
1
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
2
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
1
2
1
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
5
6
2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
1
5
3
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
6
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
1
2
3
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
3
3
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
3
4
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
5
3
Salix nigra
Black willow
2
2
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
1
4
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
Total Species
31
16
83
63
11
11
6
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 163
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.5 Continued
MY2 Vegetation Vigor b Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
1
2
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
5
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
2
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
2
5
1
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
10
2
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
5
5
2
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
3
2
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
4
7
3
Quercus alba
White oak
1
4
5
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
4
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
4
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
1
6
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
3
3
3
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
1
5
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
1
2
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
2
2
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
1
4
Total Species
31
17
78
63
3
7
8
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 164
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.5 Continued
MY3 Vegetation Vigor b Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Aesculus ava
yellow buckeye
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
2
1
1
Callicarpa americans
American beautyberry
1
1
4
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
2
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
2
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
1
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
9
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
7
3
3
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
N ssa s lvatica
black um
6
Quercus alba
white oak
9
4
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
Quercus montana
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
3
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
2
Salix nigra
black willow
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
3
1
1
1
Malus an usti olia
southern crabapple
2
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
3
2
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
6
1
1
Quercus
oak
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
7
4
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
4
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
5
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
5
5
1
2
35
34
105
41
2
9
12
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 165
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.6 Vegetation Damage by Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of Damage
Cate ories
(no damage)
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
0
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
3
Betula nigra
River birch
0
6
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
0
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
0
5
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
0
5
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
0
5
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
0
8
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
0
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
0
16
Diospyros virgimana
Persimmon
0
15
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
0
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
0
8
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
0
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
0
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0
7
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
0
15
Quercus alba
White oak
0
7
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
0
7
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
0
7
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
0
8
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
0
5
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
0
8
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
0
9
Salix nigra
Black willow
0
4
Salix sericea
Silky willow
0
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
0
6
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
0
4
Total Species
31
0
184
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 166
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.6 Continued
MYl Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
Betula nigra
River birch
1
4
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
Ca inus caroliniana
American hornbeam
I
Carya Alba
Mockernut hickory
3
Carya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
1
4
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
4
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
g
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
3
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
1
13
1
Dios yros vir iniana
Persimmon
16
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
I
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
g
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
3
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
1
5
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
4
3
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
2
12
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
10
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
1
6
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
2
6
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
3
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
2
7
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
g
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
Total Species
31
15
175
6
5
1
1
2
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 167
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.6 Continued
MY2 Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
0
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
3
Betula nigra
River birch
1
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
0
6
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
Carya Alba
Mockernut hickory
0
3
Carya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
0
3
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
1
2
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
1
7
1
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
0
3
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
2
11
2
Dios yros vir iniana
Persimmon
1
13
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
0
2
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
0
7
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
0
3
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
0
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
3
4
3
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
0
14
Quercus alba
White oak
0
11
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
1
6
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
0
5
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
2
5
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
0
4
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
1
8
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
0
8
Salix nigra
Black willow
1
3
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
0
7
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
0
5
Total Species
31
18
158
15
3
0
0
0
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 168
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.6 Continued
MY3 Vegetation Damage by Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Count of
Damage
Categories
No Damage
Beaver
Rodents
Vine
Strangulation
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
0
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
0
2
Betula nigra
river birch
1
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American
beautyberry
1
5
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
1
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
0
2
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
0
2
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
0
3
Cephalanthus
occidentalis
common buttonbush
0
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
0
8
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
0
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
1
12
1
Diospyros virgimana
common persimmon
2
11
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
0
1
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
0
7
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
0
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
0
6
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
0
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
3
10
3
Quercus
oak
0
1
Quercus alba
white oak
0
13
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
0
5
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
0
2
Quercus montana
0
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
0
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
1
3
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
0
3
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
0
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
0
11
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
1
4
1
Salix nigra
black willow
1
3
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
3
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
1
5
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
1
4
1
35
34
17
152
1
5
11
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 169
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.7 Vegetation Damage by Plot, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Plot
Count of Damage Categories
No Damage
92632 - NCWRC -VP 1 -MYO
0
13
92632 - NCWRC - VP2 -MYO
0
14
92632 - NCWRC- VP3 -MYO
0
19
92632 - NCWRC - VP4 -MYO
0
16
92632 - NCWRC- VP5 -MYO
0
25
92632 - NCWRC- VP6 -MYO
0
15
92632 - NCWRC - VP7 -MYO
0
18
92632 - NCWRC - VP8 -MYO
0
27
92632 - NCWRC - VP9 -MYO
0
16
92632-NCWRC-VP I O-MYO
0
21
Total: 10
0
184
MYl Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation Site
(EEP project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
92632 - NCWRC -VP 1 -MYO
3
10
1
1
1
92632- NCWRC- VP2 -MYO
2
12
1
1
92632 - NCWRC- VP3 -MYO
2
18
1
1
92632- NCWRC- VP4 -MYO
6
11
6
92632- NCWRC- VP5 -MYO
1
24
1
92632 - NCWRC- VP6 -MYO
1
15
1
92632- NCWRC- VP7 -MYO
20
92632- NCWRC- VP8 -MYO
27
92632- NCWRC- VP9 -MYO
16
92632 - NCWRC -VP 10 -MYO
22
Total Plots: 10
15
175
6
5
1
1
2
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 170
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.7 Continued
MY2 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation Site
(EEP project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No
Damage
Beaver
Human
Trampled
Rodents
Unknown
Vine
92632 - NCWRC -VP 1 -MYO
0
12
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP 1 -year: 3
4
7
1
92632 - NCWRC- VP2 -MYO
2
12
2
1
4
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP3 -year: 3
92632 - NCWRC - VP3 -MYO
1
18
1
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC - VP4- year:3
2
14
92632 - NCWRC - VP4 -MYO
4
11
4
0
22
92632 - NCWRC - VP5 -MYO
2
22
12
2
2
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC- VP7- year:3
92632 - NCWRC - VP6 -MYO
2
14
2
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC -VP8- ear:3
3
20
92632 - NCWRC- VP7 -WO
0
18
EUSH 92632- NCWRC- VP9- year:3
1
13
1
92632 - NCWRC - VP8 -MYO
3
22
3
1
5
1
1
92632 - NCWRC- VP9 -MYO
3
11
3
92632 - NCWRC -VP 10 -MYO
1
18
1
Total Plots: 10
18
158
15
3
0
0
0
MY3 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Upper South Hominy Miti
ation Site EEP project number 92632)
Plot
Count of
Damage
Categories
No Damage
Beaver
Rodents
Vine
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC- VP10- year:3
0
19
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP 1 -year: 3
4
7
1
3
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC- VP2- year:3
5
9
1
4
EUSH 92632-NCWRC-VP3 -year: 3
0
18
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC - VP4- year:3
2
14
2
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC - VP5- year:3
0
22
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC - VP6- year:3
2
12
2
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC- VP7- year:3
0
18
EUSH 92632 - NCWRC -VP8- ear:3
3
20
3
EUSH 92632- NCWRC- VP9- year:3
1
13
1
10
17
152
1
5
1
1
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 171
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP1
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
2
1.5
Betula nigra
River birch
6
4
1.5
1
3
1
1
Callicarpa americans
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
4
1.25
2
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
5
1
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
5
3
1.67
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
1
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
8
2
3
1
3
2
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
2
1
6
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
4
2
2
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
2
1.5
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
3
2.33
1
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
2
2
1
2
Quercus alba
White oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
4
1.25
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
4
1.5
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
4
4
1
1
1
Totals:
31
184
13
14
19
16
25
Density (stem/acre):
745
526
566
769
648
1,011
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 172
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Continued
MYO Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
3
3
1
1
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
3
2
1.5
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
6
4
1.5
Callicarpa americans
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
5
4
1.25
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
5
5
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
5
3
1.67
1
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
4
1
4
4
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
16
8
2
3
1
1
2
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
2
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
8
4
2
1
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
1
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
3
2
1.5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
3
2.33
1
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
1
1
3
3
Quercus alba
White oak
7
6
1.17
1
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
6
1.17
1
2
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
5
4
1.25
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
3
1
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
4
1.5
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
4
4
1
1
1
Totals:
31
184
15
18
27
16
21
Density (stems /acre):
745
607
728
1,093
648
850
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 173
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Continued
MY1 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation
Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VPl
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
5
2.2
3
1
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
1
1
6
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
13
7
1.86
2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
3
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
173
31
12
14
19
16
24
Density (stem/acre):
700
486
566
769
648
971
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 174
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Continued
MY1 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
5
2.2
3
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
1.88
1
2
1
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
13
7
1.86
1
3
2
3
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
31
173
31
15
17
23
14
19
Density (stem /acre):
700
607
688
931
567
769
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 175
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Continued
MY2 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation
Site
(EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VPl
VP2
VP3
VP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
12
6
2
2
1
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
12
7
1.71
1
1
1
4
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
2
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
1 5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
11
8
1.38
2
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
5
2
1
2
4
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
3
3
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
161
32
11
14
17
15
21
Density (stem/acre):
652
445
567
688
607
850
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 176
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Continued
MY2 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
1
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
12
6
2
3
2
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
12
7
1.71
1
2
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
7
3
2.33
1
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
11
8
1.38
1
3
1
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
5
2
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
31
161
32
14
16
22
12
19
Density (stem /acre):
652
1 567
648
890
486
769
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 177
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.8 Continued
MY3 Planted Stem Count by Plot and Species
Up er South Homin Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Comment
Species
SpType
CommonName
Total
Planted
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VPI-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP2-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP3-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP5-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP6-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP7-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP8-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP9-
ear:3
plot
EUSH
92632 -
NCWRC -
VP10-
ear:3
Aesculus flava
Shrub Tree
yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
3
2
1.5
2
1
Callicarpa americana
Shrub
American beautyberry
2
2
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Shrub Tree
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
2
1
4
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Shrub Tree
flowering do wood
12
7
1.71
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
Diospyros vir iniana
Tree
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
Carolina ash
1
1
1
I
Ilex decidua
Shrub Tree
possumhaw
2
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tree
tuli tree
7
3
2.33
2
3
2
Malus angustifolia
Shrub Tree
southern crabapple
2
2
1
l
1
N ssa s lvatica
Tree
black um
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
Americansycamore
8
2
4
6
2
Prunus serotina
Shrub Tree
black cherry
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
Quercus
Shrub Tree
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
Tree
white oak
13
6
2.17
1
5
1
3
1
2
Quercus coccinea
Tree
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenber ii
Tree
chinka in oak
4
3
1.33
1
1
2
Quercus pagoda
Tree
the bark oak
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Tree
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
Shrub Tree
dwarf chinka in oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Tree
northern red oak
11
9
1.22
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus shumardii
Shrub Tree
Shumard's oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix ni ra
Tree
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Shrub Tree
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT:
0
32
32
31
148
32
9
13
18
16
19
12
t 18
19
10
14
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 178
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.9 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MY1 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Mitigation
Site
(EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VPl
VP2
VP3
aVP4
VP5
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Aroma arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
3
1.67
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
5
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
3
1.33
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
6
2.17
3
1
3
1
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
2
1
1
1
6
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
22
5
4.6
2
10
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
9
3
3
5
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
2
1
2
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
3
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1.25
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
7
1.14
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
l
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
31
192
31
12
14
19
28
24
Density (stem/acre):
777
486
567
769
1,133
971
'Vegetation plots with volunteer species, numbers in bold font.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 179
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.9 Continued
MY1 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Hominy Miti ation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
VP6
VP7
aVP8
VP9
VP10
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
3
1.67
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut hickory
3
5
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
3
1.33
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
11
6
2.17
3
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
15
8
2
1
2
1
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tuliptree
22
5
4.6
4
2,1
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
4
3
1.33
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
9
3
3
2
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
15
8
1.88
1
3
2
3
1
Quercus alba
White oak
10
6
1.67
1
2
l
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
8
8
1.25
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
7
7
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
7
1,14
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
2
2
1
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
31
192
31
15
17
29
14
20
Density (stem /acre):
777
607
688
1,173
567
809
a Vegetation plots with volunteer species, numbers are in bold font.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 180
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.9 Continued
MY2 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
U pper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
aVP1
VP2
aVP3
aVP4
aVP5
Acer rubrum
Red maple
2
1
2
2
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
4
2
2
1
3
Aronia arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
2
2
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockemut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
3
3
1
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
13
6
2.17
3
1
3
1
Diospyros vir iniana
Persimmon
13
7
1.86
1
1
1
5
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
50
5
10
2
38
3
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
5
Primus serotina
Black cherry
14
9
1.56
2
1
1,2
1
Quercus alba
White oak
11
6
1.83
1
2
4
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
1
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
4
3
1.5
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
5
1.2
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
Totals:
33
213
34
13
14
18
55
25
Density (stem/acre):
1
1 862
526
567
728
2,226
1,011
a Volunteer species and numbers are in bold font
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 181
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.9 Continued
MY2 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
U pper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Species
Common Name
Total
Stems
Number
of Plots
Average
Number
of Stems
aVP6
VP7
VP8
VP9
VP10
Acer rubrum
Red maple
2
1
2
Aesculus flava
Yellow buckeye
2
2
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag alder
4
2
2
Aronia arbutifolia
Red chokeberry
2
2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
River birch
4
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1 1
1
1 1
2
1 1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya alba
Mockernut hickory
2
2
1
1
Carya cordiformis
Bittemut hickory
3
3
1
1
Carya ovata
Shagbark hickory
3
2
1.5
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
2
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Cornus florida
Flowering dogwood
13
6
2.17
3
2
Diospyros vir imana
Persimmon
13
7
1.86
1
2
2
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
2
2
1
1
Liriodendron tuli ifera
Tuliptree
50
5
10
5
2
Malus angustifolia
Southern crabapple
3
3
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
6
2
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
7
2
3.5
2
Prunus serotina
Black cherry
14
9
1.56
1
3
1
1
1
Quercus alba
White oak
11
6
1.83
1
2
1
Quercus coccinea
Scarlet oak
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
5
5
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
Pin oak
7
6
1.17
1
1
2
Quercus prinus
Chestnut oak
4
3
1.5
2
1
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
9
8
1.12
1
2
1
1
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
Silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
Totals:
33
213
34
19
16
22
12
19
Density (stem/acre):
862
768
648
890
486
769
a Volunteer species and numbers are in bold font.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 182
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.9 Continued
MY3 Total Stem Count by Plot and Species
Upper South Ho min Mitigation Site (EEP project
number 92632)
Comment
Species
CommonName
Total
Stems
#
plots
avg#
stems
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP1- year:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC -VP2-
year:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP3- year:3
EUSH
92632-
NCWRC-
VP4- year:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC -VPS-
year:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC -VP6-
year:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC -VP7-
year:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC -VPB-
year:3
EUSH 92632-
NCWRC -VP9-
year:3
EUSH 92632 -
NCWRC -VP10-
year:3
Acerrubrum
red maple
3
2
1.5
2
1
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
2
2
1
1
1
Alnusserrulata
hazel alder
6
3
2
1
4
1
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
2
1 2
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
4
2
2
3
1
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
6
5
1.2
1
1
1
2
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
1
1
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
8
3
2.67
2
1
5
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
2
1
2
2
Corpus florida
flowering dogwood
12
7
1.71
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
10
7
1.43
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
1
1
1
1
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
2
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
95
7
13.57
4
6
68
3
8
2
4
Malus angustifolia
southern crabapple
2
2
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
6
2
3
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
13
4
3.25
6
1
4
2
Prunus serotina
black cherry
12
7
1.71
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
Quercus
oak
1
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
13
6
2.17
1
5
1
3
1
2
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
2
1
2
2
Quercus montana
1
1
1
1
Quercus muehlenbergii
chinkapin oak
4
3
1.33
1
1
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
3
3
1
1
1
1
Quercus prinoides
dwarf chinkapin oak
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
11
9
1.22
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
4
1
4
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
TOT:
0
36
35
261
36
10
18
23
85
27
21
24
24
11
18
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 183
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.10 Vegetation Problem Areas, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MYl -MY3 Vegetation Problem Areas
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Feature/Issue
Station Number/Ranga
Probable
Cause
Photo
Number
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
UT -2
Invasive
2
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
UT -2
Invasive
1
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 1 Sta. 7 +25 to 8 +00
Invasive
--
Dense Bamboo
Mainstem 2 Sta. 1 +00 to 1 +75
Invasive
3
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 2 Sta. 4 +25 to 5 +50
Invasive
--
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 2 Sta. 8 +25 to 9 +75
Invasive
--
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 2 Sta. 11 +00 to 12 +00
Invasive
--
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 3 0 +00 to 1 +00
Invasive
--
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Mainstem 3 4 +25 to 5 +50
Invasive
--
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 184
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Table C.11 Vegetation Condition Assessment, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
MY1 -MY3 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site (EEP project number 92632)
Planted Acreage
8.3
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
(acres)
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
1. Bare Areas
material
0.1
0
0
0
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
2. Low Stem Density Areas
based on MY3, 4 or 5 stem count criteria
0.1
0
0
0
Totals
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year
0.25
0
0
0
Cumulative
Totals
0
Easement Acreage
16.4
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
[Number of
Combined
% of
Easement
Category
Definitions
acres
Depiction
Pol ons
Acreage
Acrea e
-Vegetation
Dense patches of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Tan and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
japonica) and Bamboo (Bambusa sp.)
0.02
purple
9
1.15
7.0
polygons
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
none
0
0
0
map scale)
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 185
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 2 February 2012, Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO. MYO.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012, Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl. MYl.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 186
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3
Vegetation plot 1, UT2 facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 187
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012
MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 188
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013
MY2.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 2, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 189
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23October 2012,
MY].
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 190
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 3, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 191
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 4
No Pictures MYO — 2011
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MY].
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 192
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 4
No pictures MYO -2011
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 4, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 193
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 194
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 5, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 195
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,5), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 196
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 6, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 197
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 198
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 7, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 199
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY 1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 200
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 8, SHC facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 201
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,5), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 23 October 2012,
MYl .
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 202
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.l Continued
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 9, SHC facing upstream (20,5), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 203
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.1 Continued
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 2 Feb 2012,
MYO.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 23 October 2012, Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 23 October 2012,
MY]. MY1.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 204
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.I Continued
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 6 Nov 2013,
MY2.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing downstream (0,0), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Vegetation plot 10, UT3 facing upstream (10,10), 11 Nov 2014,
MY3.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 205
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Figure C.2 Vegetation Problem Area Photographs, Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site.
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 206
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Appendix D.
Monitoring Year -3, 2014, Plan Sheets
Upper South Hominy Mitigation Site 207
EEP Project 92632
MY3 Report — Final — February 2015

Prepared by: Prepared for:
co5y 'staff
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
MONITORING YEAR 3 PLAN SHEETS
UPPER SOUTH HOMINY MITIGATION SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92632
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
December 2014
DA
Project:
Sheet 1 of 4
12- 004.20

t f - , i , +
Prepared by:
r Imagery Source: ArcGIS Basemap Oct-Dec
.+ i� r_ i^►•J+� t ?'.: , J•
A' , c Amon, Erlyif�irineenwi. inc,
ilk y • e ��r. I 1 -- ' 1` �j/f _ - ' - • . ' • •
t' ` d {
we AM10
Ni
�r hicaoMstem
�{
�`! i• �. • t y 0 ;.� fJR; ; �r h1� -'� �J Project:
UPPER SOUTH
"A HOMINY
MITIGATION
SITE
'� r '� s r • I �y l ! � f
t - 'iii.. •• +e i _�Ai , -r+ ' S, ,� •
le
Davis Reach
�`
.,•
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
-
MONTORING
YEAR 3
♦ 4
.
-
�
22
PLAN SHEETS
26
Legend
•
r:•,x.:
C3Easement Boundary
Drawn by:
KRJ
`• 3.
I Parcels
Date:
X181.✓
xi
-
-
; '
n.r• --- Streams
DEC 2014
O
:„a
�`+'-
Scale:
7
_
Structures
1:1,000
'
17`
-;..=
Monitoring Reach
9
Project No.:
'�� =T♦ +*1�•�- �-`'""
.
�
�
Cross Sections
12- 004.20
. r .
a -
-
M*— Stream Problem Areas
16'
f
��
Delineated Wetlands
FIGURE
fN
CVS Plots
O Plot Origins
D.1
0 125
250
500
Photo Points
Sheet 4 of 4
Feet
Dense Japanese Honeysuckle
Source Esri ©igit�al c lobe GeoEye i-
_